Cold hearted? If you look at it from a liberal point of view, perhaps.
The problem we’re seeing today is that there is no incentive pressure to follow those rules.
Heck, if you don’t work and take care of yourself, you just go down to the welfare office and get a check.
So, considering this, do you think we’ll have MORE or LESS “needy” if there are no consequences for behaving in a way that makes you “needy”?
The needy should be taken care of in exactly the manner that I described, VOLUNTARILY by those who have made the decisions to be secure. And there SHOULD be stigma involved in having to accept this charity.
As I stated, if there are no consequences for bad decisions, there will be more of those bad decisions.
You are going over the principles again. I said I agree with the theory and is perhaps the most logical in a perfect world where personal responsibility is a given and everybody is able and capable.
But, the reality is that not everybody can elevate themselves to help themselves. Addicts, mentally ill, retards, crippled, orphans, abused et al.
Are those people left to rot, or should they be given helping hands? If so, what kind of help — private charity, religious charity, or government welfare? And who foots the bill? Society as a whole or certain donors?
I’m talking about realistic practicalities, not idealistic principles.