Social Welfare is immoral and evil.

[Nosmo King]

I do not wish to debate anything other than social (government) welfare in this conversation. I do not wish to discuss the evils of corporations (I am not advocating corporatism/fascism). I simply wish to discuss the morality of social welfare.

I am against all government social welfare programs. I believe that it is not my duty to provide for anyone other than myself and those I choose to support. No one has the right to take away from me my property and give it to someone else.

Can anyone morally defend social welfare? Do you think you have the right to someone else’s property? And who was it that gave you this right and where did they receive that authority? And does that make it moral?

Do you believe that in hard times, just a helping hand could make the difference between survival and total desperation? Do you believe that in the midst of the wealthiest nation on earth, some of the least fortunate people should suffer while a very few can amass vast fortunes? Do you believe that the old way of making a fortune; creating and manufacturing is more or less noble than the modern way of making a fortune; making a killing in the markets?

Is it moral to have senior citizens living in squalor after a lifetime dedicated to work? Is it moral to raise a generation of children without adequate nutrition? Is it moral, or economically responsible, to revert to slum housing for the poor?

Are your morals based on Christian models?

In a free society, you are free to donate as much as you want.
Do you think you have the right to someone else’s property? And who was it that gave you this right and where did they receive that authority? And does that make it moral?

If the question is one of morality, then yes indeed it is a moral act for a government to serve its least fortunate citizens. Abandonment and indifference is immoral. If the question is one of legality, then again, the answer is yes. Social Security has yet to be found to be unconstitutional.

 

[originalthought]

Do you believe that in hard times, just a helping hand could make the difference between survival and total desperation? Do you believe that in the midst of the wealthiest nation on earth, some of the least fortunate people should suffer while a very few can amass vast fortunes? Do you believe that the old way of making a fortune; creating and manufacturing is more or less noble than the modern way of making a fortune; making a killing in the markets?

Is it moral to have senior citizens living in squalor after a lifetime dedicated to work? Is it moral to raise a generation of children without adequate nutrition? Is it moral, or economically responsible, to revert to slum housing for the poor?

Are your morals based on Christian models?

In a free society, you are free to donate as much as you want.
Do you think you have the right to someone else’s property? And who was it that gave you this right and where did they receive that authority? And does that make it moral?

If the question is one of morality, then yes indeed it is a moral act for a government to serve its least fortunate citizens. Abandonment and indifference is immoral. If the question is one of legality, then again, the answer is yes. Social Security has yet to be found to be unconstitutional.

Where does that help come from, that help for the least fortunate citizens?

 

[Mr Natural]

We're a very immoral and evil people.

 

[Camp]

Do we consider VA benifits, Social Securtiy and unemployment benifits to be "social welfare benifits"? I would argue that we have made contracts with people in regards to those programs. We may believe they were bad contracts, but they were and are contracts all the same. My view is that it would be immoral to arbitrily break those contracts.
I would also argue how financialy irrisponsible it would be to stop some other social welfare programs.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, it could cost more to halt these programs than to continue them.

 

[originalthought]

Do we consider VA benifits, Social Securtiy and unemployment benifits to be "social welfare benifits"? I would argue that we have made contracts with people in regards to those programs. We may believe they were bad contracts, but they were and are contracts all the same. My view is that it would be immoral to arbitrily break those contracts.
I would also argue how financialy irrisponsible it would be to stop some other social welfare programs.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, it could cost more to halt these programs than to continue them.

I am debating the morality of taking one person's property (money) and giving it to another person. Can you morally justify theft?

For instance: IIf you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?

 

[Camp]

Do we consider VA benifits, Social Securtiy and unemployment benifits to be "social welfare benifits"? I would argue that we have made contracts with people in regards to those programs. We may believe they were bad contracts, but they were and are contracts all the same. My view is that it would be immoral to arbitrily break those contracts.
I would also argue how financialy irrisponsible it would be to stop some other social welfare programs.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, it could cost more to halt these programs than to continue them.

I am debating the morality of taking one person's property (money) and giving it to another person. Can you morally justify theft?

For instance: IIf you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?

I do not consider taxes put in place by an elected government to be theft. That is just rhetoric.
Nobody can tell you what you as an individual consider moral or immoral. You come to your own conclusions based on things like religion, ideolgy, philosohy, family upbringing, culture and tradition. You can form your own opinion and have a right to do so. As a society, we have made certain conclusions of what is moral and what is immoral. We elect people to make these specific decisions for us as a society. You are not forced to feed hungry old people and children with your money. However, society has made the decision that you must contribute to the society you live in by paying taxes. Your elected officials have deemed it immoral to allow old people and children to go hungry. They, your elected officials, have determined that a portion of your taxes go towards feeding the old people and children.
So, there are two kinds of morality. You have your own personal moral beliefs, and you have societies moral beliefs. If you don't accept or agree with societies moral beliefs that have been imposed on you by an elected government with judicial oversight, you have the option of changing those societal morals. People struggle to make those changes everyday. Some people deidicate their lives to it. Abortion is one example.

 

[originalthought]

Do we consider VA benifits, Social Securtiy and unemployment benifits to be "social welfare benifits"? I would argue that we have made contracts with people in regards to those programs. We may believe they were bad contracts, but they were and are contracts all the same. My view is that it would be immoral to arbitrily break those contracts.
I would also argue how financialy irrisponsible it would be to stop some other social welfare programs.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, it could cost more to halt these programs than to continue them.

I am debating the morality of taking one person's property (money) and giving it to another person. Can you morally justify theft?

For instance: IIf you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?

I do not consider taxes put in place by an elected government to be theft. That is just rhetoric.
Nobody can tell you what you as an individual consider moral or immoral. You come to your own conclusions based on things like religion, ideolgy, philosohy, family upbringing, culture and tradition. You can form your own opinion and have a right to do so. As a society, we have made certain conclusions of what is moral and what is immoral. We elect people to make these specific decisions for us as a society. You are not forced to feed hungry old people and children with your money. However, society has made the decision that you must contribute to the society you live in by paying taxes. Your elected officials have deemed it immoral to allow old people and children to go hungry. They, your elected officials, have determined that a portion of your taxes go towards feeding the old people and children.
So, there are two kinds of morality. You have your own personal moral beliefs, and you have societies moral beliefs. If you don't accept or agree with societies moral beliefs that have been imposed on you by an elected government with judicial oversight, you have the option of changing those societal morals. People struggle to make those changes everyday. Some people deidicate their lives to it. Abortion is one example.

theft -is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. (wikipediea).

It's not just rhetoric. That's what taxes are.

So in the story that i used above, you would say that the roomates taking your belongings was a moral action since the community (society) said it was ok?

 

[Nosmo King]

In a free society, you are free to donate as much as you want.
Do you think you have the right to someone else’s property? And who was it that gave you this right and where did they receive that authority? And does that make it moral?

If the question is one of morality, then yes indeed it is a moral act for a government to serve its least fortunate citizens. Abandonment and indifference is immoral. If the question is one of legality, then again, the answer is yes. Social Security has yet to be found to be unconstitutional.

Where does that help come from, that help for the least fortunate citizens?

From their fellow citizens. I'm sorry that you feel as if a small portion of your tax obligation is being mis-spent in the care of the poorest among you. You speak of morality, but I doubt you can scratch the attitude that is illegal to care for your fellow citizens who cannot do for themselves, and care provided by the government is immoral.

I know that welfare means something different today, but the framers of the constitution, in the preamble specifically noted providing for the general welfare of the citizens is one of the reasons they established that constitution. The general welfare, the general well being of our citizens. Having them live in squalor does not meet the threshold of providing for the general welfare one bit. The founders saw it as a matter of morality. What circumstance, what influence, what motivation occurred in your life to question the morality of kindness?

 

[originalthought]

If the question is one of morality, then yes indeed it is a moral act for a government to serve its least fortunate citizens. Abandonment and indifference is immoral. If the question is one of legality, then again, the answer is yes. Social Security has yet to be found to be unconstitutional.

Where does that help come from, that help for the least fortunate citizens?

From their fellow citizens. I'm sorry that you feel as if a small portion of your tax obligation is being mis-spent in the care of the poorest among you. You speak of morality, but I doubt you can scratch the attitude that is illegal to care for your fellow citizens who cannot do for themselves, and care provided by the government is immoral.

I know that welfare means something different today, but the framers of the constitution, in the preamble specifically noted providing for the general welfare of the citizens is one of the reasons they established that constitution. The general welfare, the general well being of our citizens. Having them live in squalor does not meet the threshold of providing for the general welfare one bit. The founders saw it as a matter of morality. What circumstance, what influence, what motivation occurred in your life to question the morality of kindness?

Please refrain from hyperbole. And just because the founders mentioned welfare doesn't make it correct. Who said I beleive that the Founders got it right?

Can you defend it based off of logic and reason, not based on hyperbole? You haven't done so yet. You have just gone on about the "care for your fellow citizens who cannot do for themselves.."

How can you morally justify taking my possesions and giving it to someone else?
If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?

 

[Camp]

I am debating the morality of taking one person's property (money) and giving it to another person. Can you morally justify theft?

For instance: IIf you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?

I do not consider taxes put in place by an elected government to be theft. That is just rhetoric.
Nobody can tell you what you as an individual consider moral or immoral. You come to your own conclusions based on things like religion, ideolgy, philosohy, family upbringing, culture and tradition. You can form your own opinion and have a right to do so. As a society, we have made certain conclusions of what is moral and what is immoral. We elect people to make these specific decisions for us as a society. You are not forced to feed hungry old people and children with your money. However, society has made the decision that you must contribute to the society you live in by paying taxes. Your elected officials have deemed it immoral to allow old people and children to go hungry. They, your elected officials, have determined that a portion of your taxes go towards feeding the old people and children.
So, there are two kinds of morality. You have your own personal moral beliefs, and you have societies moral beliefs. If you don't accept or agree with societies moral beliefs that have been imposed on you by an elected government with judicial oversight, you have the option of changing those societal morals. People struggle to make those changes everyday. Some people deidicate their lives to it. Abortion is one example.

theft -is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. (wikipediea).

It's not just rhetoric. That's what taxes are.

So in the story that i used above, you would say that the roomates taking your belongings was a moral action since the community (society) said it was ok?

It's not theft because you have given the government permission to tax you. You may not like it, but you have made an agreement to society and the government that you will give a portion of your income to the government and society in the form of taxes. You have the option of earning such a low amount of income that you don't have to pay an income tax.
In regards to the roomate taking your belongings, you have the option of fixing that problem with the use of courts, or changing your your living situation. Your neighbors have little to say about how you and your roomates handle domestic disagreements.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Social Welfare is immoral and evil remains a false concept.

If taking care of the poor, the sick, the lame, the insane is moral, then the State on behalf of its citizens fulfills a moral imperative in so doing.

 

[originalthought]

I do not consider taxes put in place by an elected government to be theft. That is just rhetoric.
Nobody can tell you what you as an individual consider moral or immoral. You come to your own conclusions based on things like religion, ideolgy, philosohy, family upbringing, culture and tradition. You can form your own opinion and have a right to do so. As a society, we have made certain conclusions of what is moral and what is immoral. We elect people to make these specific decisions for us as a society. You are not forced to feed hungry old people and children with your money. However, society has made the decision that you must contribute to the society you live in by paying taxes. Your elected officials have deemed it immoral to allow old people and children to go hungry. They, your elected officials, have determined that a portion of your taxes go towards feeding the old people and children.
So, there are two kinds of morality. You have your own personal moral beliefs, and you have societies moral beliefs. If you don't accept or agree with societies moral beliefs that have been imposed on you by an elected government with judicial oversight, you have the option of changing those societal morals. People struggle to make those changes everyday. Some people deidicate their lives to it. Abortion is one example.

theft -is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. (wikipediea).

It's not just rhetoric. That's what taxes are.

So in the story that i used above, you would say that the roomates taking your belongings was a moral action since the community (society) said it was ok?

It's not theft because you have given the government permission to tax you. You may not like it, but you have made an agreement to society and the government that you will give a portion of your income to the government and society in the form of taxes. You have the option of earning such a low amount of income that you don't have to pay an income tax.
In regards to the roomate taking your belongings, you have the option of fixing that problem with the use of courts, or changing your your living situation. Your neighbors have little to say about how you and your roomates handle domestic disagreements.

I never gave them permission. Permission require that one must be asked. Permission means voluntary. If i refuse to pay taxes i am thrown in jail. This is etortion.

The community is society. They deemed that the roomates had the "need/right" to my belongings. Then is it moral for them to take my belongings? Why is it so hard to get actual answer from a collectivist?

 

[originalthought]

Social Welfare is immoral and evil remains a false concept.

If taking care of the poor, the sick, the lame, the insane is moral, then the State on behalf of its citizens fulfills a moral imperative in so doing.

Who said that taking care of the poor is moral? It most certainly is not the moral thing to do.

You can say whatever you want, and so can I. But if it cannot be backed up with logic and reason, then it cannot be proven to be true.

 

[Katzndogz]

I do not wish to debate anything other than social (government) welfare in this conversation. I do not wish to discuss the evils of corporations (I am not advocating corporatism/fascism). I simply wish to discuss the morality of social welfare.

I am against all government social welfare programs. I believe that it is not my duty to provide for anyone other than myself and those I choose to support. No one has the right to take away from me my property and give it to someone else.

Can anyone morally defend social welfare? Do you think you have the right to someone else’s property? And who was it that gave you this right and where did they receive that authority? And does that make it moral?

Do you believe that in hard times, just a helping hand could make the difference between survival and total desperation? Do you believe that in the midst of the wealthiest nation on earth, some of the least fortunate people should suffer while a very few can amass vast fortunes? Do you believe that the old way of making a fortune; creating and manufacturing is more or less noble than the modern way of making a fortune; making a killing in the markets?

Is it moral to have senior citizens living in squalor after a lifetime dedicated to work? Is it moral to raise a generation of children without adequate nutrition? Is it moral, or economically responsible, to revert to slum housing for the poor?

Are your morals based on Christian models?

No. It isn't moral. It is also not moral for the government to become the thief who gets to make the judgement of who should have what and how much.

If I saw a person bleeding in the gutter, I wouldn't help them if I had the last bandaid. It is not up to the government to take my bandaid from me because in the government's decision I have a moral obligation to give it up.

For a people who seem to be firmly rooted in the government not enforcing moral judgments, they seem to be quite interested in the government enforcing moral judgments.

 

[Nosmo King]

Where does that help come from, that help for the least fortunate citizens?

From their fellow citizens. I'm sorry that you feel as if a small portion of your tax obligation is being mis-spent in the care of the poorest among you. You speak of morality, but I doubt you can scratch the attitude that is illegal to care for your fellow citizens who cannot do for themselves, and care provided by the government is immoral.

I know that welfare means something different today, but the framers of the constitution, in the preamble specifically noted providing for the general welfare of the citizens is one of the reasons they established that constitution. The general welfare, the general well being of our citizens. Having them live in squalor does not meet the threshold of providing for the general welfare one bit. The founders saw it as a matter of morality. What circumstance, what influence, what motivation occurred in your life to question the morality of kindness?

Please refrain from hyperbole. And just because the founders mentioned welfare doesn't make it correct. Who said I beleive that the Founders got it right?

Can you defend it based off of logic and reason, not based on hyperbole? You haven't done so yet. You have just gone on about the "care for your fellow citizens who cannot do for themselves.."

How can you morally justify taking my possesions and giving it to someone else?
If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?

Hyperbole?!?! Are you left destitute every April 15th? Do jack booted thugs come to your house and ransack it looking for your 'possessions'?

You asked if it is moral for the government to use tax money to help the poorest citizens. And, from a philosophical point of view, understanding what moral and immoral mean, I contend that yes indeed, it is moral for the government to help. Further, it is my contention, and the contention of all folks who understand the concept of morality, that failing to provide such aid is an immoral act. The government is in existence to: form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Letting people live in poverty, squalor, want and hunger flies in the face of that pledge. It would constitute a publically sanctioned act of immorality to allow American citizens to do without the basics of human survival. Your tax burden is not so onerous to leave you wanting in the same manner as the poorest Americans are. You are greedy, and therefore immoral if you think you're put upon some drastically.

 

[Nosmo King]

Social Welfare is immoral and evil remains a false concept.

If taking care of the poor, the sick, the lame, the insane is moral, then the State on behalf of its citizens fulfills a moral imperative in so doing.

Who said that taking care of the poor is moral? It most certainly is not the moral thing to do.

You can say whatever you want, and so can I. But if it cannot be backed up with logic and reason, then it cannot be proven to be true.

Jesus of Nazareth said taking care of the poor is moral. Perhaps you have heard of Him.

 

[Nosmo King]

I do not wish to debate anything other than social (government) welfare in this conversation. I do not wish to discuss the evils of corporations (I am not advocating corporatism/fascism). I simply wish to discuss the morality of social welfare.

I am against all government social welfare programs. I believe that it is not my duty to provide for anyone other than myself and those I choose to support. No one has the right to take away from me my property and give it to someone else.

Can anyone morally defend social welfare? Do you think you have the right to someone else’s property? And who was it that gave you this right and where did they receive that authority? And does that make it moral?

Do you believe that in hard times, just a helping hand could make the difference between survival and total desperation? Do you believe that in the midst of the wealthiest nation on earth, some of the least fortunate people should suffer while a very few can amass vast fortunes? Do you believe that the old way of making a fortune; creating and manufacturing is more or less noble than the modern way of making a fortune; making a killing in the markets?

Is it moral to have senior citizens living in squalor after a lifetime dedicated to work? Is it moral to raise a generation of children without adequate nutrition? Is it moral, or economically responsible, to revert to slum housing for the poor?

Are your morals based on Christian models?

No. It isn't moral. It is also not moral for the government to become the thief who gets to make the judgement of who should have what and how much.

If I saw a person bleeding in the gutter, I wouldn't help them if I had the last bandaid. It is not up to the government to take my bandaid from me because in the government's decision I have a moral obligation to give it up.

For a people who seem to be firmly rooted in the government not enforcing moral judgments, they seem to be quite interested in the government enforcing moral judgments.

St. Katzndogz. What a beautiful sentiment! And you wonder how and why the modern Conservative movement is supported almost exclusively by angry white men.

 

[originalthought]

Social Welfare is immoral and evil remains a false concept.

If taking care of the poor, the sick, the lame, the insane is moral, then the State on behalf of its citizens fulfills a moral imperative in so doing.

Who said that taking care of the poor is moral? It most certainly is not the moral thing to do.

You can say whatever you want, and so can I. But if it cannot be backed up with logic and reason, then it cannot be proven to be true.

Jesus of Nazareth said taking care of the poor is moral. Perhaps you have heard of Him.

If I am being forced against my will to do it though, do you think I am fulfuilling the true meaning of that?

And please stop using hyperbole. What if i dont believe in Jesus?

 

[Nosmo King]

Who said that taking care of the poor is moral? It most certainly is not the moral thing to do.

You can say whatever you want, and so can I. But if it cannot be backed up with logic and reason, then it cannot be proven to be true.

Jesus of Nazareth said taking care of the poor is moral. Perhaps you have heard of Him.

If I am being forced against my will to do it though, do you think I am fulfuilling the true meaning of that?

And please stop using hyperbole. What if i dont believe in Jesus?

If you are in need of other great thinkers and philosophers who advocate taking care of the less fortunate as an act of morality, we'll talk about it. But I can assure you that bigger minds than yours and mine have seen the utter truth of morality in giving succor to the poor.

 

[theword]

I do not wish to debate anything other than social (government) welfare in this conversation. I do not wish to discuss the evils of corporations (I am not advocating corporatism/fascism). I simply wish to discuss the morality of social welfare.

I am against all government social welfare programs. I believe that it is not my duty to provide for anyone other than myself and those I choose to support. No one has the right to take away from me my property and give it to someone else.

Can anyone morally defend social welfare? Do you think you have the right to someone else’s property? And who was it that gave you this right and where did they receive that authority? And does that make it moral?

Don't worry, God has planned on taking all His property back from His stupid people who don't know Him. Life in the next age will be lived without land ownership or materialism.