2012-07-25, 01:48 AM
Stereo Wrote:Convince me. What are you going to spend your $200k+ income on that's more important than a random bum's life? (I mention that tier specifically cause that's who is paying for Obamacare)I don't care if I made 200K a year or 200M a day, if I don't feel like giving it away, it belongs to me. Some billionaires prefer to give to charity, and that's fine too; the point is, the money does not belong to the government, it belongs to the person that worked for it.
@ Flonne I think you misspoke, monopolies are the opposite of fair - whoever controls them sets prices completely arbitrarily, and in a purely free market they are self sustaining.
I also take issue with
the idea that if something's not profitable, we shouldn't ever do it. I would much rather a safety net that loses money, to a safety net with big holes in it because certain diseases cost more to treat than the person will ever earn in their lifetime (which is the 'economics' view - if someone's a loser, cut your losses and murder them). I'm disgusted by the idea that certain human lives are worth less than a 2-3% increase on your taxes. If you turn the question around, and ask, "would you kill a hobo if the government paid you $4000?" it's clear how deplorable it is to say yes.
That was exactly my point, monopolies ARE the opposite of fair; government run programs are in a permanent state of monopoly, while the free market eventually culls them out because new companies emerge.
Also, neither of those latter examples have any bearing on mine. I'm not murdering someone by not giving them free pomegranate; they can work for it like everyone else does or they can suffer the consequences of not doing so, they don't deserve my sympathy if they don't at least try.
Eos Wrote:And yet people with your mindset also seem to think that if they were in a horrible car accident tomorrow from an uninsured motorist that left you paraplegic or otherwise unable to work and contribute you'd expect "someone" to take care of you for the rest of your life.
I don't know about him, but I already stated that people physically unable to work should be given some leeway.
A black and white viewpoint where something is either totally for or totally against sounds more like it's from "the dark ages" than anything else, by the way...