Growing Seniors Population Spell Trouble

[Wilber]

I would call national defense an insurance program if it fit the definition of an insurance program, and it probably does. It is a system which is generally not to be used unless some unforseen events occur. It is really not relevant whether I want to label healthcare as insurance and you don't. What I am contending is that it should be run like insurance.

We completely dissagree there. The reason it was created in the first place is because we didn't want it to be run like insurance. We already had that.

Clawbacks ended universality.

OAS was always income based.

There are many differences. Universality is just one. Single-payor is yet another difference. Simply because a feature exist in the US is not sufficient reason to reject it. My contention is not to compare our system to the US, my suggestions is to change the system so that it is fiscally sustainable.

If you are going to get rid of universality, single payer is the worst system you could have. A monopoly that has the power of life or death with no appeal. The US system would be better in that case. At least there would be some competition and options.

So what if doctors refuse to go along? Unless they wish to work for free and provide their own facilities they are subject to state funding. I'm not suggesting that doctors can't live up to whatever their oath calls for. I'm suggesting that the taxpayer, through its proxy the state, doesn't necessarily have to fund it.

We don't fund everything as it is but that is completely different from denying access to what we do fund.

A "faceless bureaucrat" can make rules on whether or not the state will fund a medical procedure. If I am not haappy with that funding decision, I should have the option of raising funds on my own. I can live with frightening you and others, because we are headed to a frightening situation.

Yes but they make the rules for all and rarely if ever involve procedures that are life and death, not cherry pick when it comes to who will live or die.

You are reducing this to the level of car or house insurance. The difference being that you don't die if you can't insure your car or your house burns down (unless you are in it at the time).

[Renegade]

Look. Here's the reality. Libertarianism is a dead political ideology. We can argue a bit as to whether it was ever put into practice (the pre-Civil War US certainly had some strong Libertarian leanings), but at the end of the day, no one could sell it. No human society, primitive or advanced, has ever worked that way, and I suspect none would for very long.

I'm not even sure why you're even here debating this. Unless you're kind of a wishy-washy Libertarian type, I can't imagine you being in favor of public health care at all, so to some degree I think you're just be disingenuous. But it doesn't matter, because the Canadian voter won't stand for it. It may mean higher taxes, at least for a while, until the baby boomer bubble is over (so we've got probably another 20-30 years of grief here), but Libertarian health care (which does not generally translate into a pro-public system kind of ideology) ain't never gonna happen. If the US has a big problem, it's that it wants to publicly espouse Libertarian notions of health care while simultaneously trying to find ways to a put some sort of universalism in by the back door.

Really I'm not looking to debate Libertanism. I agree that the Canadian voter won't accept libertarianism, because a libertarian philosophy looks for people to provide for themselves. Those who would like to be provided for will never agree to a libertarian philosophy.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Renegade

[Smallc]

I agree that the Canadian voter won't accept libertarianism, because a libertarian philosophy looks for people to provide for themselves.

Nice spin. What it advocates is everyone for themselves, something that Canadians don't and never have believed in.

[ToadBrother]

Really I'm not looking to debate Libertanism. I agree that the Canadian voter won't accept libertarianism, because a libertarian philosophy looks for people to provide for themselves.

Which is why it has no resemblance to any human society. All human societies, indeed almost all primate societies, are typified by high socialization and high interdependence. Libertarianism tries, bizarrely, to separate government from the wider social construct, when, in fact, government is simply the inevitable outcome of human social nature.

Those who would like to be provided for will never agree to a libertarian philosophy.

What Libertarianism really means is "If it's directly beneficial to me, I'll help pay for it. If it isn't, I won't."

The only state I can think of that was ever even part way Libertarian didn't last a hundred years before a civil war tore it to pieces, and reconstituted along more normative socio-political structures. Libertarianism was never a practical way to build a long-term viable society.

But back to the topic at hand, wouldn't you agree that you, being a Libertarian, pretty much hold public health care as an anathema? I mean, you don't really just want lines in the sand, you don't particularly think the public should be paying for any part of the sand.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Nice spin. What it advocates is everyone for themselves, something that Canadians don't and never have believed in.

I'd argue that no society has ever functioned like that. The US was, to some degree, founded on notions of a sort of agrarian Libertarianism (ignoring the fact that the agrarian economy pretty much relied on millions of slaves to keep it going). A brutal civil war ultimately saw the Jeffersonian state swept away, and that ended even that very moderate experiment in Libertarianism (people seem to minimize just how much the Civil War altered the US, it was as substantial an upheaval in the system as the fall of Communism was in Russia).

[Bonam]

Which is why it has no resemblance to any human society. All human societies, indeed almost all primate societies, are typified by high socialization and high interdependence.

Libertarianism has nothing against interdependence. Obviously in a modern society, people perform highly specialized tasks and are not self sufficient, relying on the goods and services produced by others. But a libertarian would want all of those goods and services to be freely exchanged between willing parties (buyer and seller) rather than provided by a monolithic entity which has unlimited powers of taxation and redistribution of wealth.

[Renegade]

But back to the topic at hand, wouldn't you agree that you, being a Libertarian, pretty much hold public health care as an anathema? I mean, you don't really just want lines in the sand, you don't particularly think the public should be paying for any part of the sand.

I have no particular fondness nor disdain for public healthcare. If a single payor system of healthcare reduces overhead so that medical care can be deliverd more cost effectively, I can accept that. I can even see a rationale that savings gained due to efficiencies in a single payor system are distributed among the population. However if single-payor system results in higher cost healtcare (through taxes) than one would pay through private care, why would I want to support it?

[Renegade]

Nice spin. What it advocates is everyone for themselves, something that Canadians don't and never have believed in.

Canadians also "believe in" a free society which is at the core of Libertarianism. In any case, I'm not concerned what anyone else believes in. I focus on what I believe in.

[ToadBrother]

Libertarianism has nothing against interdependence. Obviously in a modern society, people perform highly specialized tasks and are not self sufficient, relying on the goods and services produced by others. But a libertarian would want all of those goods and services to be freely exchanged between willing parties (buyer and seller) rather than provided by a monolithic entity which has unlimited powers of taxation and redistribution of wealth.

But it does argue that government is not a social institution, when every ounce of history from the development of urbanized and semi-urbanized societies demonstrates that government was not some sort of imposed entity, but rather than inevitable structural component of societies that grew beyond a few hundred or few thousand members. Taxation and wealth redistribution have been the property of such governments since they first developed. No society has ever functioned without it. In more primitive societies (am I still allowed to use that phrase?), the notions of property do not exist, or at least are not strongly typified, so there is no real need for redistribution (the hunter's catch belongs to everyone sort of thing).

Underlying Libertarianism is this idea that your wealth belongs solely to you, that you gained no benefit that allowed you to accrue it, that society as a whole is owed nothing, that it did nothing. And yet, at every level, the rules that our society has created are what makes wealth possible. What's more, it is difficult to imagine a human society that did not use the formal and informal institutions work to help the lower strata of the society. Libertarians love to use the example of the Medieval and early Modern Era churches being the primary deliverer of social programs (prior to the introduction of various poor laws in industrialized countries), but ignore the fact that churches were either essentially organs of the state (like the Orthodox Church in Byzantium, Luthern churches in many German and Scandinavian principalities or the Anglican Church in England) or in fact were another layer of government with limited taxation powers (like the Medieval Roman Church).

The reason that social programs even evolved from the more primitive and more hands-off role that had typified European society from the collapse of the Roman Empire was the fact that a poor underclass is damned dangerous. When the feudal institutions were still in effect, there was a structured hierarchy (peasant owed allegiance to local lord, local lord owed allegiance to Earl/Earl owed allegiance to King), coupled with a reverse order of responsibility (gentry and nobility had a social contract with the commoner and peasant to assure their protection). When that broke down, starting in the aftermath of the Black Death (when suddenly a massive shortage of labor unbalanced the Medieval interdependencies), and culminating in the Industrial Revolution, the older institutions, like the Church, no longer had the resources to deliver social programs like feeding the power, housing orphans and giving out medical care. Suddenly you had an underclass, and a growing one at that, that no longer could hope to enjoy the older interdependent systems and thus became a dangerous powder keg. In France, it exploded in a violent revolution, which, while largely concocted and directed by the educated and in some cases even the lower nobility, was by and large made up of the underclass which the French state and the Church could no longer support. This, and the later failed revolutions in Europe during the 19th century basically scared the aristocracy and merchant classes straight. Suddenly, by the middle of the 19th century, we see poor laws, free basic education, ever increasing political emancipation. By the 20th century, we see unemployment insurance, public pension plans and yes, in most (if not all) industrialized countries some form of publicly-funded health care (and yes, that includes the Untied States, as much as they seem to hate to admit it).

The point of this long winded historical survey is to demonstrate that, one way or the other, governments have always been involved in some sort of income redistribution. The peculiarities of post-Roman medieval Europe saw that function split between two types of government systems (the state and the Church), though, under the Roman system, they had been joined (the bread in "bread and circuses", seeing as how food riots in Rome so often represented a threat to the stability of the Roman state both in late Republican and in Imperial times). But make no mistake, Libertarianism has never really existed, and the US prior to the Civil War could be best described as nominally Libertarian, at least in the South, but only because there was a non-free subclass to essentially underpin the society (which, is why I say the US was only nominally Libertarian during that era).

[ToadBrother]

Canadians also "believe in" a free society which is at the core of Libertarianism. In any case, I'm not concerned what anyone else believes in. I focus on what I believe in.

"Free society" is hardly only a Libertarian ideal, so I'm not sure what you're point is. Monkeys and people both like bananas, that doesn't make monkeys people, and yet that seems to be the logic you're trying to apply.

[Smallc]

Canadians also "believe in" a free society which is at the core of Libertarianism.

Nice try again. Canada is founded on the principles of peace, order, and good government. Freedom comes with that, but that freedom isn't unlimited as a result of the same.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Smallc

[Renegade]

Nice try again. Canada is founded on the principles of peace, order, and good government. Freedom comes with that, but that freedom isn't unlimited as a result of the same.

There is nothing in Libertarianism which conflicts with peace, order and good government. Libertarianism seems to maximize indiviual freedom. I see nothing wrong with that.

[ToadBrother]

There is nothing in Libertarianism which conflicts with peace, order and good government. Libertarianism seems to maximize indiviual freedom. I see nothing wrong with that.

I'd question whether it does. The freedom to starve isn't really a freedom at all. Maybe Marie Antoinette didn't say "Let them eat cake", and yet that is, essentially, what you're promoting. I think history indicates where that particular sentiment lead to. Libertarianism wouldn't deliver peace and order, and I'd hesitate to say it would deliver good government. I think it would deliver you a larger paycheque, perhaps, but that seems the very worst way to build a society.

[Smallc]

There is nothing in Libertarianism which conflicts with peace, order and good government. Libertarianism seems to maximize indiviual freedom.

Oh, but I think those two concepts do clash. You can't continually maximize freedom and at the same time provide peace and order, especially if you aren't willing to provide social services.

[Bonam]

But it does argue that government is not a social institution, when every ounce of history from the development of urbanized and semi-urbanized societies demonstrates that government was not some sort of imposed entity, but rather than inevitable structural component of societies that grew beyond a few hundred or few thousand members. Taxation and wealth redistribution have been the property of such governments since they first developed. No society has ever functioned without it. In more primitive societies (am I still allowed to use that phrase?), the notions of property do not exist, or at least are not strongly typified, so there is no real need for redistribution (the hunter's catch belongs to everyone sort of thing).

Underlying Libertarianism is this idea that your wealth belongs solely to you, that you gained no benefit that allowed you to accrue it, that society as a whole is owed nothing, that it did nothing. And yet, at every level, the rules that our society has created are what makes wealth possible. What's more, it is difficult to imagine a human society that did not use the formal and informal institutions work to help the lower strata of the society. Libertarians love to use the example of the Medieval and early Modern Era churches being the primary deliverer of social programs (prior to the introduction of various poor laws in industrialized countries), but ignore the fact that churches were either essentially organs of the state (like the Orthodox Church in Byzantium, Luthern churches in many German and Scandinavian principalities or the Anglican Church in England) or in fact were another layer of government with limited taxation powers (like the Medieval Roman Church).

The reason that social programs even evolved from the more primitive and more hands-off role that had typified European society from the collapse of the Roman Empire was the fact that a poor underclass is damned dangerous. When the feudal institutions were still in effect, there was a structured hierarchy (peasant owed allegiance to local lord, local lord owed allegiance to Earl/Earl owed allegiance to King), coupled with a reverse order of responsibility (gentry and nobility had a social contract with the commoner and peasant to assure their protection). When that broke down, starting in the aftermath of the Black Death (when suddenly a massive shortage of labor unbalanced the Medieval interdependencies), and culminating in the Industrial Revolution, the older institutions, like the Church, no longer had the resources to deliver social programs like feeding the power, housing orphans and giving out medical care. Suddenly you had an underclass, and a growing one at that, that no longer could hope to enjoy the older interdependent systems and thus became a dangerous powder keg. In France, it exploded in a violent revolution, which, while largely concocted and directed by the educated and in some cases even the lower nobility, was by and large made up of the underclass which the French state and the Church could no longer support. This, and the later failed revolutions in Europe during the 19th century basically scared the aristocracy and merchant classes straight. Suddenly, by the middle of the 19th century, we see poor laws, free basic education, ever increasing political emancipation. By the 20th century, we see unemployment insurance, public pension plans and yes, in most (if not all) industrialized countries some form of publicly-funded health care (and yes, that includes the Untied States, as much as they seem to hate to admit it).

The point of this long winded historical survey is to demonstrate that, one way or the other, governments have always been involved in some sort of income redistribution. The peculiarities of post-Roman medieval Europe saw that function split between two types of government systems (the state and the Church), though, under the Roman system, they had been joined (the bread in "bread and circuses", seeing as how food riots in Rome so often represented a threat to the stability of the Roman state both in late Republican and in Imperial times). But make no mistake, Libertarianism has never really existed, and the US prior to the Civil War could be best described as nominally Libertarian, at least in the South, but only because there was a non-free subclass to essentially underpin the society (which, is why I say the US was only nominally Libertarian during that era).

Just because something has been a certain way throughout history, doesn't mean it is the best way, or the only way. Slavery existed throughout most of history and only started being done away with in various countries over the last few centuries. Does that mean slavery is a necessary consequence of civilization? Women have been considered subservient to men throughout most of history and that has only changed, in some parts of the world, over the last several decades. Does that mean that patriarchy is a necessary component of civilization? I could make many more such examples.

[Smallc]

I could make many more such examples.

These examples though, seen to counter your own argument. It is through government intervention that much of this has changed for the better. The evolution of society often involves some kind of guiding hand or at least help from government. Take the change in marriage laws in Canada as an example.

[ToadBrother]

Just because something has been a certain way throughout history, doesn't mean it is the best way, or the only way. Slavery existed throughout most of history and only started being done away with in various countries over the last few centuries. Does that mean slavery is a necessary consequence of civilization? Women have been considered subservient to men throughout most of history and that has only changed, in some parts of the world, over the last several decades. Does that mean that patriarchy is a necessary component of civilization? I could make many more such examples.

I think you missed the point. The point is that income redistribution has been a facet of virtually every society that has ever existed. From hunter-gatherer tribes where pretty much everything was held as communal, to semi-nomadic tribes, where wealth was often counted in livestock, to semi-urbanized societies where we began to see the rudiments of governing systems, through to full-blown urbanized agricultural-based societies with fully-formed governments with bureaucracies and much clearer social stratification (generally from slave through gentry and freemen all the way up to priestly, warrior and ruler classes), human societies have always functioned like this. In fact, Libertarianism doesn't even really rule against redistribution, it just simply wants to stop redistribution to the poor, who are viewed as an undesirable subclass that would be best eliminated, but if they need to exist, left to the whims of individuals within the middle or upper classes to take care of. (In this regard Libertarianism falls within the framework of Social Darwinism)

How can you insist that such a society would be healthy? That it would at all be fair? That a government built in such a way would be in any way considered good or productive? Most importantly, how can you ever imagine such a society would be stable? Eliminating formalized wealth redistribution would give such a government but one solution, to forcibly keep the underclass separated from the upper classes. I'm no Marxist, but let's face it, the French Revolution and the failed 19th century revolutions show one thing very clearly, if the government cannot offer some nominal support, either directly (as is necessary when feudal-style systems erode or disappear) or indirectly (as was the case with the highly stratified socio-economic-political systems found in Medieval Europe), then all hell will break loose. Napoleon managed to keep the mobs at bay by ordering cannons be fired into them, but within a few years he raised France back up with one of the oldest social programs around; a big army. In short, not even a man as ruthless as Napoleon was willing to use force of arms to keep the underclasses quiescent for long, and I would suggest that any state that did, without at least some modicum of social support, would probably collapse.

In other words, Libertarianism wouldn't work. It defies the very nature of H. sapiens, indeed, of almost all the Hominoids, where the entire social hierarchy from top to bottom is based on both formalized and informal lines of interdependence. Government, as simply a higher order social construct, cannot magically be ferried away and turned into a non-social entity, full stop.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Renegade]

Oh, but I think those two concepts do clash. You can't continually maximize freedom and at the same time provide peace and order, especially if you aren't willing to provide social services.

I'd question whether it does. The freedom to starve isn't really a freedom at all. Maybe Marie Antoinette didn't say "Let them eat cake", and yet that is, essentially, what you're promoting. I think history indicates where that particular sentiment lead to. Libertarianism wouldn't deliver peace and order, and I'd hesitate to say it would deliver good government. I think it would deliver you a larger paycheque, perhaps, but that seems the very worst way to build a society.

I see we are turning this thread into a debate of libertarinism. Not what I intended, but whatever....

Since you both seem to be echoes of each other I will respond to you both at once.

Libertarinsm would provide for peace and order in perhaps a different way than you would propose. You would propose to appease those who disrupt peace and order with social services. Libertarinism would justify the use of force to maintain peace and order.

Personally I don't take a moral view on it, I take a practical one. If it requires less resources to provide social services than to use force, then I'm for social services. If it required less resources to maintain peace and order to use force, I'm fine with the use of force.

[bloodyminded]

duplicate

Edited February 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

But it does argue that government is not a social institution, when every ounce of history from the development of urbanized and semi-urbanized societies demonstrates that government was not some sort of imposed entity, but rather than inevitable structural component of societies that grew beyond a few hundred or few thousand members. Taxation and wealth redistribution have been the property of such governments since they first developed. No society has ever functioned without it. In more primitive societies (am I still allowed to use that phrase?), the notions of property do not exist, or at least are not strongly typified, so there is no real need for redistribution (the hunter's catch belongs to everyone sort of thing).

Underlying Libertarianism is this idea that your wealth belongs solely to you, that you gained no benefit that allowed you to accrue it, that society as a whole is owed nothing, that it did nothing. And yet, at every level, the rules that our society has created are what makes wealth possible. What's more, it is difficult to imagine a human society that did not use the formal and informal institutions work to help the lower strata of the society. Libertarians love to use the example of the Medieval and early Modern Era churches being the primary deliverer of social programs (prior to the introduction of various poor laws in industrialized countries), but ignore the fact that churches were either essentially organs of the state (like the Orthodox Church in Byzantium, Luthern churches in many German and Scandinavian principalities or the Anglican Church in England) or in fact were another layer of government with limited taxation powers (like the Medieval Roman Church).

The reason that social programs even evolved from the more primitive and more hands-off role that had typified European society from the collapse of the Roman Empire was the fact that a poor underclass is damned dangerous. When the feudal institutions were still in effect, there was a structured hierarchy (peasant owed allegiance to local lord, local lord owed allegiance to Earl/Earl owed allegiance to King), coupled with a reverse order of responsibility (gentry and nobility had a social contract with the commoner and peasant to assure their protection). When that broke down, starting in the aftermath of the Black Death (when suddenly a massive shortage of labor unbalanced the Medieval interdependencies), and culminating in the Industrial Revolution, the older institutions, like the Church, no longer had the resources to deliver social programs like feeding the power, housing orphans and giving out medical care. Suddenly you had an underclass, and a growing one at that, that no longer could hope to enjoy the older interdependent systems and thus became a dangerous powder keg. In France, it exploded in a violent revolution, which, while largely concocted and directed by the educated and in some cases even the lower nobility, was by and large made up of the underclass which the French state and the Church could no longer support. This, and the later failed revolutions in Europe during the 19th century basically scared the aristocracy and merchant classes straight. Suddenly, by the middle of the 19th century, we see poor laws, free basic education, ever increasing political emancipation. By the 20th century, we see unemployment insurance, public pension plans and yes, in most (if not all) industrialized countries some form of publicly-funded health care (and yes, that includes the Untied States, as much as they seem to hate to admit it).

The point of this long winded historical survey is to demonstrate that, one way or the other, governments have always been involved in some sort of income redistribution. The peculiarities of post-Roman medieval Europe saw that function split between two types of government systems (the state and the Church), though, under the Roman system, they had been joined (the bread in "bread and circuses", seeing as how food riots in Rome so often represented a threat to the stability of the Roman state both in late Republican and in Imperial times). But make no mistake, Libertarianism has never really existed, and the US prior to the Civil War could be best described as nominally Libertarian, at least in the South, but only because there was a non-free subclass to essentially underpin the society (which, is why I say the US was only nominally Libertarian during that era).

Really excellent, TB. I couldn't have said it better myself. Or as well.

[ToadBrother]

I see we are turning this thread into a debate of libertarinism. Not what I intended, but whatever....

Since you both seem to be echoes of each other I will respond to you both at once.

Libertarinsm would provide for peace and order in perhaps a different way than you would propose. You would propose to appease those who disrupt peace and order with social services. Libertarinism would justify the use of force to maintain peace and order.

So in other words, you'll just shoot the poor when they riot for food or other issues of malcontent.

Your society don't sound very free or liberal to me. Thank you for proving my point.

Personally I don't take a moral view on it, I take a practical one. If it requires less resources to provide social services than to use force, then I'm for social services. If it required less resources to maintain peace and order to use force, I'm fine with the use of force.

How terribly charitable of you.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Renegade]

We completely dissagree there. The reason it was created in the first place is because we didn't want it to be run like insurance. We already had that.

Yes, "we" didn't want it to be run like insurnace, so the proof is in the outcome. The way "we" wanted it run has resulted in a system that is not fiscally sustainable.

OAS was always income based.

Not as far as I know. It has only been income based since the law was changed in 1985. Prior to that it was not dependant upon income.

If you are going to get rid of universality, single payer is the worst system you could have. A monopoly that has the power of life or death with no appeal. The US system would be better in that case. At least there would be some competition and options.

Perhaps the we shoudl allow a private parallell system. Virtually every country in the world outside Canada, Cuba, and North Korea allow private care.

We don't fund everything as it is but that is completely different from denying access to what we do fund.

Why? Even the current system would be selective in who it funds for what procedures.

Yes but they make the rules for all and rarely if ever involve procedures that are life and death, not cherry pick when it comes to who will live or die.

You are reducing this to the level of car or house insurance. The difference being that you don't die if you can't insure your car or your house burns down (unless you are in it at the time).

Yes sometimes the consequence of funding decisions is death. There is no way around it. But I maintain, no one has the "right" to impose the cost of their life on someone else.

Let me ask you some analogious questions: Would you forcibly extract blood from one indivudal if another needed it to survive? Would you forcibly extract a kidney from one indiviudal if another needed it to live? Would you force one human to host a pregnancy because another indiviudal needed the womb to live?

Edited February 23, 2010 by Renegade

[Renegade]

So in other words, you'll just shoot the poor when they riot for food or other issues of malcontent.

Sure. If needed.

Your society don't sound very free or liberal to me. Thank you for proving my point.

Define free or liberal? If you consider a free society one in which one is free to riot, than that is a differint definition of freedom than the one I have.

How terribly charitable of you.

Charity is a moral determinaition, best left to indiviudals to determine for themselves, not governments to impose.

[ToadBrother]

Sure. If needed.

Which worked very well for the Committee of Public Safety.

Define free or liberal? If you consider a free society one in which one is free to riot, than that is a differint definition of freedom than the one I have.

I do believe I do. Freedom does not mean absolute ability to discharge oneself from social obligations. Freedom does not mean the freedom to watch others starve or suffer, and shrug and say "Oh well, the government should do nothing".

Your view of freedom seems simply to be "I'm free to benefit from the labor and care of others, but they have no freedom to have any expectation from me."

Let's face it. My view of freedom won out. Yours didn't even lose, it was never really given a chance at all, because, simply put, no human society ever has functioned under such principles. Hell, even the Neandertals looked after their crippled. You would advocate a society where you would be permitted to withhold even that, based solely on your conscience.

Charity is a moral determinaition, best left to indiviudals to determine for themselves, not governments to impose.

Except, as we observe, government is not some independent entity from society, and society as a whole at times must make moral determinations. Morality is not simply the realm of the individual to decide, otherwise it ceases to be morality at all.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

Sure. If needed.

You ARE supportive of a tyranny. A de facto government, of the rich and powerful...but without the legal restraints imposed upon a representative government.

It's mind-boggling.

You see, people don't riot for food...unless they have no other recourse. At that point, rioting for food is wholly rational, wholly understandable.

And a few rich fucks who own everything are going to stand there and gun the peasants down?

And you think this preferable to the way things are now?