You do realize don't you that your response is why government assistance is need since your too damn stingy to help out people who need it.
I earned MY money, I earned my standard of living. I earned everything I have. . .and being a middle-class white male, it wasn't easy.
Cool story bro. Us white guys have had it real rough.
For every Canadian (”America's Hat”) example of the greatness and goodness of socialism, history is chocked full of dismal (and lethal) failures.
You're so deluded that you're really going to call a program advocated by libertarian hero Hayek as socialist?
And I'll bet the small community in the Canadian study was more of a ethnically homogenized "community" sharing common cultural standards than an urban jungle where feral thugs prowl and prey. Try that minimum income thing in, say, Wash DC or Detroit and see where it gets you.
Hahaha unbelievable . . . wait, it's actually not.
I'll go further than that. Number 1. Libertarians are not heroes. They're scum. 2. Hayek was no conservative. How do we know that? He wrote a damn book!
by F. A. Hayek
by F. A. Hayek
In The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960)
Number 3. I don't care if you are a class of '98. I add a dittoes to what was posted upthread: IBTZ
ksen->You do realize don't you that your response is why government assistance is need since your too damn stingy to help out people who need it.
He never said he was too stingy to pay for it. He said don't steal his money to do it. Charity is a free will offering. If he doesn't want to give, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to FORCE him to give.
Prior to the welfare state we had less problems with poverty in this country than we do now. People who really needed help went to the churches and got help. That allowed someone to make sure they really needed help and the churches saw to it that they didn't become junkies for free money.
Cool story bro. Us white guys have had it real rough.
We have. We've been carrying most of the non-whites for decades. When do we get to enjoy the fruit of our labor rather than have it confiscated at the point of a gun?
You're so deluded that you're really going to call a program advocated by libertarian hero Hayek as socialist?
If it involved taking money by force from some people in order to give it to others than it is socialism. If Hayek advocated this then he betrayed libertarianism. (Now if he advocated taking up a voluntary contribution to do this it would be OK. That's what we had before the welfare state)
If the government wasn't robbing the tax payer blind - so freeloaders can skate through life without working one day of their miserable, lazy lives - people would have 50% more income and a lot of extra cash for charity.
Through charity, those in WANT would not be served, but those in NEED would be given a cup that runeth over. They would have more than they could ever dream of.
When money is confiscated by the government through force, people rebel. When money is given to charity through the heart, people are very generous.
The problem with the "poor" in this country is democrat sloth. They never do anything for anyone - not even themselves. They lay around in bed all day eating Twinkies and demanding more. There are very few truly needy people in this country, and they're barely getting squat. The lazy freeloaders are devouring it all, and every four years they vote for more.
Non-sequitur.
Ever hear of charity. Only democrats and freeloaders want forced government charity at the point of a government “gun”
“Cool story bro. Us white guys have had it real rough. “
You bet we did. .. and continue to suffer and be discriminated against, from popular media and movies, to academia and the work-place. We are the ONLY demographic that can be insulted, patronized, mocked and insulted. . .without sanction. Affirmative action, ‘bro,’ ever hear of it?
“You're so deluded that you're really going to call a program advocated by libertarian hero Hayek as socialist? “
Calling you a socialist fits, as you FEEL (not THINK) that socialism works just great. . .based on one small, single example, somewhere, and paid for by makers, not takers.
“Hahaha unbelievable . . . wait, it's actually not.”
And you prove my point. Thanks.
Now, here's the situation. Further exchanges are moot. You said what you feel and I said what I think. People can make up their own mid about the subject (unless, of course, you are for forced re-education).
So, your choice is to a) act as a child, to “get the last word,” or b) you can simply let thinking people decide who's argument they back.
I'm betting “a” is your choice. And I will laugh when proven right.