Social Welfare is immoral and evil.

[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?

I dont beleive that giving away my valuable possessions, wealth, and property, to those who have done nothing with their lives but make bad choice after bad chocie is being kind. That's called being an enabler.


Thou shall not steal (one of you 10 commandments). The government taking my money every paycheck is theft. Just because the "cause" is supposedly "for the good, " that does not allow for the use of force.
If you are a Christian, how can you advocate theft?

It's just these types of equivocations that tell us just how little you understand about morality.

 

[originalthought]

If there are arsons in your neighborhood, your home owners premiums will rise, even though your house wasn't burned. If there is a blighted property on your block, your house's value suffers, even though your house is a show piece.

If there is hunger, poverty, inadequate housing, inadequate clothing for the poor, our American economy suffers. I'll put it in terms you can wrap whatever it is you call a heart around. Poverty in the neighborhood causes a drop in the value of that neighborhood.

If people are unable to compete economically, through whatever circumstance, the entire economy is slowed. Helping people reach a place where they have the chance to compete makes our economic output stronger.

I sense you utterly despise the poor with a Dickensian fervor. Is helping the poor a moral act? Only someone devoid of morality could pose such a question. If the simple Christian virtues are too much for you to handle, maybe the economic benefits will open your eyes.

And, on a side note, could I ask, are you younger than 25 years old? I'm curious because mature people understand morality far better than youngsters who have precious little life experience. Doubt me? Have a four year old ask you why is the sky blue and then, after you explain dispersion of light, count the times they ask why.

Please quote me where I said helping the poor was immoral. If you show me the qutoe, I will retract my sentance. I said social welfare, instituted by the government, is immoral. This is two completely differnet things.

I do despise those who mooch off the wealth of others. I do despise those who think because they are a single mom and have had 5 babies they should get some kind of assiteance. I do despise those who do nothing and expect me to help them. Yes, I do despise this.

 

[originalthought]

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?

I dont beleive that giving away my valuable possessions, wealth, and property, to those who have done nothing with their lives but make bad choice after bad chocie is being kind. That's called being an enabler.


Thou shall not steal (one of you 10 commandments). The government taking my money every paycheck is theft. Just because the "cause" is supposedly "for the good, " that does not allow for the use of force.
If you are a Christian, how can you advocate theft?

It's just these types of equivocations that tell us just how little you understand about morality.

How so?

 

[originalthought]

You are forced against your will to take a dump in private by virtue of being educated in a civilized society.
You are forced to drive below a certain speed based upon, seemingly, in your opinion, immoral traffic laws.
And so on...

Taking a dump in private is to my own self interest, and to yours

Neither of those examples involve taking away my proerty and giving it to other people, for "the greater good." Thats the immoral action jackass. Taking my property that I earned and giving it to someone else against my will.

As a matter of reference, do you have society today or in the past that has handled this situation in a successful manner acceptable to you and what would that methodology be?
The key words being successful and acceptable.

The ideal society would be an anarcho-voluntarist society, where everyone values private property. Everything is done voluntarially, and there is no use of force against anyone.

The closest would be the United States of America. When it was a republic nation rather than a fascist nation.

 

[Camp]

Next time dont be a jackass about grammar. It's a stupid blog! LOL. And please highlight which paragraph you want me to change so you can understand.

Ok- you answered most of the questions in the "story," except "What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?" Would it still be theft?


And I am not arguing anything against you taking a homo in. That's your preference. I am arguing agaist you bringing that hobo over to my house and forcing me to take care of him for one night. That's is immoral because you are using force; you are forcing your will onto me.

I will practive the Christian golden rule on my own accord. If you force me to do, I don't beleive that Christ will be pleased.

What you don't know about Jesus could fill a Bible.

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

Seems He used the verb 'command', in spite of your self centered greed.

Well Jesus didn't command that. And even though the word "command" is used, do you really think if something is done out of force it is done with love? God also told the Israelites to keept the Sabbath day on the seventh day (Saturday) Do you follow that one too?

I dont want to play this religion game in this thread. Start one up and I will come show how much about Jesus and the Bible I know.


I want you to show me, using logic and reason, not emotion, that social wekfare is moral.if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?" Would it still be theft? Please stop avoiding the questions.

The roomate analogy just doesn't work. You are trying to link law with morality. Something can be immoral, yet legal and things that are illegal can be moral. There are laws to protect you from theft from a roomate. If your roomate steals from you, you are able to take legal action. Your "neighbors" have endorsed that position through legislation and courts. Your neighbors probably don't give a crap about what goes on between you and your roomate. They sure don't care if she or he drank your last beer or ate your last bowl of cereal. If they took your TV to the pawn shop your neighbors support your legal actions by virtue of the laws they have passed and accepted.

 

[Nosmo King]

If there are arsons in your neighborhood, your home owners premiums will rise, even though your house wasn't burned. If there is a blighted property on your block, your house's value suffers, even though your house is a show piece.

If there is hunger, poverty, inadequate housing, inadequate clothing for the poor, our American economy suffers. I'll put it in terms you can wrap whatever it is you call a heart around. Poverty in the neighborhood causes a drop in the value of that neighborhood.

If people are unable to compete economically, through whatever circumstance, the entire economy is slowed. Helping people reach a place where they have the chance to compete makes our economic output stronger.

I sense you utterly despise the poor with a Dickensian fervor. Is helping the poor a moral act? Only someone devoid of morality could pose such a question. If the simple Christian virtues are too much for you to handle, maybe the economic benefits will open your eyes.

And, on a side note, could I ask, are you younger than 25 years old? I'm curious because mature people understand morality far better than youngsters who have precious little life experience. Doubt me? Have a four year old ask you why is the sky blue and then, after you explain dispersion of light, count the times they ask why.

Please quote me where I said helping the poor was immoral. If you show me the qutoe, I will retract my sentance. I said social welfare, instituted by the government, is immoral. This is two completely differnet things.

I do despise those who mooch off the wealth of others. I do despise those who think because they are a single mom and have had 5 babies they should get some kind of assiteance. I do despise those who do nothing and expect me to help them. Yes, I do despise this.

Is it my duty as a human being to provide a person with the basics of human survival? No. It is not the govt's either.

post #49

 

[originalthought]

What you don't know about Jesus could fill a Bible.



Seems He used the verb 'command', in spite of your self centered greed.

Well Jesus didn't command that. And even though the word "command" is used, do you really think if something is done out of force it is done with love? God also told the Israelites to keept the Sabbath day on the seventh day (Saturday) Do you follow that one too?

I dont want to play this religion game in this thread. Start one up and I will come show how much about Jesus and the Bible I know.


I want you to show me, using logic and reason, not emotion, that social wekfare is moral.if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?" Would it still be theft? Please stop avoiding the questions.

The roomate analogy just doesn't work. You are trying to link law with morality. Something can be immoral, yet legal and things that are illegal can be moral. There are laws to protect you from theft from a roomate. If your roomate steals from you, you are able to take legal action. Your "neighbors" have endorsed that position through legislation and courts. Your neighbors probably don't give a crap about what goes on between you and your roomate. They sure don't care if she or he drank your last beer or ate your last bowl of cereal. If they took your TV to the pawn shop your neighbors support your legal actions by virtue of the laws they have passed and accepted.

I am trying to point out the law does not equal morality. Thats what Nosmo King stated earlier, that it is legally moral because it's the law.

I first want to point out that legality does not equal morality.
Secondly, every person must value personal property. I am me, and you are you. I cannot force you to do anything and you cannot force me to do anything, because each of us are our own property. Everything I posses is mine, and evrything you posess is yours. You cannot take my stuff and I cannot take your stuff, becasue this is a violation of personal, individual property. If you try to violate my right to individual property, I have the right to respond back with action, legal and forceful if necessary.

Social Welfare, instituded by the government, violates these principles. Therefore Social Welfare, instituted by the government, is immoral.

 

[originalthought]

If there are arsons in your neighborhood, your home owners premiums will rise, even though your house wasn't burned. If there is a blighted property on your block, your house's value suffers, even though your house is a show piece.

If there is hunger, poverty, inadequate housing, inadequate clothing for the poor, our American economy suffers. I'll put it in terms you can wrap whatever it is you call a heart around. Poverty in the neighborhood causes a drop in the value of that neighborhood.

If people are unable to compete economically, through whatever circumstance, the entire economy is slowed. Helping people reach a place where they have the chance to compete makes our economic output stronger.

I sense you utterly despise the poor with a Dickensian fervor. Is helping the poor a moral act? Only someone devoid of morality could pose such a question. If the simple Christian virtues are too much for you to handle, maybe the economic benefits will open your eyes.

And, on a side note, could I ask, are you younger than 25 years old? I'm curious because mature people understand morality far better than youngsters who have precious little life experience. Doubt me? Have a four year old ask you why is the sky blue and then, after you explain dispersion of light, count the times they ask why.

Please quote me where I said helping the poor was immoral. If you show me the qutoe, I will retract my sentance. I said social welfare, instituted by the government, is immoral. This is two completely differnet things.

I do despise those who mooch off the wealth of others. I do despise those who think because they are a single mom and have had 5 babies they should get some kind of assiteance. I do despise those who do nothing and expect me to help them. Yes, I do despise this.

Is it my duty as a human being to provide a person with the basics of human survival? No. It is not the govt's either.

post #49

No where in there did I say that it is immoral to help the poor. you just violated another one of you sacred commandments, "thou shall not lie"

If i missed it, please highlight it for me.

 

[manifold]

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?

Why is your outrage confined to just social welfare? Why would the arguments that make it immoral and evil in your opinion not apply to all forms of government taxation and spending? Why is it evil to take some of your income to fund welfare programs but it's not evil to take some of my income to fund overseas wars that I do not support?

 

[originalthought]

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?

Why is your outrage confined to just social welfare? Why would the arguments that make it immoral and evil in your opinion not apply to all forms of government taxation and spending? Why is it evil to take some of your income to fund welfare programs but it's not evil to take some of my income to fund overseas wars that I do not support?

Who said I was outraged? If you look at the responses, it's not me who is outraged. It's people who think that it's even immoral to think about this question, they are the one's outraged.

And to be honest, I do believe that all for of government is immoral. I just dont want to debate everything here. I just wanted to start with one concept. You can see in another post, I beleive that the ideal society ould be an anarcho-voluntarist society.

I agree that it is VERY IMMORAL TO BE IN THESE WARS THAT WE ARE IN.

 

[manifold]

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?

Why is your outrage confined to just social welfare? Why would the arguments that make it immoral and evil in your opinion not apply to all forms of government taxation and spending? Why is it evil to take some of your income to fund welfare programs but it's not evil to take some of my income to fund overseas wars that I do not support?

Who said I was outraged? If you look at the responses, it's not me who is outraged. It's people who think that it's even immoral to think about this question, they are the one's outraged.

And to be honest, I do believe that all for of government is immoral. I just dont want to debate everything here. I just wanted to start with one concept. You can see in another post, I beleive that the ideal society ould be an anarcho-voluntarist society.

I agree that it is VERY IMMORAL TO BE IN THESE WARS THAT WE ARE IN.

With all due respect, if you're an anti-government anarchist then that's probably a better starting point for discussion than cherry picking a hot button partisan issue, but to each his own I suppose. But as long as you believe all government is evil then of course it stands to reason that that includes social welfare. Personally, I don't believe your ideal society could ever exist outside of a fairytale.

 

[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?

Was the Marshall Plan immoral?

 

[Indeependent]

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?

Why is your outrage confined to just social welfare? Why would the arguments that make it immoral and evil in your opinion not apply to all forms of government taxation and spending? Why is it evil to take some of your income to fund welfare programs but it's not evil to take some of my income to fund overseas wars that I do not support?

Who said I was outraged? If you look at the responses, it's not me who is outraged. It's people who think that it's even immoral to think about this question, they are the one's outraged.

And to be honest, I do believe that all for of government is immoral. I just dont want to debate everything here. I just wanted to start with one concept. You can see in another post, I beleive that the ideal society ould be an anarcho-voluntarist society.

I agree that it is VERY IMMORAL TO BE IN THESE WARS THAT WE ARE IN.

Do you share this opinion on the subject of School and Property Taxes?
Transportation taxes for construction and maintenance of road, highways, tunnels and bridges?

I agree that a military that spends most of it's time surrounding the borders of other nations is irrational and immoral.

 

[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.

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.

Please exhibit your moniker's attribute. I wrote, "If taking care of the poor, the sick, the lame, the insane is moral," then the state taking care of them is moral.

I just backed it up with logic and reason, Gleason. You did not refute it with such.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Since we are a constitutional Republic that governs by the will of our representatives elected by We the People, the Congress decides what is 'moral.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Was the Marshall Plan immoral?

Of course not, and it was a super deal for capitalism.

 

[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.

Please exhibit your moniker's attribute. I wrote, "If taking care of the poor, the sick, the lame, the insane is moral," then the state taking care of them is moral.

I just backed it up with logic and reason, Gleason. You did not refute it with such.

Who says any of that is the morAl obligation of man?

 

[originalthought]

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?

Since we are a constitutional Republic that governs by the will of our representatives elected by We the People, the Congress decides what is 'moral.'

I have already explained that law does not equal morality. This is absurd. To you then, slavery was moral.

 

[lakeview]

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?

There are some people who believe that one of the ways you can judge a society is by how it treats its weakest members. The various governments in this country are not the enemy, they are a collective representation of the citizenry. Helping people when they're down is moral and I'd say that it would be immoral not to help people when they're down and give that help specifically via the government, whatever level it may be.

What is immoral is taking more than you need and making people dependant on you. If the "social welfare" is helping people who truly need it then yes, it's moral but if it's giving people more than they need and is given in order to create a permanent, dependant voting bloc then it's immoral.

 

[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?

Was the Marshall Plan immoral?

Of course not, and it was a super deal for capitalism.

But wasn't the Marshall Plan social welfare on a much larger scale?