Quote Originally Posted by Monty3038 View Post
The ability to provide for oneself is a skill, not a right. When you are born you cannot provide for yourself, you learn to as you are raised...
Kinda like how we learn how to speak, how to congregate, or how to marry? Human rights are social constructs for the purpose of social benefit. Origin or naturalism is no bearing


and if you are not taught how to provide for yourself, you become a ward of the state and thus the cycle continues... I really don't like this type of thinking as it proliferates the need for welfare and state run subsistence of people, which I think leads directly down the road to socialism/communism, which is where I think a lot of your thinking is heading. If the state/country/government/tribal leaders determine that this is the minimum you must have to survive, and they will provide it for you.. and you will work this job to obtain it... I think we can all see where that leads... to doing the bare minimum to obtain the bare minimum for survival...
Sorry dude but you don't know what socialism is. We have some very strong socialistic principles in our society that nobody other than a handful of the incredibly rich would wish to delete, and only a small number of people actually understand are socialism.

Virtually everybody you know is a closet socialist. The disconnect is that most people have silly ideas of some kind of nanny state gulag mill servitude poor fantasy about socialism. Socialism is merely a socioeconomic construct for the purpose of the society, the populace. Civil rights, individual freedoms, virtually every form of egalitarianism is socialism on some level.

I always find it interesting when I discuss policy with uber right-wingers without designating politics. They always have incredibly liberal and socialistic ideals, yet the moment they realize the political designation, they oppose.




I don't think this is arbitrary political policy. A society that designates the right to OPPORTUNITY is a much better one to live in.
I completely agree. The difference is that in order to actually live in that kind of society, you need heaps of socialism. My beef with conservatism and libertarianism ultimately boils down to them saying one thing yet promoting policy that does a different thing. Conservative and libertarian ideals are very good things, but they are clueless as to how to actually achieve those ideals.


I don't want one where everyone is guaranteed a job... not everyone wants a job, not everyone deserves a job. I also don't want minimum wages, you earn what you are worth. If an employer feels you are worth more, you make more. If an employer cannot afford to pay you what you feel you are worth, they will not hire you.
That sounds good on paper, but isn't how it works in reality. If you were right, worker compensation would be incredibly high right now since individual production has dramatically increased over the decades

I agree it is noble to lend a helping hand. That is what a limited unemployment program of 13 weeks is for. That is what limited welfare with restrictions including no further payments for further family size increases, and limited terms on benefits for able bodied adults is for... the relentless never ending welfare cycle we currently live in, in the US, is a self-defeating prophecy that keeps people down as they have no incentive to change.
This argument is popular due to propaganda, not data. When it started it was called the Welfare Cadillac Queen, now it's a more subtle "entitlement lazy drag blah blah blah". It exists because it gets votes