Uh. Heh. Oh uh. Okay, "stuff" no, the things in question are water, food, shelter, and health care.
Was there a point in that sentence? Either those things are so cheap and plentiful that it should be trivial to obtain with or without government assistance, or they are not. If they are, then there's no need for government to provide them. If they are not, then there's a significant enough expense involved for us to consider the total economic impact of providing this stuff "for free".
And holy **** dude. Your concern is with the economic power of the United States & capitalism, more than any citizen of it, I mean ******* APPARENTLY.
When it's the economic power of the US that you're depending on to pay for all that free stuff, then those two things cease to be disconnected. One is dependent on the other. In a world where we spend a significant portion of the US economic power providing for those things, then any effect on the future size of that power has an effect on whether (or how much) of those things we can provide).
It's almost like I just wrote a few paragraphs explaining this, and you quoted me, and then you intelligently responded... Oh. Never mind. You just chucked out the entire thing and went off on an emotional based screed.
So, no, not as simple as I might make since I morally care about humans and you uh...[morally?] care about profits. Sorry for being such a simplistic person who wants my fellow humans to be taken care of by their state.
You "care about people". Ok. Riddle me this. What happens if, in the process of caring for so many people, you bankrupt the system you're using to do the caring? There has to be a limit to what you'll give people "for free". My concern is that people who have your mind set never seem to acknowledge that such limits must be there. Oh. You'll say "we only want to provide this one thing, right now, cause it's really important". But in 20 years, the next crop of people with your mindset will have another "one thing" that they think is just as criminally negligent not to be provided "for free". And they'll be just as certain of the moral high ground they're standing on as you are today.
Ultimately, it's a question of negative versus positive rights. Do rights include the right to have things provided to you? Or only the right not to have things taken away. The latter form has inherent limits. The former does not. There is no end to the things we (or future versions of us) will claim must be provided as a "right". So yeah, I oppose this. And no, it's not just an economic argument, although that can certainly be a component of it.
In your mind, should the US be wise to ease laws against *** slavery and child rape so as to compete with Thailand and the like? MIGHT BE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!!!
How the heck do you leap to that conclusion?
What in the **** is wrong with your priorities????
Nothing. You simply don't understand what they are, or how I'm applying them. The previous statement more or less proves this. The problem is that you simply do not understand the method I'm using to determine what actions a government should take, and those which it should not. The things you just listed are examples of things which infringe people's rights, and so a government (if it is good), should act to prevent them. The things you listed at the top of the post are not. If you don't have food because someone keeps coming up to you and stealing it, then that's something our laws should prevent (the stealing). If you don't have food because you have failed to acquire it in the first place, that's somewhat on you. As long as there exists a system in which you could, with a modest amount of participation, have acquired said food, that's the end of the government's responsibility in that area.
Guess what? The US has plenty of ways and opportunities for people to obtain sufficient food. Starvation is virtually non-existent in this country, and in the rare case where it (or even malnutrition) occurs, it's either the result of choices made (usually resulting from some form of substance abuse over time) or parental abuse of children. Um... both of which we also have ample tools available to deal with (and laws in the case of the latter).
Look. If we lived in a system that was somehow evil and rigged so that no one could possibly get ahead, or even obtain enough success for a basic existence, I'd be right there advocating for changes. But we don't. There is so much opportunity in the US compared to most of the rest of the world. Baring people with extreme handicaps of some sort, there's very little reason one could not manage to obtain basic necessities in the system we have. And if you fail that, through no fault of your own, there are ample charitable organizations to help you (the US is by far the most charitable nation in the world in this regard). There is little reason for the government to get involved in such things, except for the purpose of those in government wanting to take "credit" for helping people. It's not about morals for them, but political empowerment.
And even if we go past that point, there are levels of government as well (as I mentioned above), where a local or state government may decide to take on these things for those living in their respective areas. Again, this is not something that must be done at the highest level of our government, as some sort of moral imperative. It is, for the most part, a political stunt, used to try to win votes. Edited, Feb 20th 2018 7:29pm by gbaji