O-Trap;1862411 wrote:I'm gonna try to keep this brief.
Good lord. You're not even reading what I'm saying if you think that's what I'm saying. My reference to Chicken Little was exclusively about your point that relying on charity is a recipe for "disaster." That's not being dismissive of your point. I suppose you could make the case that I was being dismissive of your sensationalistic language, but that's pretty much it.
And my point was not that aid isn't needed in crises. My actual statements said that when there are economic disasters, there's less money to be used in aid, regardless of who is giving it. Whether you're trying to collect it in taxes or donations, there's simply less of it during financial crises.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Firstly, if you want to write a manifesto against capitalism, that's fine, but you're going to have to define what you think capitalism is before you take that trail too far, as it seems like a lot of people with views like yours tend to use a different description of it than others.
Second, Chomsky ultimately comes down on the same side as you regarding the virtues of a welfare state, so I'm really not sure what makes him a traitor. Because he doesn't agree with you on this matter? That seems short-sighted.
Third, you point to "suffering" during the Great Depression being significantly worse than in the more recent recession. To what are you referring, specifically, when you say "suffering?" The only negative statistic that notably increased was suicide, but the suicide rate during the Great Depression were lower than they were during the recession.
If you're going to pontificate about helping the suffering, at least use some specifics.
Excellent example of a straw man. Nobody said that the problem with the Bill of Rights was that it doesn't let people do whatever they want. If you're going to discuss this, please stay on the actual point. Replies are long enough as it is.
The Bill of Rights doesn't go far enough because it allows Person A to take Person B's property by gunpoint as long as Person A has a certain job.
That's cute. You think I have enough money to move to another country.
Fortunately, the circumstances I was in for that stretch of time are no longer the case. However, since you seem to be so insightful, I'd love to hear what else I could have cut out to make my situation better. My tax burden, between federal, state, and local, was about 35%, give or take.
So unless you can think of some ongoing expense we were incurring that was more significant than that, I call shenanigans on your dismissive statement about other causes for our situation that were more significant.
My wife's illness has no cure. She's required to eat this way for the rest of her life.
I now have a decent job. It's not phenomenal, but we've chosen to stay in our little house in a low-income neighborhood, so we're making ends meet, thank you.
Doesn't matter what you think of him as a person. His statement is true.
Roads predate governmental involvement. So does medicine, education, better irrigation systems, and improvements in sanitation.
What's more, when government mandates that they are the only ones allowed to do something, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been done just as well without them.
I'll give you some of the public order part. I'm not an anarchist.
