How are they logically related? Is there some logical contradiction in having welfare, and allowing feeding homeless at the same time?

No.

So they are not related.

Yes.

The are most assuredly related.

The "welfare" state advocates view the world in terms of what government allows, and because of this it is perfectly okay with them that private charities be regulated.

This regulation is the relation between the "welfare" state and charities.

sigh... Again you are getting off-topic with pointless semantics, strawmans and illogical generalisations. Intelligent and intellectually honest person who wants discussion and not trolling would realise I mean "not outlaw" by "allow".

How are they logically related? Is there some logical contradiction in having welfare, and not outlawing feeding homeless at the same time?

No lawful government can "outlaw" what is lawful, and any intelligent, intellectually honest person who is not engaging in logical fallacies and not trolling knows this.

If you were being intellectually honest, you would stop calling the socialized programs of wealth redistribution "welfare".

Again, only a socialist advocate would attempt to frame the lawful action of feeding the homeless in terms of legality, and again I stress that what is lawful cannot be lawfully "outlawed". Only the socialist will attempt to frame it otherwise.

I have shown the relation, and your posts continue to support that relationship. Earlier, without any citations, you argued that the "research" shows that the purpose of "outlawing" feeding the homeless was really about keeping the homeless from peaceably assembling.

Think about that, you are excusing the "outlawing" of a lawful act that you pretend is wrong by arguing that governments are merely attempting to trample over the rights of the homeless not the charities trying to feed the homeless, and in spite of the fact that fines are levied upon the charities who ignore this "outlawing" of feeding the homeless, in your mind, must just be an extension of trampling over the rights of the homeless and not trampling upon the rights of charitable people.

All of that and you have the audacity to imply you are "intellectually honest".

Government makes laws, so it sure can.

Is this another of your trollish attempts to derail the thread with pointless semantics? Its called Welfare, thats an established term (even you used it in the title of the thread), and thats what we are going to use.

Lawful action can surely be outlawed, government laws can change. I am really suspecting you are trolling now.

I am not excusing or pretending anything. I have explicitly stated I disagree with these laws (and motivations behind them) - again its a strawman from your side. I have only provided the empirical reason why such laws were made - it was not because of welfare, that has nothing to do with it. Its because the lawmakers wanted clean streets without the homeless assembling.

You are arguing that a lawful government can "make" unlawful laws, and insisting on calling yourself "intellectually honest"?

The right to peaceably assemble is law and government did not "make" it. All unalienable rights are law, and government did not "make" them.

and government did not "make" it.

The Law[2] is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.[3] Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution (written or unwritten) and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics and society in countless ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people.

The thread, created by me, is predicated on the premise that all people are inherently good and understand their relationship to others is a necessary point of survival, but all governments are bad and have no understanding of their dependency upon the people they seek to govern.

Lawful action can never be "outlawed" and at best a government can only legislate some sort of prohibition in regards to that lawful action, but this best is what is unlawful.

This is why the courts have judicial review, and why an accused as the right to a jury of their peers, both judges and juries having the lawful authority to strike down unlawful legislation.

Legislation (or "statutory law") is law which has been promulgated (or "enacted") by a legislature or other governing body, or the process of making it. (Another source of law is judge-made law or case law.) Before an item of legislation becomes law it may be known as a bill, and may be broadly referred to as "legislation" while it remains under consideration to distinguish it from other business. Legislation can have many purposes: to regulate, to authorize, to proscribe, to provide (funds), to sanction, to grant, to declare or to restrict.

You most assuredly are excusing this unlawful behavior and then pretending that you don't, and this post is yet another example of you doing so.

You began this last post of yours declaring that governments have the authority to "outlaw" what is lawful.

At this point, it is way beyond laughable your attempt at framing my arguments as logical fallacies, and the expression: "thieves always lock their doors" comes to mind. A thief assumes everyone else is a thief and the reliant upon logical fallacies, such as pretending you are really against "outlawing" lawful actions while you argue that governments get to do this anyway, always assume everyone else argues fallaciously.

New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be "nutritious" enough.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sweetliberty

---

but progress creates many more jobs than it destroys.

I dont think so. Automatisation replaces human work. Sure, there are some more jobs created, but its generally far less than what has been replaced. The net effect is important.
Progress also increases barriers to entry, since it generally replaces unqualified work with jobs requiring higher education and higher initial investments.

Thats why job market situation in the 21st century is simply not comparable to the situation in the 19th century libertarians tend to romanticise. And it will only get "worse" with increasing progress.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by neo96

---

I just read about that today,

New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be "nutritious" enough.

Not nutritious enough, vs starvation.

hmmmm, put down the cell phones I swear it's the cell phones.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Beanskinner

---

I haven't come across one person here on ATS or in person who would want "tens of millions", or even one person to go hungry, let alone starve to death.
Do you say things like that out of fear? I ask because that's extreme in itself.

In my opinion, the federal government shouldn't be in our Educational system. That should be left to the States. No student loans either. Sure the military could cut quite a lot of expenses and still be the best in the world.
If the over reaching federal government backed away from the welfare system, leaving it to the States and local communites and the State obligated itself to helping those who aren't severely disabled or elderly, to the minimum essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, health department, and daycare for a specific period of time, no less no more, then we could actually sustain the welfare costs without going broke.
Anything else beyond the essentials is up to each individual to obtain through their own resources and/or charity.
I'm curious to what you. think about that?

What is "unlawful law"? Thats an obvious oxymoron. Laws are laws.

Rights are not a law. Rights are rights and law is a law.

Laws are made by the government. Its ridiculous to deny this fact. I am more and more convinced that you are trolling, and not interested in rational discussion. en.wikipedia.org...

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.