That's an issue too. I don't remember who said it, but it went something like, "taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society". Some truth to that.
Remember when the nuts on the left laughed about death panels?
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
That's an issue too. I don't remember who said it, but it went something like, "taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society". Some truth to that.
Beats me. In the Darwinist view, YOU are responsible for your own outcome. If you get help from others, that's a bonus... but never was a "requirement".
Scat, I'm not trying to trap you into saying something. I'm looking for your opinion. Stop falling back on Darwin. As far as I know, Darwin himself never did a primary application of his theory to evolved social economies.
Please answer the question on what you would be comfortable if, let's say you were the governor of a state.
Darwin's work was never about "social anything"... more like, "adapt or perish"... of which I'm a 100% advocate.
If I had my druthers, I'd advocate not being forced to give, via tax support, ANYTHING TO ANYBODY! (If somebody wants to give via charity, that's their own free CHOICE.) Of course, American society doesn't work that way. So, if "we gotta give them something", then let's give them (and force others to pay for) the MINIMUM... and if they want more than that from their life, they need to be motivated to provide it for themselves.
Like I said, I believe everyone should be responsible for their own outcome. Nobody owes anybody anything.
In the study of population dynamics... the weak, old, infirm, diseased.. are the "easy prey" are are eliminated from the herd/population. Such predation strengthens the overall viability and health of the surviving herd.
In the human population, we don't allow that. However we're coming to understand the costs of providing for the dregs of our society rather than allowing them to fall by the wayside.
Alright, you obviously don't want to answer my question directly for whatever reason.
My belief is that we have a basic safety net (the 3S&C is fine) administered by the state, so we agree thus far. What I am saying is that in an evolved society (or civilized) that we should be able to handle hardship cases (either an influx of people in a depression time or whatever example you want to give) as well. I would personally do this by cutting some other state administered program (or removing waste - we all know there is some) and then spending it on that safety net or hardship case on a temporary basis, rather than taxing.
If for no other reason than to NOT do it will result in a decline of society through crime, squalor, and the likes of which would cost us far more in the end. But there is an element of humanity in me that would do it because it is the right thing to do - which brings me back to my example with the lung transplant.
Now, if this is different from what you would support, feel free to have at me.
I thought I'd your question, so you should ask it again with greater clarity so that I get it.
I don't know what "I'd do under systemic strains". In my scenario of "3S&C", that's all. Anything beyond is subjective.