Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 14, 2015 10:35:26 GMT -5
Indeed it goes without saying that the discussion is about what should be rather than what is. The bottom line is that there's nothing in this case that prevents citizens from behaving in a manner concordant with the "should be", i.e. by volunteering "public help" in service to humanitarian projects rather than relying on the state to load the burden onto unwilling citizens. As I said before, if there's a reasonable excuse for not personally taking in refugees (e.g. bureaucracy, disqualification, etc.), anyone preaching "save the refugees" is off the hook for putting their money (their real money, not just $0.50 in federal taxes) where their mouth is. Anyone who hides behind the social contract, "we should all pay for it together", and I'll also add "this is settled policy", is a supporter of the worst kind of rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul statism, no better than the "let's bring peace and democracy to the Middle East" neocons. You want to "save" these people: you pay to fly them over, you pay to feed them, you pay to shelter them, you pay to acclimatize them. Otherwise they sink or swim, which is no worse a deal than what your ancestors got.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 14, 2015 13:13:05 GMT -5
Indeed it goes without saying that the discussion is about what should be rather than what is. The bottom line is that there's nothing in this case that prevents citizens from behaving in a manner concordant with the "should be", i.e. by volunteering "public help" in service to humanitarian projects rather than relying on the state to load the burden onto unwilling citizens. As I said before, if there's a reasonable excuse for not personally taking in refugees (e.g. bureaucracy, disqualification, etc.), anyone preaching "save the refugees" is off the hook for putting their money (their real money, not just $0.50 in federal taxes) where their mouth is. Anyone who hides behind the social contract, "we should all pay for it together", and I'll also add "this is settled policy", is a supporter of the worst kind of rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul statism, no better than the "let's bring peace and democracy to the Middle East" neocons. You want to "save" these people: you pay to fly them over, you pay to feed them, you pay to shelter them, you pay to acclimatize them. Otherwise they sink or swim, which is no worse a deal than what your ancestors got. i think that paragraph 2 is a very unfair statement. being in favor of social welfare is not the same thing as being in favor of robbery or occupation. the vast majority of people worldwide are in favor of it, and for a wide variety of reasons. some are in favor of it for purely humanitarian reasons: that people should not be made to suffer for their misfortunes- no matter what the cause. others are in favor because it protects them: if people are less destitute, they will be less likely to spread diseases, and less likely to commit crimes which may harm those that actually have the money and power. these are both rational and voluntary positions. and again, the MAJORITY feel this way. now, it is true that a minority does not feel that way. and you are claiming that they are being robbed. and i understand the argument, i just disagree with the terminology you use to describe it. here is why. everyone gets something out of our system. EVERYONE. because we live in a society where the majority dictates what will be done, rather than the individual, you have to accept that some stuff you do NOT get OR WANT is also done. i don't want a standing army. tough knuckles for me- i have to live with one- even though it is utterly unconstitutional, and against my MORAL BELIEFS. if i want to be an American, i have to accept that my taxes are going to pay for that. unlike most Americans, i really do have a choice, however- and i plan on taking it- or at least having it factor into my decision. and that is the way it works for "neocons", too. they get their bloated unconstitutional military, and us liberals get our bloated, unconstitutional social welfare, and neither side, absent a clear majority, gets to wipe the others programs away. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
|
|