[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?[/quote]
Both.
To strive for higher productivity though is what made us so rich as a society. If you, today reap the rewards of yesterdays creative destruction, how can you complain if teh trend continues?
Again, the treatise was voted in favor of by 48 of the 56 members of the UN. I’d say that means that a fair amount of people agree with the contents of that document. It might be idealistic thinking, but that doesn’t make it’s contents any less relevant.
You are right that the UN cannot provide all of the world’s people with jobs. That doesn’t mean however that they still shouldn’t try to make sure that the world’s people aren’t being treated fairly or in accordance with the articles of that document.
And if I were a Burmese child, I would probably just be happy that I wasn’t being tortured or having to watch my parents/siblings be killed right in front of my eyes. Burma is a shit hole, and it’s pretty disgusting what has been going on there for years.
I do agree with you though that the UN talks a big talk, but often times doesn’t actually walk the walk.
First, the UN can agree on whatever the sky it wants to be, but that won´t change the actual color.
Then, I have give you the reasons why capitalism not only does not violate human rights, but why it is the direct expression of human rights and why it is a necessary precondition for a free society.
Capitalism strips people of their compassion for their fellow man. Profit becomes the only driving force and greed and corruption become the name of the game.
Look at how many wars have been fought in the name of profit/power (Iraq anyone). It absolutely totally winds up violating human rights. And I don’t really care if your reasons don’t violate any logical rules, it’s not a definition that I plan on accepting, nor would any critical thinker that I know accept it either.
So, how could I care about the incoherent babble of government bureaucrats? They are todays caste of priests that survive by feeding BS to the masses, but if they are as wise as you seem to think, let us hear their arguments as to who to do it better.
First, that treatise was signed in 1948, the world was a very different place at that time. World War 2 had just ended and the world’s nations wanted to avoid further atrocities.
Second, if you don’t think that the big corporations are the ones actually pulling the strings in most cases, then take a quick look at the biggest lobbyists and contributors of presidential campaigns and the congress.
The idea that capitalism and the “free market” is so great, is BS that we have been fed by these corporations to continue making them richer, while the rest of us struggle to improve the quality of our lives through hard work.[/quote]
Here are some critical thinkers:
von Mises, Hajek, Rothbard, Nozick, etc
and here is a good website to get acquainted with their ideas:
They have a whole media section with free audio, video and text that you can download.
Here is the “free to choose” series from Milton Friedman:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?
What they do (or did) is not worth what they were being paid. Someone somewhere else was more than willing to do the same job for less.
Or -
The government of that country was so eager to have someone employ their citizens, that the cost of doing business (taxes, cost of compliance with regulations, etc.) was so cheap that the company took there business out of the punitive country, and went to the country that actually wanted business.
On a more local scale, think the job flight out of California.
Or -
There are no thug unions to siphon money from the business under the guise of “helping the worker”.
DO you think a business should lose value for the share holder just to save jobs in the US when it can create more wealth for those who own the company?
Yes. I am for the good of the many, not the good of the few.
I am not against people in other countries improving their quality of life through hard work though. I’m for every person on this planet having enough food to eat and an adequate shelter and drinking water supply.
What I am against is the idea that wealth is the most important consideration to most of these businesses.[/quote]
Why?
When you have made all that money you are free to give it to charity.
However, a proper company does not waste resources and tries to make a profit.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
I am against greed and profit regardless of the cost (in terms of human suffering or lives) and IMO these large companies embody these qualities.
You are against greed and profit, yet you admit to owning stocks. What expectations did you have when you purchased your stocks? That they would stay at the exact price you paid for them? Or - did you buy them in anticipation of the price going up in the future?
[/quote]
I didn’t buy them. they were bought for me as a young child and I still own them. I’ve seriously been considering selling them lately as I don’t believe in some of the companies who’s stocks I own a share of.
That’s one of the reasons why I am self-employed, because I am only accountable for myself. I would not feel comfortable taking anyone’s “fair” share, but what that means is somewhat of a subjective term. I understand what you are saying though.
If it were for a just cause, yes I would.
Fair enough, and you’re right, they are not exclusively to blame. I’m also not arguing that the presence of high tax rates is a contributing factor as to why many of these businesses have set up their headquarters out of the country.
The thing is, why shouldn’t these big corporations have to contribute their fair share of taxes like the average citizen does? If they’re being taxed unfairly, ok, I can’t blame them for going elsewhere. But if they simply don’t want to pay taxes (again because they want more for themselves and don’t care about contributing to the common good), or are getting bullshit like “corporate welfare” breaks, then they at least are not the type of company that I want to support, nor do I feel that our government should support.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?
What they do (or did) is not worth what they were being paid. Someone somewhere else was more than willing to do the same job for less.
Or -
The government of that country was so eager to have someone employ their citizens, that the cost of doing business (taxes, cost of compliance with regulations, etc.) was so cheap that the company took there business out of the punitive country, and went to the country that actually wanted business.
On a more local scale, think the job flight out of California.
Or -
There are no thug unions to siphon money from the business under the guise of “helping the worker”.
DO you think a business should lose value for the share holder just to save jobs in the US when it can create more wealth for those who own the company?
Yes. I am for the good of the many, not the good of the few.
I am not against people in other countries improving their quality of life through hard work though. I’m for every person on this planet having enough food to eat and an adequate shelter and drinking water supply.
What I am against is the idea that wealth is the most important consideration to most of these businesses.
Why?
When you have made all that money you are free to give it to charity.
However, a proper company does not waste resources and tries to make a profit.
[/quote]
Because sadly, money and power corrupts people.
You are right, they are free to give it to charity. But how many of these huge corporation owners actually contributes a large portions of money to charities or to genuinely help starving people around the world? A statistic that I recently saw said that 16,000 children die every day as the result of starvation, that’s about one every five seconds.
This with all of these big corporation owners making billions of dollars a year (and giving themselves raises whenever possible). So, clearly this system isn’t working all that well when you view things from a large scale perspective.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
<<< Because sadly, money and power corrupts people.
You are right, they are free to give it to charity. But how many of these huge corporation owners actually contributes a large portions of money to charities or to genuinely help starving people around the world? A statistic that I recently saw said that 16,000 children die every day as the result of starvation, that’s about one every five seconds.
This with all of these big corporation owners making billions of dollars a year (and giving themselves raises whenever possible). So, clearly this system isn’t working all that well when you view things from a large scale perspective.[/quote]
Look man, you have been one of my favorite people here for a long time and I don’t see any reason why that shouldn’t continue, but it’s almost impossible for me to believe that I’m reading this from you.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?
What they do (or did) is not worth what they were being paid. Someone somewhere else was more than willing to do the same job for less.
Or -
The government of that country was so eager to have someone employ their citizens, that the cost of doing business (taxes, cost of compliance with regulations, etc.) was so cheap that the company took there business out of the punitive country, and went to the country that actually wanted business.
On a more local scale, think the job flight out of California.
Or -
There are no thug unions to siphon money from the business under the guise of “helping the worker”.
DO you think a business should lose value for the share holder just to save jobs in the US when it can create more wealth for those who own the company?
Yes. I am for the good of the many, not the good of the few.
I am not against people in other countries improving their quality of life through hard work though. I’m for every person on this planet having enough food to eat and an adequate shelter and drinking water supply.
What I am against is the idea that wealth is the most important consideration to most of these businesses.
Why?
When you have made all that money you are free to give it to charity.
However, a proper company does not waste resources and tries to make a profit.
Because sadly, money and power corrupts people.
You are right, they are free to give it to charity. But how many of these huge corporation owners actually contributes a large portions of money to charities or to genuinely help starving people around the world? A statistic that I recently saw said that 16,000 children die every day as the result of starvation, that’s about one every five seconds.
This with all of these big corporation owners making billions of dollars a year (and giving themselves raises whenever possible). So, clearly this system isn’t working all that well when you view things from a large scale perspective.[/quote]
Did you ever notice that the people who are starving are the ones that are not in the system?
You are right, they are free to give it to charity. But how many of these huge corporation owners actually contributes a large portions of money to charities or to genuinely help starving people around the world? A statistic that I recently saw said that 16,000 children die every day as the result of starvation, that’s about one every five seconds.
This with all of these big corporation owners making billions of dollars a year (and giving themselves raises whenever possible). So, clearly this system isn’t working all that well when you view things from a large scale perspective.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
<<< Because sadly, money and power corrupts people.
You are right, they are free to give it to charity. But how many of these huge corporation owners actually contributes a large portions of money to charities or to genuinely help starving people around the world? A statistic that I recently saw said that 16,000 children die every day as the result of starvation, that’s about one every five seconds.
This with all of these big corporation owners making billions of dollars a year (and giving themselves raises whenever possible). So, clearly this system isn’t working all that well when you view things from a large scale perspective.
Look man, you have been one of my favorite people here for a long time and I don’t see any reason why that shouldn’t continue, but it’s almost impossible for me to believe that I’m reading this from you.
[/quote]
You’ve always been one of my favorites as well Tirib. It just seems that we have very different views when it comes to political matters. What can I say, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Your political views don’t change my opinion of you though.
As far as the above post, I guess I can’t help it if it makes me a little upset that people are shitting in solid gold toilets, while others starve to death. I know that the capitalistic system is probably the best one that man kind has yet to institute and practice. There are certainly a much smaller percentage of people who are dying of starvation and disease, and more people live in comfort than ever before in history.
I just don’t think the system is perfect, and I think that we as humans can do better than to allow thousands of children to starve to death every day.
It’s true that competition has produced many revolutionary technologies and added to the quality of life for a large number of people. I just think that cooperation and working together we as humans could do even better, without anyone having anyone get left out to dry in the process.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?
What they do (or did) is not worth what they were being paid. Someone somewhere else was more than willing to do the same job for less.
Or -
The government of that country was so eager to have someone employ their citizens, that the cost of doing business (taxes, cost of compliance with regulations, etc.) was so cheap that the company took there business out of the punitive country, and went to the country that actually wanted business.
On a more local scale, think the job flight out of California.
Or -
There are no thug unions to siphon money from the business under the guise of “helping the worker”.
DO you think a business should lose value for the share holder just to save jobs in the US when it can create more wealth for those who own the company?
Yes. I am for the good of the many, not the good of the few.
I am not against people in other countries improving their quality of life through hard work though. I’m for every person on this planet having enough food to eat and an adequate shelter and drinking water supply.
What I am against is the idea that wealth is the most important consideration to most of these businesses.
Why?
When you have made all that money you are free to give it to charity.
However, a proper company does not waste resources and tries to make a profit.
Because sadly, money and power corrupts people.
You are right, they are free to give it to charity. But how many of these huge corporation owners actually contributes a large portions of money to charities or to genuinely help starving people around the world? A statistic that I recently saw said that 16,000 children die every day as the result of starvation, that’s about one every five seconds.
This with all of these big corporation owners making billions of dollars a year (and giving themselves raises whenever possible). So, clearly this system isn’t working all that well when you view things from a large scale perspective.
Did you ever notice that the people who are starving are the ones that are not in the system?
And what does that say about the system?[/quote]
Since the creation of the free market system and free trade, the entire world is part of the same system. Sure, not all countries might be capitalistic (and if that’s what you mean, then ok I see your point), but they pretty much all have to deal with countries like the U.S or entities like the World Bank or IMF in some shape or form.
You are right that if the peoples in these countries could get the education and organization to start up their own manufacturing of goods, or at least make more money on their natural resources they could improve their financial situation.
But so long as the World Bank, IMF and other entities continue to manipulate these countries through the use of debt, this is going to be very difficult for these countries to do.
We’re both for abolishing the World Bank, IMF and Fed. If these entities were abolished, then perhaps capitalism and the free market system could perform as you seem to suggest they are designed to.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?
What they do (or did) is not worth what they were being paid. Someone somewhere else was more than willing to do the same job for less.
Or -
The government of that country was so eager to have someone employ their citizens, that the cost of doing business (taxes, cost of compliance with regulations, etc.) was so cheap that the company took there business out of the punitive country, and went to the country that actually wanted business.
On a more local scale, think the job flight out of California.
Or -
There are no thug unions to siphon money from the business under the guise of “helping the worker”.
DO you think a business should lose value for the share holder just to save jobs in the US when it can create more wealth for those who own the company?
Yes. I am for the good of the many, not the good of the few.
I am not against people in other countries improving their quality of life through hard work though. I’m for every person on this planet having enough food to eat and an adequate shelter and drinking water supply.
What I am against is the idea that wealth is the most important consideration to most of these businesses.
Why?
When you have made all that money you are free to give it to charity.
However, a proper company does not waste resources and tries to make a profit.
Because sadly, money and power corrupts people.
You are right, they are free to give it to charity. But how many of these huge corporation owners actually contributes a large portions of money to charities or to genuinely help starving people around the world? A statistic that I recently saw said that 16,000 children die every day as the result of starvation, that’s about one every five seconds.
This with all of these big corporation owners making billions of dollars a year (and giving themselves raises whenever possible). So, clearly this system isn’t working all that well when you view things from a large scale perspective.
Did you ever notice that the people who are starving are the ones that are not in the system?
And what does that say about the system?
Since the creation of the free market system and free trade, the entire world is part of the same system. Sure, not all countries might be capitalistic (and if that’s what you mean, then ok I see your point), but they pretty much all have to deal with countries like the U.S or entities like the World Bank or IMF in some shape or form.
You are right that if the peoples in these countries could get the education and organization to start up their own manufacturing of goods, or at least make more money on their natural resources they could improve their financial situation.
But so long as the World Bank, IMF and other entities continue to manipulate these countries through the use of debt, this is going to be very difficult for these countries to do.
We’re both for abolishing the World Bank, IMF and Fed. If these entities were abolished, then perhaps capitalism and the free market system could perform as you seem to suggest they are designed to.[/quote]
Now let us say that the World Bank and the IMF conspired to take over Eritrea or Ethiopia and forced them to accept a lot of Nike factories.
If that scenario happened, would the people in these factories not be better off than they are now?
So, if the worst result of such an action was preferable to the alternative, if people exploited by companies were better off than people NOT exploited by anyone at all, just starving, wouldn´t you want as many exploited people as possible?
I know that you can compare the capitalist system with a hypothetical paradise, but that is the Nirvana fallacy.
Yes, in a perfect world, and so further and so on…
But here, on this planet, compared to the available alternatives…
edit: I would not call the existing system a capitalist one , but even a semi- capitalist system is better than the alternative.
We’re both for abolishing the World Bank, IMF and Fed. If these entities were abolished, then perhaps capitalism and the free market system could perform as you seem to suggest they are designed to.[/quote]
There is no design.
Free people act on their own free will, exercising their freedom.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
No, the Chinese want microwave ovens and jacuzzis too, its competition time baby, and they want what you think is rightfully yours because you happen to be born in the US.
I love it when you run out of frogs to lick. It is in these rare moments that I actually find myself nodding my head in agreement with what you say.
I think we share the same experience, we both have been unable to sleep, worrying how to pay our debts and get our companies to make profits.
One year of that, or three to four, changes you.
It kind of follows that we both would not deny some Indian or Chinese guy a better life if he has the guts to take risks and work hard.
I could not care less whether some fat, lazy Austrian loses his job because of it, a cushy, comfortable, well paid job is by no means a God given right.
Wait, so you think that people in countries like the U.S (or Austria in your example) are losing their jobs because they aren’t hard workers? And not because these companies only care about how much profit they make and know they can pay people in less developed countries less money?
What they do (or did) is not worth what they were being paid. Someone somewhere else was more than willing to do the same job for less.
Or -
The government of that country was so eager to have someone employ their citizens, that the cost of doing business (taxes, cost of compliance with regulations, etc.) was so cheap that the company took there business out of the punitive country, and went to the country that actually wanted business.
On a more local scale, think the job flight out of California.
Or -
There are no thug unions to siphon money from the business under the guise of “helping the worker”.
DO you think a business should lose value for the share holder just to save jobs in the US when it can create more wealth for those who own the company?
Yes. I am for the good of the many, not the good of the few.
I am not against people in other countries improving their quality of life through hard work though. I’m for every person on this planet having enough food to eat and an adequate shelter and drinking water supply.
What I am against is the idea that wealth is the most important consideration to most of these businesses.
Why?
When you have made all that money you are free to give it to charity.
However, a proper company does not waste resources and tries to make a profit.
Because sadly, money and power corrupts people.
You are right, they are free to give it to charity. But how many of these huge corporation owners actually contributes a large portions of money to charities or to genuinely help starving people around the world? A statistic that I recently saw said that 16,000 children die every day as the result of starvation, that’s about one every five seconds.
This with all of these big corporation owners making billions of dollars a year (and giving themselves raises whenever possible). So, clearly this system isn’t working all that well when you view things from a large scale perspective.
Did you ever notice that the people who are starving are the ones that are not in the system?
And what does that say about the system?
Since the creation of the free market system and free trade, the entire world is part of the same system. Sure, not all countries might be capitalistic (and if that’s what you mean, then ok I see your point), but they pretty much all have to deal with countries like the U.S or entities like the World Bank or IMF in some shape or form.
You are right that if the peoples in these countries could get the education and organization to start up their own manufacturing of goods, or at least make more money on their natural resources they could improve their financial situation.
But so long as the World Bank, IMF and other entities continue to manipulate these countries through the use of debt, this is going to be very difficult for these countries to do.
We’re both for abolishing the World Bank, IMF and Fed. If these entities were abolished, then perhaps capitalism and the free market system could perform as you seem to suggest they are designed to.
Now let us say that the World Bank and the IMF conspired to take over Eritrea or Ethiopia and forced them to accept a lot of Nike factories.
[/quote]
That’s not how those entities do things though. They would instead bring the country to a point of economic desperation. But because Ethiopia and Eritrea are already at that point, there wouldn’t be much need to do this.
Yes, they absolutely would be better off.
The thing is that in many cases, again, the World Bank and IMF are involved in destroying these countries’ economies in the first place. Then the country is only too willing to allow corporations, or drug manufacturing facilities, basically anyone who is willing to pay them some amount of money to support themselves, to come in and set up shop.
It’s such a more complicated question than this, but yeah, I would rather have people making some money and not starving, than starving.
No, we can never create a perfect system, we are not perfect beings after all. But I do believe that we can improve upon the current system, and quite possibly come up with a better system all together.
Again, better than the alternatives that have been tried on a large scale, this I agree with. The best possible system that we are capable of coming up with? No, I think we can do better.
The problem is that everyone is so busy competing with everyone else for their slice of the pie that people don’t step back and think about how they could do things better.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
You are right, they are free to give it to charity. But how many of these huge corporation owners actually contributes a large portions of money to charities or to genuinely help starving people around the world? A statistic that I recently saw said that 16,000 children die every day as the result of starvation, that’s about one every five seconds.
This with all of these big corporation owners making billions of dollars a year (and giving themselves raises whenever possible). So, clearly this system isn’t working all that well when you view things from a large scale perspective.[/quote]
Where is individual responsibility in your ideas?
Why do those who are responsible for themselves now become responsible for those who are irresponsible? If you live in a place where you do not have enough food to eat, would you be having 10 kids that you can’t feed?
What most cannot understand or believe is that people are not the same. There will be those who are always successful and work their ass off to get whatever they want. And there will always be those who do not do anything and are always irresponsible.
Taking money from the responsible group and giving it to the irresponsible group will just create generations of dependant adults who have so skills, no motivation, and are trapped.
So IMO, the only way to address this is to provide opportunities for people, but not a bail out.