reply to post by antonia
You have to forgive me as I am an idiot, but I don't get your solution to the problem of this poor dying person. Charity has proven itself inadequate
as we have starving people all over this planet.
That is because I didn't offer any solution, but in truth, neither did The Walking Fox. The hypothetical was brought up only to function as a
distraction. No "solutions" to the hypothetical were offered by Fox, only that anyone who disagrees with the Fox, or at the very least I am a cold
callous uncaring barbaric man for disagreeing with the Fox, and to prove it the Fox pointed to an imaginary poor person suffering of dying.
You claim charity has proven inadequate, but I volunteer for a church that has a food pantry two days a week, and I have seen the looks of genuine
gratitude and sighs of relief, not looks of disappointment at the inadequacy of that churches effort. Is adequate in some aggregate sense? Jesus
said: "The poor ye have with ye always..." so, if Jesus got that one right, and two thousand years later it appears he pegged that one and was spot
on, then what precisely is adequate in your estimation?
While were on the issue of adequacy, I have also heard many of these poor and homeless people complaining bitterly about the way they are treated by
the local welfare office they go to. Of course, I am not at all a believer in government subsidized welfare so those complaining get no agreement or
sympathy from me, but I do have two ears, and I do listen, and it appears government is riddled with inadequacy regarding this issue of poverty. What
is the answer? To just keep taxing and taxing and taxing until the only one who gets to keep their revenue is the government, while we all show
gratitude at their inadequate care of us?
The problem with your argument to me is that it depends on humans being "good" when the world is replete with examples of their maliciousness.
It is a straw man argument to insist that my ideas require all people be good. I know, I know, but Jean Paul, you are advocating self government.
Yes, I am. But I am not suggesting some pie in the sky Utopia where everyone drinks abundantly from chocolate flavored rivers, and munches off of
marshmallow clouds and candied tangerine skies, I am suggesting that more People than you are willing to give credit to are ethical and good. I am
not suggesting that by self government we would not have to establish and ordain a government, and in the United States we have established and
ordained a government but under our Constitutional republic self government is not only possible, it is wholly probable.
Of course, it isn't probable with more than 600,000 acts of legislation on the books, and a plethora of alphabet agencies claiming authority over our
lives anywhere from collecting rain water to helping someone who has tripped and fallen on the sidewalk - and consider that! If you do not have any
credentials in emergency health care, and you dare to help a person who has hurt themselves and for whatever reasons that help is construed to mean
post injury was complicated by your efforts, then you will be held liable and severely punished for your crime, but you want to know what my
"solution" is to helping the imaginary poor suffering person?
Let's reign in the tyrants first. Not first as in let's wait to help our fellow brothers and sisters and reign in the tyrants first, but in terms
of any governmental "policies" towards social ills, for God's sakes let's reign in the tyrants first. In the meantime, we are all more than
capable of self government, and one of the surest things we can do in terms of self government is to begin by helping others, not insisting that some
act of legislation force us to help our brothers and sisters, but to Just Do It!
I take it as starving, dying people are simply a cost to bear. It has been the general condition of Man since his inception. I am naturally
pessimistic about Humanity though and have yet to see many examples of Man being able to "regulate" himself.
Not a cost to bear that you are willing to take on yourself personally, but a cost to bear that you are willing to impose on everyone, without any
regard for the success or failure of the "programs" or "policies", which means administrative agencies and bureaucrats that would be tasked with
allocating the tax dollars you believe is "our" cost to bear and advocate its imposition. That would be fairly called a disconnect. To say just
tax me and fix the damn unsightly blight of poverty and then consider the problem solved, even when it is nowhere near solved, or worse to pretend
that even though what you've advocated all ready exists, to insist it still exists because a certain class wasn't taxed enough, is a disconnect from
the reality of the situation.