Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305398312' post='2241447'] Wouldn't arresting a drug dealer have the same desired effect, with less effort, seems more pragmatic to me. So no... you didn't challenge me.[/quote] It would take radical empiricism to determine that. Empiricism doesn't come to mind when thinking of you. [quote]This of course isn't insulting.I'm glad we are off topic, but I am leaving this topic, [/quote] Whereas, your esteem of Glenn Beck means you meant to compliment me. Odin's underwear, you're a crybaby! [quote]there is no amount of horseplay that can attract me back to the topic. [/quote] Except for that last post. And the other one in the other thread after you said you were leaving. PS: I know you read this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305398089' post='2241444'] They are not completely different. They are human rights. And I did answer. [/quote] no, you never directly answered my question. you answered my question with a question. just answer the question, if its really that easy. give a straight answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305397579' post='2241433'] completely different things. you never answered my question. does the government have the responsibility to its citizens to provide them with a chance for life and how do they do that for someone who would die without assistance to live? [/quote] They are not different things, if you claimthat a right tosomething means that the govenment has to provide it,then they need to get cracking onmy weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The government has the obligation to not interfere in those things. It does not have the obligation to provide them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305399056' post='2241455'] The government has the obligation to not interfere in those things. It does not have the obligation to provide them. [/quote] so then the government should allow someone to die who requires assiatnce to live and is unable to get private charity to help them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305399543' post='2241460'] so then the government should allow someone to die who requires assiatnce to live and is unable to get private charity to help them? [/quote] If that were actually the situation, then yes. The individuals who make up the government can choose to help that person. But, in fact, the government has made it difficult to help people in need. Government programs and intervention make help more expensive. But it's a false scenario. So the government, under threat of imprisonment, should require people to provide assistance for that person? Should the government be able to house the homeless in people's private property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305400329' post='2241466'] If that were actually the situation, then yes. The individuals who make up the government can choose to help that person. But, in fact, the government has made it difficult to help people in need. Government programs and intervention make help more expensive. But it's a false scenario. So the government, under threat of imprisonment, should require people to provide assistance for that person? Should the government be able to house the homeless in people's private property? [/quote] i guess being a catholic, i find it hard to sympathize with people who think someone who needs assistance should just be allowed to die rather then have the government provide for them. the government should be allowed to take money thru taxes to help pay for these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305400329' post='2241466'] If that were actually the situation, then yes. The individuals who make up the government can choose to help that person. But, in fact, the government has made it difficult to help people in need. Government programs and intervention make help more expensive. But it's a false scenario. So the government, under threat of imprisonment, should require people to provide assistance for that person? Should the government be able to house the homeless in people's private property? [/quote] Actually, the threat, as it always is , is threat of death. Comply or we will kill you is always the governments threat, they have no other threat to make. Imprisonment requires compliance on some level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305400869' post='2241473'] i guess being a catholic, i find it hard to sympathize with people who think someone who needs assistance should just be allowed to die rather then have the government provide for them. the government should be allowed to take money thru taxes to help pay for these things. [/quote] Winchester is saying that is a false senerio, that that choice is not what really would happen. In fact, in Christendom, before it was shattered by Luther and Calvin did not have any significant state charity,it alsohad very few poor people diying of hunger or exposure, unless everyone was hungry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305400869' post='2241473'] i guess being a catholic, i find it hard to sympathize with people who think someone who needs assistance should just be allowed to die rather then have the government provide for them. [/quote] And yet you beesh when you feel someone impugns your Catholicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305396188' post='2241410'] Catherine \,what they are saying is not that in our current situation there are adequate charitible options, they are saying adequate charitable options are [b]not available BECAUSE of our current government enforced welfare state.[/b] [/quote] I'd like to see some hard evidence for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305403083' post='2241495'] I'd like to see some hard evidence for this. [/quote] snort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305387272' post='2241343'] If it makes all of you hard working Americans feel better, I promise that if I am ever in need of charity again, I will just lie in the gutter and die rather than accept government assistance. That will allow you to keep more of your tax money I'm sure. I just don't understand how people who call themselves Christians can complain about having some of their money go to help the poor, the disable, the elderly, etc. [/quote] Did you not read my last responses? I made it very clear that nobody would blame you for accepting whatever charities [gov. or private] that were available at the time. [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305387663' post='2241346'] fantastic points. being a christian and complaining about money going to the poor doesn't make sense. [/quote] That's not what is happening. Rather it's about being a Christian and being against the government taking the money of hard working individuals who built this country and giving it to charities of their choice, while squandering the money away through a large burocracy. [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305388669' post='2241351'] Actually, that's not the argument. The argument is that the government does not have the right to take money from one group to give it to another. [/quote] Exactly. [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305395203' post='2241401'] This country never tried free market capitalism. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8"]Are the poor getting poorer[/url] And pragmatism is not morally acceptable. [/quote] Truth be told, the government uses Keynesia economics, both Republicans and Democrats. [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305395874' post='2241406'] does the government not have a responsibility to give everyone life, liberty and a chance at the pursut of happiness? well without government assiatnce, some people would not be alive. so how is the government supposed to give the people a chance at life? [/quote] Sorry but when "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" were written, it did not include government assistance. That is not the context and never was the context. America is about working yourself dead, saving every penny along the way, and chosing your own destiny. In this country, you can be whatever you chose to be, but you have to earn it, nobody is entitled to it without earning it. If I want to be a musician [which I am], nobody is going to give me the money to put an album together, equally nobody is entitled to sharing in the proceeds since they didn't invest in it and take the risks. If I were to go and buy a lawn mower, get a business license, get insurance, and start my own business mowing lawns for $50 a pop. The total investment price would be approx. $500. Now lets say that from that humble beginning it turned into a major landscaping outfit. This is what the American dream is, but why should people who did not invest the initial money, share in the risks, profit from that which they did not help to create? Truth be told, I have mentioned this to many Americans, particularly unemployed college students that also believe in entitlements, and their attitude is, "Mowing Lawns? I have a college degree", yet they're broke. However when they get sick, their attitude is that they are entitled to a doctors services free of charge. That sort of socialism is taking money from landscaping businesses [through taxes] and giving it to those who did not earn it. [Rep] Dr. Ron Paul, a former physician, put it like this, "What makes you think you're entitled to somebody elses services?" And where does it end? Next you'll know someone will have a plumbing problem in their house and they'll think that their entitled to plumbing services because "it's unhumane for people to have to live in conditions with sewer pipes leaking". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305400329' post='2241466'] If that were actually the situation, then yes. The individuals who make up the government can choose to help that person. But, in fact, the government has made it difficult to help people in need. Government programs and intervention make help more expensive. [b]But it's a false scenario. [/b] So the government, under threat of imprisonment, should require people to provide assistance for that person? Should the government be able to house the homeless in people's private property? [/quote] No it's not. I've worked with children born with severe birth defects. They require 24 hour care or they would die. Theist famlies are too poor to afford that care. They esentially have to give their kids to the clinic so they can stay alive. Without public assistance every one of those kids would die. Theoretically, could some wealthy citizens pool their money to provide aid for the rest of their lives (none of them can work. I mean physically they will never be able to work)? Sure. But thus far they haven't and without state aid every one of those kids would be dead. That's the reality. I'm not saying that a lot of people on public assistance don't just need a kick in the arse. All I'm saying is that the scinario does exist. Edited May 14, 2011 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305403391' post='2241499'] snort [/quote] Interesting argument. But I still don't see how government welfare has a causal relationship to private aid that prevent private charity from caring for the needs of the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts