You seem to confuse a legal duty, obligation, or responsibility with charity which is based on emotion and compassion, making rational communication difficult if not impossible.
Not at all, I was merely disputing your description of charity. Giving to others isn't always charity.
and that's what great about taxes, innit? takes all that difficult emotion and compassion right out of the picture you can be a good person, and not even know it and a person, perhaps one such as yourself, who might be lacking in those noble sentiments, gets to be as good of a person as everyone else america's wunnerful! [it really makes it]
It need not be, but talking about providing for the needs of others outside of ones immediate family who are incapable or unwilling to fill their own needs should be considered an act of charity, not an entitlement or a right.
What does it have to do with taxes? And you feel that creating a society without emotion and compassion is a good direction to move? Why bother to pursue and arrest thieves and burglars, they're only exercising their fulfillment of good emotions and compassion without burdening government to acquire their wants and/or needs for them.
you don't think a charity that only helps people at the top of the food chain is kinda weird? i should mention that the hospital itself, despite much accepting of state grant money [much of which is passed-down fed money], decided to campaign quite actively and vocally against the public healthcare option i guess they're only comfortable with a middling amount of "socialism" . . .
society is already there i have seen how badly charity works when it is random, when certain people are catered to and others excluded all because no one cared about [fill in the blank] and there was no unemotional, dispassionate tax money to fill the gap . . .
it's a conservative town, and the director of the hospital panders to excess the hospital has a bit of a stranglehold on moneys here, as the director automatically becomes head of the county economic development council
different small towns i have lived in, of similar economic level, have had wildly disparate levels of resources, due to the fact that most were ngo, and their existence relied solely on the desire of 3 people to form a 501[3]c this is the bottom here, a food bank that's open once a month, run by a cult-y church western montana sends its parolees here for oil jobs, of which there really aren't very many - and of course, there's no housing for them anyways [the aforementioned edc is trying to get some housing built, probably with federal money] we are also a dumping ground for the developmentally disabled - fortunately there is a local non-profit that cares for them - with state and federal money but, animals, my main concern - apart from me and a friend, there is no one caring for animals for 70 miles in one direction and god-knows-how-many in the other three there's more i could say, but i'm wiped out from struggling through snowdrifts and need to get some work done [have to pay the rent ya know]
Indie At last we have got there - the basis of Indies views and ideas. He is opposed to assisting the disadvantaged because he hopes that will lead to the death of what he sees as the less valuable members of society, the ones that he sees as being a burden on it. This is why he supports the advantaged and wishes to increase their power and influence – because he sees them as being worthy. And so it doesn’t matter if the advantage is gained through effort or just by luck; advantage proves worthiness and worthiness should be protected and rewarded. On the other hand disadvantage even if undeserved proves unworthiness and such folk deserve all that might befall them even unto death, in fact such deaths should be celebrated as contributing to what he sees as a ‘better’ society. It all fits – This is why he is a free marketeer – a system that is more likely to achieve the worthy control This is why he prefers to have a plutocratic oligarchy. - the worthy in control This is why he’d want a constitution that would deny the disadvantaged any chance of improving their lot – so the worthy keep control This is why he doesn’t care that in a wealth based system wealth would pursue its own interests at the expense of all others – that is the worthy’s prerogative This is why he wants a harsher and more unfair society – so the unworthy are more likely to die This is why he sees as ‘irrational’ any move toward making a society that tries to improve the life of everyone – because it would stop the unworthy dying. I could go on and on it all fits – the whole basis of his ideas is that the people he sees as unworthy should die. * It is an argument put forward by many Social Darwinists that the poor, uneducated, sick, crippled and unsuccessful should all die, and to achieve that end they believe (very much like Indie) that the state should not have any laws or programmes that might protect or assist the disadvantaged, even charity is counter productive if aimed at the undeserving. I’m not sure how extreme indie is but the philosophy seems very similar. * The problem is that Social Darwinist ideas are definitely unscientific, completely irrational as well as been seen by many as deeply immoral and unethical.
You have quite a knack for looking at any disagreement with you to represent the most extreme view in the opposite direction. At least it's nice to see that you agree that there are those who are entitled to be labeled as "worthy" which would indicate their opposites being labeled as "unworthy". Society cannot afford to blanket cover everyone under every life circumstance equally. The aging alcoholic homeless person who's not worked for decades, but in in dire need of a liver transplant and heart bypass surgery might be worthy of emotional feelings, and if some charity or individual(s) would choose to provide the care he needs then so be it, but government should not burden the entire society in such cases. There are those I would willingly choose to assist based upon my assessment, and there are those whom I would not help. Government removes that choice from all of us, except in the case of government itself, who can ultimately make such decisions when IT deems necessary.
i live here because no one in their right mind would want to keeps the rents low, and i can live on almost no income
it's not been predicted what will happen to the northern prairies if it increases the moisture, the drifts will be larger if it decreases the moisture, the place will die temperature-wise, since the low here hits -50, a little bit of warming can only help, if it's even noticed [future small talk: hey, it was only -40 last night!]
I'd sure be happy with a little warming here, and it's 68 degrees right now, but I adapt by wearing a heavy coat and wrap in a blanket. I don't think I could adapt to -50 though. We do get temperatures in the 40's sometimes and that's about all I can take. We burn bamboo outside and sit around the fire to keep warm on those days. No one here has heated or air conditioned houses. The last several years we've had some pretty low temperatures during the cool season, and some hail storms that destroyed the roofs on many houses. I'm lucky, as our house has a wooden shake roof. It's the oldest house in the village, made from hand hewn teak. A few acres, 2 fish ponds, and the house only cost about $7000, so there are some advantages to living in a third world country. I hope you don't suffer too cold a winter this year, or at least have enough fire wood to last if you do.