Quote:
|
Originally Posted by runlvlzero
It should be provided to people who work and put in if they choose to participate in something that benefits everyone. Those people with type 1 diabetes working are you know. Part of your National Tribe.
|
I'm not entirely certain what you mean to say. Is it that we'd get a lot more done if everyone worked together and more altruistically? Sure! But that's not how the world works. Perhaps someday, but not now. Individuals and personalities have shaped our society and such a utopia is currently unobtainable.
As technology progresses I absolutely agree with you that perhaps our society would be transformed in such a way that subsidy can be sustained far more efficiently than any individual could hope to achieve himself. Perhaps when 3d farming and robotics progresses to fully automated growhouses we can create food and medical supplies for virtually no cost. Perhaps 3d printing will allow for an incredible revolution in cheap engines. However, those technological steps do not currently exist in a way to meaningfully subsidize in the manner that you propose.
That time is not now for many of the subsidies you propose. Creating many of the subsidies you propose is grossly inefficient.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Millburn
I'm not the model person you should sympathize with, it's the person who can't stay afloat.
|
Which is why I said that few people will argue against a system that provides for those who cannot support themselves meaningfully. How does it help "everyone" when you, an otherwise capable person, is subsidized for something that you are otherwise capable of obtaining?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiddlywinks
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Wow.
|
What's so "wow" about that? I fail to see why we should provide goods to a person that is otherwise capable of earning them while maintaining a comfortable existence.