The question is:
Is it moral to give (let's be honest in this context -- to forcibly surrender) one's belongings unconditionally?
Our "poor" live better than Royalty did just several centuries ago.
Running, clean water, heat and air, access to health care, a roof over their heads, subsidized food, cable to watch America's Got Talent, big-arse flat screens.
Is what I've evidenced even debatable? At what point will altruistic Socialist sociopaths, ever so happy to fleece the self-sufficient to fund their boondoggles and visions of Nirvana, ever be satisfied?
Apparently Uncle Sugar doesn't put out enough to satisfy even the most ardent Socialist sociopaths.
Wally, Hambone, EaTN:
Come work for me and I'll teach you a skill (sales) where you can make six figures a year if you work hard and follow my mentorship.
The door is open to anyone, including McDonald's workers. I will work with anyone willing to better themselves and wants to achieve something greater than mediocrity.
BUT... Odds are you'd rather b*tch and moan about wanting more for less, or more for the same, than praising those who want to get out and better themselves.
EaTN -- there are enough welfare programs to help those in need. Ever been in a project or a poor person's home? Have you seen what capitalism and charity has done for America's "poor?" Big screens, cable, heat and air, clean, running water, and more food than the eye can see.
America's poor are kings compared to the starving masses in Africa.
Lkeithlu -- The Law of Supply and Demand. Look at the Oil Boom in North Dakota. Wal-Mart and Subway workers are getting paid $15/hr plus.
Why? Because they have to stay competitive with the salaries the oil industry is paying out to its workers.
Point is the wage offered reflects what the market will take -- meaning what "underpaid" workers will accept, given the supply of jobs and their respective wages available in the job market.
I would love to debate an altruistic libtard like Bennett and destroy him with logic. Not that he, or any other brainwashed do-gooder, would yield and change his mind.
That's why it's pointless to debate them, much less comment on message boards like this.
Altruistic do-gooder liberals think good intentions have no consequences -- see Obamacare, Cash-For-Clunkers, for more recent examples of good intentions never panning out.
What drives me mad is there is no defining government bamboozle, junket, or sh*t-for-brains program that wakes up the liberal neanderthal, and converts them to believing the tenants of an advanced civilization. No -- more Government is the problem to Government.
Per "minimum wage," I could discuss the Law of Supply and Demand. I could discuss the economic value of a burger flipper in relation to the fast food business, and how such economic value restricts the maximal payout he will receive.
Even further, I can show you time and again that to get ahead in life with something better than mediocrity, it's up to the individual, not the State, to determine his lot in life, to aspire something greater than an ancillary position in a company, especially if he wants to EARN (4-letter word for libtards) more than the minimum.
But, I shan't. None would make any sense to the liberal do-gooder that believes taking by force from the Accomplished is moral.
What frustrates me is that anyone with half a brain could have seen this train-wreck coming for 40, 50 years, and neither the "Greatest Generation," nor the Baby Boomers, have done jack about it.
You guys have enshrined un-reality into all levels of life, and then have the gall to claim those who want substantive roll-backs of the unsustainable to be extremists?
Not that it matters to blood-sucking socialists, but all one needs to look back to is the 1913 Income Tax passed to see the horrible mutation a simple, small tax on the uber-rich can take over time.
That's why it's paramount to fall on the sword to prevent in any way the passage and enshrinement of a law such as the ACA.
Anybody with enough IQ to power a moped around a penny should well enough see this thing called Obamacare was rigged to fail into a Single-Payer Solution from the beginning.
The whole structure of health care is flawed anyway, from a market-standpoint. Even before Oblameocare, the amount of government intervention has prevented any substantial free-market solution from coming about.
Al -- please look deeper than the surface issues:
Your point is invalid.
The fact that tax dollars are pooled, appropriated, and diluted to the point of claiming I'm "arrogant" is not an argument.
It's a distraction from the principle of point.
Just because it's so diluted it's meager, is NOT a reason not to have a substantive debate about the ETHICS, morality, or its impact on natural rights.
Machiavellian-ism on display.
You are drawing your own conclusions without reading more carefully into the purpose of my statement.
To clarify, I was referencing pro-baby-in-the-womb murder in regards to being ethical, or more specifically, how a human being a few seconds old, merely inches away from the vagina, has more rights than he did seconds ago, just because he was encapsulated by flesh and organs.
Also, as you are so typical of doing, you do not delineate between volitional charitable giving and forced funding.
The public at large is quite capable of providing charitable funding for things such as helping single mothers with children who cannot support themselves, assuming family and friends are incapable.
Why do people think Government has to be the end all Provider?
I am interested in a substantive debate.
I do not care if I win or lose.
Will you join?
Please explain how, in reference to my claim that a human-being-to-be, nearly inches away from breathing his own air, is prescribed a different set of rights than the born human being just inches away from the vagina, umbilical cord still attached.
And then go on to explain, now that you have clearly established your position, why "Murder is murder unless it's not," for this scenario.
And to answer your statement that there are "No Exceptions," I agree. However, this is existential to the debate, ie, it does not apply. In fact, assume I agree with you on that statement that there are no exceptions (which I do), and proceed to make your point about the debate at hand.
Lastly, to clarify, I can set aside instances where RIGHTS of an individual are violated. IE, the baby is threatening the life of the mother. I believe that is a valid argument about who has the first right to life.
But to murder for the sake of convenience is a totally different debate of which actually matters. We can talk about and debate both separately and arrive at worthwhile conclusions, versus enshrining into law the act of murder regardless of the circumstances.
IE - if I argue data collection for marketing purposes to solicit your business is ethically different than data collection about you for the government to dispense as they see fit, would you suggest we not have the debate between the differences altogether if there's a questionable moral difference between the use of both?
Baseless conjecture akin to a Community Agitator, sidestepping the debate regarding the difference between natural rights and politically-enforced privileges, and how morality intersects into both.
Then again, we are on the 'Toon Forum where 95% of posters' purpose is to get off on conjecture and hate-filled gibberish, versus actually engaging in an intellectual dialogue.
Question, Limrc -- Setting aside the debatable question of terminating a pregnancy due to high risk of death to the mother, is a human being under an inch or two of skin and membrane ethically inferior to a human being an inch or two outside of the vagina?
Yes or no?
Moon4kat -- let's think a little deeper here.
Tell me what the difference is between the following scenarios:
-Voluntarily supporting a human being with my money, and
-Being forced at the barrel of a gun to support a human being with my money.
Is there an ethical difference, yes or no?
If yes, then you understand the difference between charity and government handouts, and hopefully partially why someone would object to pro-baby-in-the-womb murder and still not support political gift-giving (using my tax dollars) to irresponsible people.
If no, you are lost.
I can only speak for myself.
I am all about protecting the natural rights of all human beings.
I am NOT about protecting the arbitrary, political privileges of a specific class, ethnicity, or group of people.
My argument against abortion is simple.
Is a fetus a human being? Or a human-that-will-eventually-be?
Since it shares all the functions as a out-of-the-womb human being, certainly it must have rights, correct?
If a human being, or human-to-be, has natural rights like you and me, why is a baby in the womb subject to murder at a whim -- with the exception of a risk of death to the mother -- when we are protected by laws and police from out-of-the-womb murder?
There is an ethical inconsistency in the pro-baby under a few flaps of skin murder argument, and unfortunately, folks like Al refuse to acknowledge and understand the differences between natural rights and arbitrary political privileges bestowed upon a select group of the State.
A is A. Murder is murder.
And I am an atheist.