When Did Personal Responsibility Become More Important Than Helping Ot

[havok579257]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1352091774' post='2504344']


Just wondering, did you poll the people here or is this just an assumption you drew from thin air?


I believe that Jesus wanted everyone to help others through their free will, that is of course a big difference from the government seizing ones money and distributing it as it see's fit. I guess thats what you were referring to?

ed
[/quote]

yes because that was so obviously what this topic was about. government redistribution. that's exactly what i have been saying.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1352092769' post='2504349']Someone here here posted they " demanded justice " in the same post mentioned " redistribution of wealth " what justice is there in taking away the fruits of anothers labors ? My neighbor, an old lady just got a new car bought for her by her son who was left a large inheritance, would I be " just " in assuming that I should have been given a new car too, or would justice dictate that I should have been given the money her son inherited ?[/quote]
You are given the money her son inherited. It's called taxes. It's how your government functions.

[Jesus_lol]

I understand the argument about private charities being more efficient at helping people(though for some that is certainly not true) but the question is, if government stopped doing all they could to help, would private charity step up to the plate and pick up all the slack?

Efficiency isnt everything, if it means overall services suffer and are not big enough to meet demand.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1352092769' post='2504349']
The largest private charity on the earth is the catholic Church. It distributes more wealth than any other, it helps in every nation regardless of political or religious views. It does not demand contributions or seize them.

Someone here here posted they " demanded justice " in the same post mentioned " redistribution of wealth " what justice is there in taking away the fruits of anothers labors ? My neighbor, an old lady just got a new car bought for her by her son who was left a large inheritance, would I be " just " in assuming that I should have been given a new car too, or would justice dictate that I should have been given the money her son inherited ?

ed
[/quote]


it is not unjust to tax people. to me people come off as its immoral to tax people unless its for military. anything else in unjust which is not the case. every government has the right and duty to tax its citizens.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352226229' post='2505205']
every government has the right and duty to tax its citizens.
[/quote]NEVER let Winchester know your identity.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1351896784' post='2503150']

others. the forum cut it off.
[/quote]
Maybe if you'd donate, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352226229' post='2505205']


it is not unjust to tax people. to me people come off as its immoral to tax people unless its for military. anything else in unjust which is not the case. every government has the right and duty to tax its citizens.
[/quote]
How does someone become a government, and thus obtain the right to "tax"?

[Luigi]

I think most people don't object to the government supporting people who need it. That support generally comes in the form of food, drink, clothing, shelter, health clinics, and education. The Catholic Church labels the first five as corporal works of mercy and the last as a spiritual work of mercy. In essence, the government has adopted and is actively engaged in a lot of the work that the Church promotes.

So, in principle, I have no problem with the government doing that. I go to my job every day and work hard to earn the money with which I support myself. I'd like to keep [i]all[/i] the money I earn, but I agree to let the government take some of my earnings to help those in need of food & drink, clothing, housing, transportation, education, etc. My problem comes in that:

1. The government is a very expensive distribution system. Money spent on salaries, offices, paperwork, travel for meetings, etc. is money [i]not[/i] used to give drink to the thirsty, food to the hungry, clothing to the naked, etc. Now, there will always be overhead costs - that's just the nature of the beast. But I wish the government would control its overhead better.

2. It's extremely difficult to define - in legal terms - who should receive government support and who shouldn't. I know people who need government support, get it, and benefit from it. I also know people who[i] don't [/i]need government support, but who get it anyway. Example: A cousin whose father was 'disabled' according to federal definition, so she received a monthly Social Security check while she lived in a very nice part of town, went to a private Catholic college, and used her monthly Social Security check to get her hair cut at Saks Fifth Avenue.

3. There are people - and not just a few - who abuse the system by using government-provided support unwisely. The SS check for a Saks haircut is one example. But also I have a friend who was a grocery checker for thirty years. Nearly every day, she saw people using food stamps to buy full sheet cakes for their baby's first birthday (with a portrait of the child spray-painted in vegetable dye onto the icing), very expensive food such as crab legs and steak, and/or tons of junk food such as cases of full-sugar soda, chips, etc. After about twenty-five years, it finally started to stick in her craw, because she knew how much actual nutrition could be purchased for hungry children if the government support had been spent as intended. Some of those luxury/junk items were traded for items that food stamps won't cover, such as diapers or cleaning products. But some of them were also traded for drugs and liquor.

Food stamps get the worst rap, but they're also the most essential kind of government support. The abuse extends to all forms of government support.

4. It's extremely difficult to limit the kinds & amounts of support provided by the government. Clearly, the necessities of life should be included - food, drink, clothing, housing - and in today's society, it should include education. But how much is enough? And once we determine how much is enough of the necessities, then the public (either the poor themselves, or people who think they know what's best for the poor, or people who feel they should get their fair share from the government since they at least work for a living) start demanding that the government provide more kinds of support - college grants, higher-level medical procedures, and so forth. It's a slippery slope.

5. It is possible for recipients of government support to get addicted to it. There will always be people who receive long-term government support - people with disabilities that prevent them from working, retirees, and others. But in general, most tax-payers feel that government support should be a tide-me-over through a depression, through a job loss, through a medical recovery, etc. with a foreseeable end date. Yet I know people whose families have lived on government support for three generations now - they know it, they told it to me, and they didn't seem embarrassed by or ashamed of it.

Conclusion:
Nobody in a civilized society wants to see anyone else in their society go thirsty, hungry, naked, homeless, or stupid. Most don't mind contributing to the care & support of those who can't take care of themselves. And the system has worked pretty well for a pretty long time. But the system has gotten bloated in terms of number of recipients, number of services, amounts provided, etc.

BTW, my friend the grocery checker recommends not eliminating food stamps, but revamping the system to Necessity Stamps - no junk food, no luxury foods, but recipients would be able to buy diapers, cleanser, roach spray, mouse traps, personal toiletries such as soap, toothpaste, and deodorant. Personally, I think the same kinds of abuse would creep into that system, but at least my friend is trying to figure out how to meet the needs of the needy and still not break the system.

[Winchester]

The government doesn't "support" people. It takes money by force from one group and gives it to another. This can only be a work of mercy (if works of mercy can involve force) for the government agents involved in the action. One might willingly pay taxes, just as one may willingly (not grudgingly) turn over money to a mugger. I don't deny this to be possible. It's unlikely anyone would spontaneously choose to turn money over to a stranger.

Individuals who choose to aid the poor are engaging in works of mercy. If I decided to take money from Mark and give it to Havok because Havok needed it, would that be a work of mercy? Wouldn't it be theft of Mark's property?

[havok579257]

the government doesn't just take you money and do nothing in return. it provides things like streets, highways, military and such. its real simple winchester, if you are so opposed to government taking your money by force then go to an isolated part of another country where they will not tax you. possibly the candian wilderness. although if your not going to do that then you really have no right to complain since at this united states inception there has been taxation.

[ardillacid]

Winchester doesn't approve of roads being paid for by taxes, therefore he doesn't want roads. Ipso facto.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352596287' post='2507935']
the government doesn't just take you money and do nothing in return. it provides things like streets, highways, military and such. its real simple winchester, if you are so opposed to government taking your money by force then go to an isolated part of another country where they will not tax you. possibly the candian wilderness. although if your not going to do that then you really have no right to complain since at this united states inception there has been taxation.
[/quote]
So if I took your money and then built you something, taking your money would be okay? I didn't say it did nothing. Try to keep up. It's annoying when you add stuff and I have to correct you.

I get the system. I don't condone it as morally acceptable. I submit due to self-interest. I wish I submitted because as Catholics, we're suppose to be a bunch of meeks. I'm not complaining; I'm criticising. You accept the status quo. Cool. I know you're no threat, so it's really not a worry, for me.

Your solution is to withdraw from society when it does something bad. I prefer to stay and fight. If for no other reason than to bother people like you.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352596925' post='2507941']




Your solution is to withdraw from society when it does something bad. I prefer to stay and fight. If for no other reason than to bother people like you.
[/quote]You aren't fighting anything. You're just here to be a boor and a blowhard.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352596287' post='2507935']
its real simple winchester, if you are so opposed to government taking your money by force then go to an isolated part of another country where they will not tax you. [b]possibly the candian wilderness[/b].
[/quote]

[img]http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/4096266+_54be5f5f2e7c484d9634970789703c3c.jpg[/img]

Huehuehue nope.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352596925' post='2507941']
So if I took your money and then built you something, taking your money would be okay? I didn't say it did nothing. Try to keep up. It's annoying when you add stuff and I have to correct you.

I get the system. I don't condone it as morally acceptable. I submit due to self-interest. I wish I submitted because as Catholics, we're suppose to be a bunch of meeks. I'm not complaining; I'm criticising. You accept the status quo. Cool. I know you're no threat, so it's really not a worry, for me.

Your solution is to withdraw from society when it does something bad. I prefer to stay and fight. If for no other reason than to bother people like you.
[/quote]

i guess i missed the part of you actually fighting something. can you enlighten me to what you have done to fight this so called injustice?