Neu Leonstein wrote:But to me, the first part of the sentence isn't fair. I don't hold a grudge against anyone, and I don't assume poor people are stupid or lazy. Until I finished uni, I lived with my family, who are by most accounts poor people. I can see why that is, and it is a combination of bad choices and bad luck. Shit happens.
But that doesn't necessarily create a claim on what I happen to generate in terms of wealth. I happily share, in fact I keep little of my income. But in the majority of cases, I give because I receive something in return, usually a good or service, sometimes just some sort of satisfaction. That kind of relationship, a trade, is the way adults should interact. State-based transfer systems like we have today don't work that way. Even the idea of the social contract, which is how some try and justify them, is an extremely tenuous way of trying to make something look like a trade when it isn't. In reality, it is force, violence which is deemend necessary because people don't trust others to do what they see as the right thing.
Even if you were to argue that it generates a better ultimate outcome, I don't think it's the kind of "ends justify the means" thinking that should be encouraged in any society. I'd rather people interact without the threat of violence over their heads as much as possible.
You are one of the few SMART people here (with Sibirsky,Self-esteem etc) who argue with LOGIC instead with EMOTION
you know what freedom is I like you
WHy Do Liberals support the welfare state?? because most of them are IRL weak or losers,maybe they really think to be what they are by "oh no" factors like bad luck so they empatize better with the losers
