|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 19, 2011 20:35:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Nov 19, 2011 21:54:42 GMT -5
<devilsadvocate> Consider it a cauterization. The pain can excruciating but it can save one's life. </devilsadvocate> |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 19, 2011 21:57:56 GMT -5
Then you would have to show how having 28% poverty saves a nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 19, 2011 22:05:05 GMT -5
This is why we need a robust welfare system. Who the fuck would think living in a society with 28% of the population in poverty is a good idea? Rick Santorum? |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Nov 20, 2011 0:57:27 GMT -5
The Tea Party, obviously.
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Nov 20, 2011 4:35:32 GMT -5
This is why we need a robust welfare system. Who the fuck would think living in a society with 28% of the population in poverty is a good idea? It's a good idea, because those 28% would deserve it. They would deserve to be kept in their misery, because the only way they could be impoverished in the first place is if they are lazy. In a truly capitalistic system where the state has no hold on the economy, this is what would happen, because Big Government policies are the only thing preventing hard-working citizens to be rewarded as they should. *pukes* |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Nov 20, 2011 4:43:38 GMT -5
So the one percent are the most deserving and virtuous human beings?
*triple pukes*
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Nov 20, 2011 5:02:15 GMT -5
So the one percent are the most deserving and virtuous human beings? *triple pukes* Objectivists would tell you exactly that. With a straight face. Conservatives don't use the same "performance measurements" we do to measure how advanced a country or society is. Why would they want to solve poverty when they don't see it as a problem? The lazy fucks get what they deserve. The strictest interpretation of libertarianism sees government as a security force. And the Occupy movements have seen what that kind of government means first hand. |
|
|
|
Post by Hyperio on Nov 20, 2011 6:51:42 GMT -5
The problem with "government as a security force" is that while the police may (poorly) defend the elite from the gang activity, it wouldn't remove the reason why the gangs are popular in the first place (that is, being the ONLY employer available for many poor people). I am afraid that the end result of the "treat symptoms instead of reasons" attitude would be something that mirrors Soviet Union at its worst (millions of people locked for life in the equivalent of gulags).
|
|
|
|
Post by ragabash on Nov 20, 2011 12:43:37 GMT -5
So the one percent are the most deserving and virtuous human beings? *triple pukes* Objectivists would tell you exactly that. With a straight face. Conservatives don't use the same "performance measurements" we do to measure how advanced a country or society is. Why would they want to solve poverty when they don't see it as a problem? The lazy fucks get what they deserve. The strictest interpretation of libertarianism sees government as a security force. And the Occupy movements have seen what that kind of government means first hand. Don't forget prosperity theologists as well. |
|
