|
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That doesn't mean to say that I think benefits are moral. They're not. They punish hard working people to reward the incapable and unwilling. It's just that if these people were left ot fend for themselves, the punsihment for hard working people would be worse than simple tax... it would be an unsafe environment.
That's extortion. Also, factually inaccurate. You can't say for sure that diminishing benefits would result in more crime. You mention incapable and unwilling. Incapable is easy to identify. And a humane civilization should provide safety nets for those people. But the unwilling can go fuck themselves. Your assertion that they would turn to a life of crime if benefits dried up, is totally bananas. Look at yourself. You needed extra money, so you got work fencing printer parts. What stopped you from instead robbing a liquor store?
Sure, with poverty comes crime. However, it would be morally wrong to give out benefits to people because of a threat of increased crime. It would be better to spend the money on more cops to catch the criminals and remove them from society altogether. They aren't willing to work. They aren't willing to respect that law. What right do they have to exist among society?
Just because person A is rich and person B is starving, doesn't mean person A is the greedy cunt. He's just better at life. Fine, give some money to the sucker who failed, but don't pretend that the starving person is sitting on top of Mount Morality.
If person A walked by Person B and gave him money, it is Person A who is being the greedy cunt.
When you give money to someone on the street, you are simply enabling that person to remain a worthless piece of street-shit. You're not helping him. You're not aiding him. You're not giving him any relief from the miserable cycle of sewage that is his day to day life. You're simply enabling it, extending it, and normalizing it.
And why? Because of a greedy, selfish, narcissistic desire to make yourself feel generous.
|