RCD, you're a poor writer. Some people are stupid and bad writers, you're somewhat intelligent, but a god awful writer. It was annoying to read that jumbled mess.
Well MO...hallejujah!!...a valid critique! I type this stuff off the top of my head, and apologize for not taking more time to go back and refine my presentation of the ideas. Regardless, at least you gave me the respect of bearing your "annoyance" in order to decipher my 'mess'. Thanks.
People on this forum are smart...they get the basic point. As do you. But like most Collectivists (admitted assumption on my part
), you employ words in complex ways that purposely (another assumption) conflate complex issues in order to support ideas which in plainspeak...would be morally and practically indefensible. Or at the least, questionable. Which is EXACTLY what the point of the OP is. Questioning the wisdom of UNQUALIFIED subsidization as a moral premise of Law and a prosperous and successful society.
What did I say re subsidies, in my "jumbled mess"? That in some cases they are necessary and good. And the same with Welfare; even defending it as being the "pinnacle" of spiritual opportunity on the part of the giver
; as long as that charity does no harm. Being ignorant, poor and relatively helpless in this world...is hell. Period. I truly lament that pain for many who have great potential as loving and valuable beings toward the "sake of our species".
My intent toward those - and the problem - is not singularly an emotional one. Pity and unqualified charity, minus the spiritual qualifiers...is fool's gold. Those folk will suffer horrifically...as will many who lend love and charity to them, if we don't get policy right. The whole thing will go up in 'wailing and gnashing of teeth'!
So, I'm gonna try really hard not to make a mess of this respectful query: in your more than 'somewhat intelligent' opinion...DO THE POOR OWE ANYTHING TO THE SOCIETY WHICH SUBSIDIZES THEM? Or, is their need - which offers spiritual opportunity to those who are made (spiritually) better individuals by the charitable act of caring - a sufficient contribution on their part? Like playing the role of the guy with the black hat in the old westerns...a child of hell but a necessary evil and a prop and foil for the good guy.
I'd really like to hear what you think; and please keep you answer as simple and directed to the specific point as possible...as I'm workin with a 'somewhat intelligent' cognitive ability out here in Hillsdale.
Thanks. Be well.