this is a ludicrous comparison. rotting and dying in the streets of England in the 18th century was a function of the capital stock and productivity of 18th century england not an ‘unenlightened’ government. ***** ******, what planet are we on?
The one where the ideal situation is people getting something for nothing? ie guaranteed minimum income
You almost had it. That’s the entire point. Then you kept going…so close.
^ Turd: You’ve got your head shoved so deep in an Ayn Rand book you don’t see the absurdity of your position. You honestly propose a society with zero social assistance, corporate or individual? Everyone is on their own?
It’s a great idealistic view that you can create a world with no subsidies, but it’s not realistic and it has never existed. So you can be pragmatic or hit the Ayn Rand books like Turd and dream of a world that will never happen.
Guaranteed minimum income is a terrible idea. It increases the subsidy moral hazard I’m railing against in this thread. I’d be strongly opposed to that.
People will help each other out. best for the government to stay out of it.
who said anything about zero social assistance whatsoever? you seem to miss that fact that people are inherently good and want to help each other. so why not just let them do it in a way that they see fit? why does the government have to do it? In my view, the negatives of outsourcing humanity to ‘the government’ far outweigh the positives, some of which I’ve outlined above. but really all the proof you need is to look at any aspect of economic life that the government interjects itself into and judge the results. the track record is something like 0 for 1,000,000,000.
the funny thing is, if there was no government then the employer would be responsible for the surivival of its employees, except that employers will pay wages far below the living wage so many people would literally die if there was no government to support low skill, low income workers.
the “no minimum wage” or “no welfare” stance may have made sense 300 years ago but due to a glut of humans, you would actually be responsible for the death of many humans by not protecting them from corporations anymore.
if there was no minimum wage, do you really think someone could survive on working 15 hours a day at $3/hr with no benefits and no common protections of modern society?
also, saying that charity will fill all of the holes that the government currently fills is ridiculous. i’ll agree that charity would ensure that most of the imporverished are fed but there would be thousands more on the street and thousands more dying every year.
Essentially.
I’m willing to concede a few instances when - in today’s society - the government does need to step in. Helping the disabled and providing transitory welfare. If a person gets laid off they should get, say, six months of assistance. Fine. After that? I’m pro-death.
A safety net catch people that fall. That’s fine. People don’t live on safety nets.
Edited for your comment above: I’m aware of the society in which we live. It’s the direction I’d like to see it go that matters.
this statement is blatantly false. before taxes there were misers and barons. taxes keeps these jokers somewhat under control. most people are good. all people are not good.
^Why do we fall, Master Sweep?
So we can learn to pick ourselves up.
It’s interesting that you find every life so precious. Seems like a great cure for over-population. And I’m absolutely not joking.
there is no difference between enacting an economic policy that will knowingly result in thousands of deaths and enacting a policy of genocide. if you know you’re going to kills thousands by the stroke of a pen, it is equally as damning.
***** ******. fucking analysts get me again. That’s it, i will not fall into another argument with you people. it’s like arguing with a 6 year old. i guess i’m just glad people like you are inconsequential in the scheme of things.
honest question: what spawned people like you? I think mobility has a lot to do with the fact that many of you are clueless as to how community interaction among humans actually works.
MLA and GEO, by far the most nitpicky to debate with. Forget trying to have a real debate about the actual issue, it’ll just be a million unrelated side debates when their stance is in danger. Must be a Canadian thing.
i don’t think it’s nitpicky to say someone’s wrong when they say all people, including grown men, are good. this isn’t a Hobbes v Locke debate. all people could be inherently good at birth but it is clear that not all people are inherently good in adulthood. there are legions of a$$holes that would never donate a dime of their money ever. this is important. are the good guys really willing to pay 1.5-2x as much as they currently pay in taxes to make up for the a$$holes? i don’t think preferring taxes over charity is a bad thing. it’s a thing that good people do to make the bad people pay their share.
for clarity, taxes = all transfer payments and economic policies that help the lower and middle classes.
I think this is one of your best posts ever. It’s like the perfect answer to one of those stupid GMAT essay questions.
lol 
Not all lower and middle class people are good and deserving of help.