Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This is why I'm not a conservative. The role of governments is to serve their constituents. You might think it's wrong to use tax dollars for social spending (and will even go as far as to simply call it coercion and/or theft on one hand and charity on the other), but I don't. I think it's up to the people to decide what the role of government is. At least, that's the way it should be in free and liberal nations.
That taken under consideration, what Germany is doing can only be deemed wrong if the voters deem it so. If that is the case, then the next election will make things right again.
That's how democracies work.
|
I know how democracies work. And now it is clear that you don't get the point either. It is not a morality question. It is not a "right" or "wrong" decision - it is what is the best decision. And in the context of social well being I have been arguing that government spending is in most cases not as efficient as private spending.
I offer you this challenge, I doubt we will come together to discuss, it but if you are open minded for consideration:
10 years from know measure which entity has bee most effective addressing the global problem of AIDS, the US Federal Government or the Gates Foundation. My bet is on the Gates Foundation.
If the Gates Foundation in fact can do more or a better job of addressing a global problem like AIDS, why would you want money to go from a private entity to the government?
In my lifetime and inmost every situation I have studied (there are roles for government), the private sector does a better job than government for the general well being of people.
---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace, dear, i entirely understand your point.
it's idiotic.
i understand the claims of people who think like you.
they're idiotic.
|
Is that idiotic the way that some of Galileo's thoughts and ideas were considered "idiotic" during his lifetime?
Or, is it something different?
I have no issue with being right and considered "idiotic" than being wrong and calling what is right "idiotic". What about you...never mind...I already know the answer to that.
---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
The problem with the idea that "the government shouldn't take from one group to help another" is that everyone thinks they are the ones being robbed and are never the ones being helped
|
People have always been willing to help other people. It happens all the time. Add in the government, you add in waste and inefficiency. It is because of government the less good can be done, not the opposite. What you really argue for is that group A be forced to help group B, ultimately with the threat of violence or imprisonment.
---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Derwood hit the nail on the head. It's an imbalance of perception, an incarnation of selection bias. Ignore the incredible value of social programs and concentrate, almost exclusively, on the distribution of wealth away from yourself to people you have to assume are lazy con artists.
|
It appears you ignore all the good that has been done by people directly without the threat of government force. After all Mother Teresa was not a government employee, was she? If she had been i bet she would have had to take a 15 minute coffee break every 4 hours, take four weeks vacation and major holidays off, and let's not forget the daily reports to management in triplicate....
