I think the point is that (although I don’t want to speak for Mufasa) maybe we shouldn’t always need a reason to care for citizens who are in need in this manner?
I mean when you hear we can’t afford healthcare for poor people but we can afford to bailout banks who pay gobs of cash to their highest ranking employees what is one to think? We balk at increasing spending on education because we can’t possibly afford it and it will bankrupt us immediately, but we have plenty of money to bailout airplanes what is one to think? And I’m not saying either of those bailouts weren’t or aren’t necessary.
We belittle people who receive food stamps and call them takers, but we will have zero problem spending billions elsewhere. We’ll tell everyone that tax cuts on the wealthy necessary and that people who aren’t wealthy will receive big benefits from them paying less. But has that played out in reality in the last 50 years?
I can get on board with limited government. I just don’t particularly need people telling me we can’t do things that help people when it seems as if we have few problems economically at the time but the moment we have a crisis all the sudden we have the money to do everything possible. The government shouldn’t do everything and I don’t know that I actually no anyone in real life who think it should.
I believe that is the hypocrisy he was talking about. The ones who call everything the government does socialism but don’t care if billions need to go to farmers over a trade war.
Is that what I’m saying? Are you assuming im for all those other intrusions because society has become accustomed to allowing them?
Personally I believe the individual should decide what’s right for them so long as it doesn’t harm the life, liberty, or property of another. Which is why my original question is what matters in the case of a spreading virus. Where is the line?
I didn’t say you, I didn’t even say I, was in favor of them. I’m saying that it took a few mundane restrictions to make people feel as though we were living in the USSR even though those other, more impactful things, have been here all along.
Sure. We just don’t need to leverage the power of the US Government to do that. The problem is that people have different ideas of what “caring for” someone means.
“I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
True. I think telling people to fuck off that don’t have money for food or health while we have money to rescue companies with multi-millionaires at the helm is the opposite of the “caring for” we need. Maybe I should be caring more about the multi-millionaires?
With such little taxation it’s just a matter of time until we will all want to be Somalians. Just have to give the free market time to work. Kinda like waiting for Mexico to pay for a wall we just need patience my friend!
Without the jack booted thugs taking from them for silly things like roads, schools, hospitals it’s just a matter of time until the libertopia is finalized.
Don’t confuse medical practice of the time with the means by which the bills are paid. Your point was we need government to tax in order to pay for those things.
That seems to be the way the entire world does it so my assumption would be it’s the only current way that works.
If I thought the free market would provide all those things and the vast majority of society would be well off in the system I’d be on board. Considering the vast majority of countries that people want to live in have government I’ll assume it comes with some benefits even if it’s not perfect and requires something no one likes.
About 120 million. No. There were few, with a largely agricultural based economy, many kids worked on their family farm. Not sure, but apparently more educated in 8th grade than the average liberal arts college grad today.