I Hate Welfare!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
By this sort of Buddhist logic, eating a bowl of rice a day and staring at your belly button is the way to go.

Entropy? That’s how someone with intellect and drive steals from those who have neither? Now I’ve heard everything!! LOL!!!

The lengths that whacked out libs will go to denounce intelligence and achievement!! Entropy!!! ROFLMAO!!!

[/quote]

You clearly missed the point.

All people owe more to the inheritance they receive from their ancestors and their society than they could ever contribute as an individual.

In fact anything they do contribute could said to be possible only because of the efforts of their society and their ancestors that invested in them when they were unproductive.

A society investing in individuals through welfare programs has proven to be easily abused. That doesn’t mean its an invalid or unreasonable practice. Just like it isn’t considered unreasonable to support children even though there is never a guarantee that they will ever amount to a self sufficient productive member of society. Sometimes investments pay off sometimes they don’t. Welfare is a form of insurance and insurance is always a volatile business.

42

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:

It was a general statement, and you took it as a specific one to create an argument. Nice.

Joke is this: Conservatives get angry at poor people who have babies we must support. Conservatives get angry when we try to teach them how to not have babies. Conservatives get angry when we try to prevent babies from being born into a terrible situation.

It’s called irony. And yes, it deserves the term pwnage.[/quote]

  1. This girl (and the fathers) knew sex can lead to pregnancy.

  2. You can’t convince me this girl (and the fathers), in this day and age, were completely unaware of the concept of birth control.

A lack of condoms, birth control, and sex ed., is not the problem. Catholicism, nor conservatism created this mess.

If anything did, it was the liberal ideals of the sexual revolution. Look at the decline in status marriage has experienced in our society. Then, factor in the decline of shame, guilt, sexual mores, and self-restraint we see running rampant in our society and media.

Ah, then there’s that wonderful welfare system. That brilliant system which rewards the most self destructive behaviors…

Those interested might want to look at illegitimate births from 1965 and prior. Then, look from 1965 to the present. Do some googling.

1965: 7.7% of births are out of wedlock
2006: 37%…Nearly 4 out of 10 babies folks…That is not a healthy figure.

Conservatism, religion, and prudishness isn’t to blame. Or, the years and numbers above would be reversed. Sadly, they aren’t.

No, the blame falls on the liberalization of cultural norms and morals. And now taxpayers are stuck paying for the bloated consequences.

43

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

I believe that people don’t realize how much is actually ‘needed’ for military spending. Or anything else for that matter.

How is an everyman supposed to know how much is ‘a lot’ to give to welfare, and how much is ‘a little’? What if he thinks ‘a little’ is 30% of his taxes? What is he thinks giving ‘a lot’ to the military is 30% (way under what we give now)?

That kind of system only makes sense in a nation filled with intelligent, well informed people who truly understand how the spending will effect the nation and care about it, regardless of whether or not it effects their lives. America is NOT such a nation (and neither is any other nation IMHO).

This is the sort of elitism that angers me: “The people are dumb, so let’s simply take what we want.” Yes, I agree that most people are ignorant, don’t care, or what not. But this doesn’t give anyone the right to rob them or rule them ‘for their own good’.

How do we get a nation of well-informed and concerned citizens? By treating them like cattle? Like wards of the state? Nope. You let them choose for themselves. You say: “Its your money. Go and blow it at the races or on lottery tickets if you want. But…want schools, fire departments, cops, and a few Marines to guard your borders? Choose.”

[/quote]

What exactly are you suggesting?

Do you want some type of chaotic anarchy where individuals refuse any type of taxation imposed by an elected legislature and simply donate to their government whatever they want, whenever they want, to whatever suits them?

44

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:

It was a general statement, and you took it as a specific one to create an argument. Nice.

Joke is this: Conservatives get angry at poor people who have babies we must support. Conservatives get angry when we try to teach them how to not have babies. Conservatives get angry when we try to prevent babies from being born into a terrible situation.

It’s called irony. And yes, it deserves the term pwnage.

  1. This girl (and the fathers) knew sex can lead to pregnancy.

  2. You can’t convince me this girl (and the fathers), in this day and age, were completely unaware of the concept of birth control.

A lack of condoms, birth control, and sex ed., is not the problem. Catholicism, nor conservatism created this mess.

If anything did, it was the liberal ideals of the sexual revolution. Look at the decline in status marriage has experienced in our society. Then, factor in the decline of shame, guilt, sexual mores, and self-restraint we see running rampant in our society and media.

Ah, then there’s that wonderful welfare system. That brilliant system which rewards the most self destructive behaviors…

Those interested might want to look at illegitimate births from 1965 and prior. Then, look from 1965 to the present. Do some googling.

1965: 7.7% of births are out of wedlock
2006: 37%…Nearly 4 out of 10 babies folks…That is not a healthy figure.

Conservatism, religion, and prudishness isn’t to blame. Or, the years and numbers above would be reversed. Sadly, they aren’t.

No, the blame falls on the liberalization of cultural norms and morals. And now taxpayers are stuck paying for the bloated consequences.

[/quote]

What do you feel has been the primary factors that have lead to this liberalization of cultural norms and morals in our society?

45

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
By this sort of Buddhist logic, eating a bowl of rice a day and staring at your belly button is the way to go.

Entropy? That’s how someone with intellect and drive steals from those who have neither? Now I’ve heard everything!! LOL!!!

The lengths that whacked out libs will go to denounce intelligence and achievement!! Entropy!!! ROFLMAO!!!

You clearly missed the point.

All people owe more to the inheritance they receive from their ancestors and their society than they could ever contribute as an individual.

In fact anything they do contribute could said to be possible only because of the efforts of their society and their ancestors that invested in them when they were unproductive.

A society investing in individuals through welfare programs has proven to be easily abused. That doesn’t mean its an invalid or unreasonable practice. Just like it isn’t considered unreasonable to support children even though there is never a guarantee that they will ever amount to a self sufficient productive member of society. Sometimes investments pay off sometimes they don’t. Welfare is a form of insurance and insurance is always a volatile business.

[/quote]

What is ‘society’? What are ‘ancestors’? They are abstractions. ‘Society’ never accomplishes anything. Do you means that INDIVIDUALS within a group accomplished something? Who are they and what do they do?

Usually, an individual has to combat the group to accomplish something. The first airplane was laughed at. The telephone was considered a toy. The train was ‘dangerous’ because if a human went faster than 8 miles per hour, all their blood would fly out of their nose.

It is the INDIVIDUAL who works and creates. It is the best of humanity — and you want to enslave them because they 'consume too much energy’and ‘cause too much chaos’. Entropy says that the best of humanity is the most destructive.

The heart of evil…

46

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

I believe that people don’t realize how much is actually ‘needed’ for military spending. Or anything else for that matter.

How is an everyman supposed to know how much is ‘a lot’ to give to welfare, and how much is ‘a little’? What if he thinks ‘a little’ is 30% of his taxes? What is he thinks giving ‘a lot’ to the military is 30% (way under what we give now)?

That kind of system only makes sense in a nation filled with intelligent, well informed people who truly understand how the spending will effect the nation and care about it, regardless of whether or not it effects their lives. America is NOT such a nation (and neither is any other nation IMHO).

This is the sort of elitism that angers me: “The people are dumb, so let’s simply take what we want.” Yes, I agree that most people are ignorant, don’t care, or what not. But this doesn’t give anyone the right to rob them or rule them ‘for their own good’.

How do we get a nation of well-informed and concerned citizens? By treating them like cattle? Like wards of the state? Nope. You let them choose for themselves. You say: “Its your money. Go and blow it at the races or on lottery tickets if you want. But…want schools, fire departments, cops, and a few Marines to guard your borders? Choose.”

Problem: Half the people will spend it on the lottery and crap. The other half will be screwed along with them.
[/quote]

So you DO want to rule then.

Its just like I’ve said — every lib is a fascist and every fascist is a lib.

47

[quote]pat36 wrote:
jawara wrote:
I work hard for my money, I’m in the Army and I’m in a combat MOS. I’ll be going to Iraq for a 3rd time here in a few months. My wife is going to college she doesn’t get any of my education benifits because she isnt in the Army. The cost of putting her through school is tough but I welcome it because in the end it will benefit our family.

Now, what really pisses me off is that the government takes money out of my check to support these 2 losers and their kids. http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070531_lj_twins.17091f2.html

Yup, but the reason welfare exists is because it creates a loyal voting base. Oppression is built on the backs of the poor. Giving hand outs creates dependence and indebtedness. Once you’re on the take, then you are expected to do two things. Stay on the take, and be loyal to the hand that feeds you.

The right thing to do is to end welfare and use the money to create and nurture opportunity. Leave the charity up to the individual and private organizations. But that will never happen. Assholes who want power will keep people on the take rather than help them out of there holes.

In the U.S. it is the democrats who do this, in other places these people become dictators. See Venezuela. [/quote]

I definitely see your point and agree with it.

Welfare should be a goal based investment type system and a form of social insurance that like personal insurance has drawbacks to filing claims.

A society invests in the individual and creates a realistic set of expectations about the behavior of the individual.

If these expectations are not met the government should invest the resources elsewhere, not create some perpetual state of dependency.

Unfortunately you are absolutely correct. It is a concept that is easily abused by both the recipients and the leaders they support.

This still doesn’t mean that welfare is a worthless attempt at social insurance. It does mean that we have not gotten it completely right.

48

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
are ‘ancestors’? They are abstractions. ‘Society’ never accomplishes anything. Do you means that INDIVIDUALS within a group accomplished something? Who are they and what do they do?

Usually, an individual has to combat the group to accomplish something. The first airplane was laughed at. The telephone was considered a toy. The train was ‘dangerous’ because if a human went faster than 8 miles per hour, all their blood would fly out of their nose.

It is the INDIVIDUAL who works and creates. It is the best of humanity — and you want to enslave them because they 'consume too much energy’and ‘cause too much chaos’. Entropy says that the best of humanity is the most destructive.

The heart of evil…

[/quote]

This is an important point.

Most progress was made in spite of society, not because of it, yet somehow we owe “socity” something?

No, we owe the light bulb to Edison and he got paid.

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What is ‘society’? What are ‘ancestors’? They are abstractions. ‘Society’ never accomplishes anything. Do you means that INDIVIDUALS within a group accomplished something? Who are they and what do they do?

Usually, an individual has to combat the group to accomplish something. The first airplane was laughed at. The telephone was considered a toy. The train was ‘dangerous’ because if a human went faster than 8 miles per hour, all their blood would fly out of their nose.

It is the INDIVIDUAL who works and creates. It is the best of humanity — and you want to enslave them because they 'consume too much energy’and ‘cause too much chaos’. Entropy says that the best of humanity is the most destructive.

The heart of evil…

[/quote]

Society

Ancestor

Purposely being obtuse is not lending much to your point.

Saying that society never accomplishes anything and only individuals do is an absurd idea.

It is exactly analogous to saying that only a mouth accomplishes speaking and the rest of the body, much less the rest of the environment that supports the body, contributes nothing to the act.

Never did I say that consuming energy is a crime. And most certainly did I not say the best of humanity should be enslaved for consuming energy. In fact I readily stated that all human progress has so far been dependent on an upper class consuming more than it’s fair share of resources.

I am a realist and recognize that life is in fact UNFAIR and that all attempts to make it fair are doomed to fall short. As a matter of fact the concept of fair and unfair are a much better example of human abstractions with no basis in reality.

Striving after impossible ideals is a vain human fantasy that has the peculiar effect of making humans into better people and achieving great things that would have been impossible otherwise.

Read what I actually post and you will see me stating all this very clearly.

Perhaps you did read it and just have very poor reading comprehension skills.

Either way you still come off as a paranoid that lacks any clear perspective on the integration of an individual within a society. There is a word for such a condition when an individual cell within an organism(society of cells)becomes like this. Cancer.

P.S. My brain clearly uses more resources than its fair share and is the most expensive organ within my body therefore it is surely “THE HEART OF EVIL” and henceforth it will be enslaved to the task of ensuring my intestines receive the fruits of all its hard earned individual effort.

50

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
pat36 wrote:
jawara wrote:
I work hard for my money, I’m in the Army and I’m in a combat MOS. I’ll be going to Iraq for a 3rd time here in a few months. My wife is going to college she doesn’t get any of my education benifits because she isnt in the Army. The cost of putting her through school is tough but I welcome it because in the end it will benefit our family.

Now, what really pisses me off is that the government takes money out of my check to support these 2 losers and their kids. http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070531_lj_twins.17091f2.html

Yup, but the reason welfare exists is because it creates a loyal voting base. Oppression is built on the backs of the poor. Giving hand outs creates dependence and indebtedness. Once you’re on the take, then you are expected to do two things. Stay on the take, and be loyal to the hand that feeds you.

The right thing to do is to end welfare and use the money to create and nurture opportunity. Leave the charity up to the individual and private organizations. But that will never happen. Assholes who want power will keep people on the take rather than help them out of there holes.

In the U.S. it is the democrats who do this, in other places these people become dictators. See Venezuela.

I definitely see your point and agree with it.

Welfare should be a goal based investment type system and a form of social insurance that like personal insurance has drawbacks to filing claims.

A society invests in the individual and creates a realistic set of expectations about the behavior of the individual.

If these expectations are not met the government should invest the resources elsewhere, not create some perpetual state of dependency.

Unfortunately you are absolutely correct. It is a concept that is easily abused by both the recipients and the leaders they support.

This still doesn’t mean that welfare is a worthless attempt at social insurance. It does mean that we have not gotten it completely right.

[/quote]

You mean that some individuals should be forced to support other individuals, that the needs of one person are a claim on the efforts of another.

From the murk and misery of feudalism, from the whole pre-capitalist era, we get this baggage — economic cannabalism.

51

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
are ‘ancestors’? They are abstractions. ‘Society’ never accomplishes anything. Do you means that INDIVIDUALS within a group accomplished something? Who are they and what do they do?

Usually, an individual has to combat the group to accomplish something. The first airplane was laughed at. The telephone was considered a toy. The train was ‘dangerous’ because if a human went faster than 8 miles per hour, all their blood would fly out of their nose.

It is the INDIVIDUAL who works and creates. It is the best of humanity — and you want to enslave them because they 'consume too much energy’and ‘cause too much chaos’. Entropy says that the best of humanity is the most destructive.

The heart of evil…

This is an important point.

Most progress was made in spite of society, not because of it, yet somehow we owe “socity” something?

No, we owe the light bulb to Edison and he got paid.[/quote]

Are you people really this dense?

We also owe the light bulb to Edison’s parents. We also owe it to his third grade teacher. We also owe it to the founders of our nation. We also owe it the guy that delivered his grocery’s and the woman that cooked his lunch. We owe the soldier that defended his borders and the policeman that protected his property. We even owe it to the guy who invented writing and the god damned wheel.

Most progress being made in spite of society is an idiotic concept.

Put Edison alone marooned on an island and see what he produces. If he is lucky he’ll survive past thirty. And even then he will be an illiterate wretch.

And if you think we would still be reading by candle light if Edison had died in child birth all I can say is please bring back science and it’s history into the curriculum of public education.

52

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:

Never did I say that consuming energy is a crime. And most certainly did I not say the best of humanity should be enslaved for consuming energy. In fact I readily stated that all human progress has so far been dependent on an upper class consuming more than it’s fair share of resources.

[/quote]

There’s the dirty little secret to your philosophy. You have a pre-capitalist ethos and mindset. To you, a capitalist is equivalent to some Hindu potentate who robs a few grains of rice from each of his millions of slaves and turns that into jewels for his fingers.

Fast forward to today — suppose that you work as a janitor in a factory. You get the benefits of the brain power of all those above you — the manager who runs the place, the engineers who designed the machines, the investors who built the factory, the scientists who discovered the physical laws to make the product possible, the capitalist who funded everything, and the philosopher (Aristotle) who taught humans wtf logic is.

Workers exploit everyone above them. Do you honestly think that your paycheck is solely a result of your pushing a broom? Try pushing that broom out in the forest and see what you get for your efforts.

53

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
are ‘ancestors’? They are abstractions. ‘Society’ never accomplishes anything. Do you means that INDIVIDUALS within a group accomplished something? Who are they and what do they do?

Usually, an individual has to combat the group to accomplish something. The first airplane was laughed at. The telephone was considered a toy. The train was ‘dangerous’ because if a human went faster than 8 miles per hour, all their blood would fly out of their nose.

It is the INDIVIDUAL who works and creates. It is the best of humanity — and you want to enslave them because they 'consume too much energy’and ‘cause too much chaos’. Entropy says that the best of humanity is the most destructive.

The heart of evil…

This is an important point.

Most progress was made in spite of society, not because of it, yet somehow we owe “socity” something?

No, we owe the light bulb to Edison and he got paid.

Are you people really this dense?

We also owe the light bulb to Edison’s parents. We also owe it to his third grade teacher. We also owe it to the founders of our nation. We also owe it the guy that delivered his grocery’s and the woman that cooked his lunch. We owe the soldier that defended his borders and the policeman that protected his property. We even owe it to the guy who invented writing and the god damned wheel.

Most progress being made in spite of society is an idiotic concept.

Put Edison alone marooned on an island and see what he produces. If he is lucky he’ll survive past thirty. And even then he will be an illiterate wretch.

And if you think we would still be reading by candle light if Edison had died in child birth all I can say is please bring back science and it’s history into the curriculum of public education.
[/quote]

What did Edison provide that all the others did not? Could it have been…thinking? Could THAT be why he was rewarded?

ROFLMAO!!!

Speaking of education, you need to go back to the socialist/fascist idiots who taught you all this crapola you spout and demand a refund.

54

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

This is the sort of elitism that angers me: “The people are dumb, so let’s simply take what we want.” Yes, I agree that most people are ignorant, don’t care, or what not. But this doesn’t give anyone the right to rob them or rule them ‘for their own good’.

How do we get a nation of well-informed and concerned citizens? By treating them like cattle? Like wards of the state? Nope. You let them choose for themselves. You say: “Its your money. Go and blow it at the races or on lottery tickets if you want. But…want schools, fire departments, cops, and a few Marines to guard your borders? Choose.”

What exactly are you suggesting?

Do you want some type of chaotic anarchy where individuals refuse any type of taxation imposed by an elected legislature and simply donate to their government whatever they want, whenever they want, to whatever suits them?
[/quote]

Your view of human beings, as beasts that have to be forced, to be taxed ‘for their own good’, that anarchy will result if we rely on freedom, lies at the root of authoritarianism.

Freedom’s a bitch, eh?

55

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

You mean that some individuals should be forced to support other individuals, that the needs of one person are a claim on the efforts of another.

From the murk and misery of feudalism, from the whole pre-capitalist era, we get this baggage — economic cannabalism.

[/quote]

This “baggage” as you call it of some individuals being forced to support others is actually rooted much further than pre-capitalist. It is clearly rooted in the prehistoric concept of family and tribe the, first human societies.

How shocking that such values might find there way into a modern government.

I mean who could imagine that humans would group together to cooperate and share for mutual benefit and survival and not all of them would be exactly equal in what they contribute to their tribe and family.

Do you also believe that a child has no right to be supported by the efforts of his parents?

I am sure quite a few dead beat fathers would be eager to vote for revoking any trace of such archaic pr-capitalistic baggage from our legislature. After all why should they be forced to make effort on the behalf of another?

56

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:

Never did I say that consuming energy is a crime. And most certainly did I not say the best of humanity should be enslaved for consuming energy. In fact I readily stated that all human progress has so far been dependent on an upper class consuming more than it’s fair share of resources.

There’s the dirty little secret to your philosophy. You have a pre-capitalist ethos and mindset. To you, a capitalist is equivalent to some Hindu potentate who robs a few grains of rice from each of his millions of slaves and turns that into jewels for his fingers.

Fast forward to today — suppose that you work as a janitor in a factory. You get the benefits of the brain power of all those above you — the manager who runs the place, the engineers who designed the machines, the investors who built the factory, the scientists who discovered the physical laws to make the product possible, the capitalist who funded everything, and the philosopher (Aristotle) who taught humans wtf logic is.

Workers exploit everyone above them. Do you honestly think that your paycheck is solely a result of your pushing a broom? Try pushing that broom out in the forest and see what you get for your efforts.

[/quote]

This post has clearly proven my own point. Unfortunately you still fabricate ideas about what I believe and that are contradictory to what I actually say.

Yes slaves exploit their masters and masters exploit their slaves. I fully realize that my intestines work for my brain just as much as my brain works for my intestines.

Your comprehension skills lack any subtlety or perhaps you just blindly respond without even reading all of what I post.

57

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Your view of human beings, as beasts that have to be forced, to be taxed ‘for their own good’, that anarchy will result if we rely on freedom, lies at the root of authoritarianism.

Freedom’s a bitch, eh?

[/quote]

Answer clearly please.

Do you or do you not want a society of elected officials to decide if taxation of individuals to fund the type and scope of policy for our society?

If the answer is no what alternative do you propose?

If the answer is no then why don’t you just get the fuck out because this is a democracy and we have agreed to elect representatives to lead our society.

Rule of majority’s a bitch eh?

Wait and weren’t you also spouting something inane about the roots of authoritarianism?

Yes you are right. Clearly allowing elected reps to legislate taxation is authoritarian rule.

Go on believing in your fairy tails of freedom and that individuals prosper in spite of society trying to ensure they fail. And that humans are not social animals with a social structure including leaders and followers.

Never mind that a society based on your fantasy is impossible and has never existed in human history and likely never will. I guess you missed out on history, civics, anthropology, psychology, and science.

Oh well what could society’s education teach such a specimen as you anyway.

58

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:

This is an important point.

Most progress was made in spite of society, not because of it, yet somehow we owe “socity” something?

No, we owe the light bulb to Edison and he got paid.

Are you people really this dense?

We also owe the light bulb to Edison’s parents. We also owe it to his third grade teacher. We also owe it to the founders of our nation. We also owe it the guy that delivered his grocery’s and the woman that cooked his lunch. We owe the soldier that defended his borders and the policeman that protected his property. We even owe it to the guy who invented writing and the god damned wheel.

Most progress being made in spite of society is an idiotic concept.

Put Edison alone marooned on an island and see what he produces. If he is lucky he’ll survive past thirty. And even then he will be an illiterate wretch.

And if you think we would still be reading by candle light if Edison had died in child birth all I can say is please bring back science and it’s history into the curriculum of public education.
[/quote]

Of course no man is an island but the woman cooking his lunch got paid.

The man delivering his groceries go paid as well as them man defending his countries borders.

All these people were individuals that had contractual obligations they entered on their own free will.

If you somehow conclude that this means that there is an entity called “society” that we owe someting you lose us along he way.

There is no society, there is only the sum of interacting individuals.

59

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:

Never mind that a society based on your fantasy is impossible and has never existed in human history and likely never will. I guess you missed out on history, civics, anthropology, psychology, and science.

[/quote]

It did, less than 100 years ago.

US state quota less than 5%, gold currency, etc.

There is also Hong Kong, Suisse, for the most part of her existence, Great Britain, up to WWI.

Since you have no grasp of history, should we trust your version of " civics, anthropology, psychology, and science."?.

Especially since you should know that whenever states started in the welfare direction and to issue paper currencies they failed, not starting with, but inlcuding, renaissance Italian city states or would that be too much history for you?

60

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:

This “baggage” as you call it of some individuals being forced to support others is actually rooted much further than pre-capitalist. It is clearly rooted in the prehistoric concept of family and tribe the, first human societies.

How shocking that such values might find there way into a modern government.

[/quote]

If you had any idea who Hajek is you`d know that he adressed this long before evolutionary psychology was even a idea.

Yes we have adaptions to work as a group but we also have strong built-in psychological adaptions to prevent other people from taking advantage of us.

Unfortunately these adaptions stop to work if the group gets so large that direct social pressure is no longer possible.

To build a million people society with the instincts of an ape that lived in groups of up to 200 is impossible, your herd instincts fool you.

Not that there should not be artificial “herds”, it just should not and cannot be the state that provides them.

Because if it does, the results are indeed shocking.