What is the justification for forcing anyone to financially provide for anyone else?

[Blagger]

I can't really think of another situation in which it would be appropriate to force someone to financially provide for someone else. Providing for someone else, other than your child, should really be a choice.afford it, you should and would do it, but no one can or should make you.

I'm not picking on you personally, FLGoldilocks. It's just that your post fits my question.

I know that this is most likely covered by various available insurance policies. But what if you were to permanently disable someone through an act of gross, avoidable negligence. To the extent that the victim is no longer able to work?

Like, for instance, the victim of vehicle/pedestrian collision where the guilty party was under the influence of alcohol.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

Its fair, you racist Islamaphobe redneck you.

 

[Samson]

"Justification?" As in what? Alimony? Child support? Social programs?

Anything. What is the justification for taxing me and using that money to spend on anyone else ?
Why am I forced to provide for those who are deemed unable to provide for themselves ?

Because you've had the gross misfortune to be born in America rather than in some third world country where you would be permitted to kick the poor to the side of the road to die and rot. That is presuming you would not be among the poor.

How INHUMANE!!!

The solution is to provide the poor with the basic necessities: Food, Clothing, Shelter, and ....

.....Neutering.

 

[FLGoldilocks]

I think it depends on what you're referring to. In a case like child support, no we shouldn't have to force a parent to provide for their child. But since so many parents fail to do so willingly, the other parent is forced to rely on the court system forcing the irresponsible parent to do what's right.

I can't really think of another situation in which it would be appropriate to force someone to financially provide for someone else. Providing for someone else, other than your child, should really be a choice. My boyfriend chooses to work hard to provide for me and the kids, but no one forces him to. If he decided he didn't want to provide for me, I would get a job and provide for myself.

I think there are situations in which it would be appropriate, when possible, to provide for someone else, such as aging parents, disabled siblings, things like that. But those shouldn't be required. It's one of those things where if you're a good person, and you can afford it, you should and would do it, but no one can or should make you.

So I am required to help finance a system that forces a parent to take care of his/her own child ?

I chose to have my child with a man who led me to believe he was going to be a father, support that child and care for that child, whether we stayed together or not. He now thinks he can get away without supporting the child. Aside from the biological necessity, a child needs two parents for financial support. One parent alone would have extreme difficulty in supporting the child.

So, to answer your question, no you're not required to help finance a system that forces a parent to take care of their child. You have 3 options, actually:

1. Finance the above referenced system.
2. Help support the kids that have parents ignoring them yourself.
3. Watch said children suffer with nothing to eat, no heat, no clothes that fit, etc.

Personally, I'd rather help finance the system that will force a parent to take responsibility than the other 2 options, but whatever.

 

[daveman]

What is the justification for forcing anyone to financially provide for anyone else?

It makes liberals feel smug and superior.

Actually, it doesn't. It just gets them re-elected.

I was speaking of liberal citizens, not liberal politicians. You hit the nail on the head about liberal politicians.

There's one group that caters to the rich (Republicans), and one group that caters to the poor (Democrats). There is no party that caters to working class Americans, which make up the majority of this country. The rich already have money, and the Republicans allow them to keep it. The poor don't have money, but the Democrats give it to them for free. We working class however don't have money, but we work to generate enough to survive. No one, and I repeat, no one, in this current government is working to make it easier on us.

Instead of forming such a party, most of us allow ourself to be sucked into the mind games of the other two parties. Wake up, and maybe someday we can rectify the inequalities that cater to the ends of the spectrum.