Ppl for smaller government, how would you deal with this problem v.-30 below

Thorgrim · 02-05-2007, 04:40 PM

Millions of homeless people are dependant on shelter being set up, usually through national organizations, usually dependant if not run by the government

If you do nothing, many children and old homeless men and women will die slow painful deaths in the cold

If you do local charities, their lack of organization can never help such a large region totally overwhelmed

Even a large charity could not deal with these types of situations, if they came close they'd be so bureocratic it'd basically be like a federal institution

Jas0n · 02-05-2007, 04:47 PM

I wouldn't "deal with that problem" if it costs so much as a dime. Nobody is responsible for those homeless people but them, which means I'm not going to riflebutt money out of taxpayers to keep freeloaders afloat for another winter. If individuals feel some sense of compassion for the homeless, they can do what they see fit financially or in service, but to obligate the entire nation in the form of tax expenditure would be tantamount to blaming every working man and woman for the condition that those homeless people face. Not only is that bad economic policy, it's just plain ridiculous.

lew · 02-05-2007, 04:48 PM

Private organizations

Scrum · 02-05-2007, 05:08 PM

We should just let a bunch of bears loose in the cities and have the homeless wrestle them for their hides.

They could wear the fur, eat the meat and we could broadcast it on PPV with the money going to the people who paid for the bears to be there.

It's win/win/win for the free market!

Thorgrim · 02-05-2007, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

I wouldn't "deal with that problem" if it costs so much as a dime. Nobody is responsible for those homeless people but them, which means I'm not going to riflebutt money out of taxpayers to keep freeloaders afloat for another winter. If individuals feel some sense of compassion for the homeless, they can do what they see fit financially or in service, but to obligate the entire nation in the form of tax expenditure would be tantamount to blaming every working man and woman for the condition that those homeless people face. Not only is that bad economic policy, it's just plain ridiculous.

You do realize its impossible for everyone to be employed? Also disasters happen like Enron where people lose their life savings

You would really sit by and watch your fellow americans die...veterans who served...public servants etc...

Scrum · 02-05-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You do realize its impossible for everyone to be employed? Also disasters happen like Enron where people lose their life savings

You would really sit by and watch your fellow americans die...veterans who served...public servants etc...

Stop appealing to emotion.

Everyone knows money is the only important thing in the world.

Thorgrim · 02-05-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We should just let a bunch of bears loose in the cities and have the homeless wrestle them for their hides.

They could wear the fur, eat the meat and we could broadcast it on PPV with the money going to the people who paid for the bears to be there.

It's win/win/win for the free market!

and we could use that money to eliminate taxes!

lew · 02-05-2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We should just let a bunch of bears loose in the cities and have the homeless wrestle them for their hides.

They could wear the fur, eat the meat and we could broadcast it on PPV with the money going to the people who paid for the bears to be there.

It's win/win/win for the free market!

lew · 02-05-2007, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You do realize its impossible for everyone to be employed? Also disasters happen like Enron where people lose their life savings

You would really sit by and watch your fellow americans die...veterans who served...public servants etc...

Enron is the exception, not the rule.

Liberals typically speak of Enron type corporations like they happen every day, when in fact, they hardly happen at all.

Jas0n · 02-05-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You do realize its impossible for everyone to be employed? Also disasters happen like Enron where people lose their life savings

You would really sit by and watch your fellow americans die...veterans who served...public servants etc...

Your first statement is false in theory, and only true in practice because not everyone has the will to work for what they perceive as what they need. Or maybe your first statement is true, insofar as someone has to do the employing. In either case, there's no argument that some invisible force holds people back from providing for themselves. Where did you pick that nonsense up?

Yeah, people lose their "life savings" when they invest it someone and that someone happens to not turn out to be as profitable, for any reason at all, as hoped. But here's the funny thing about that. That isn't called a "life savings." That's called "gambling." And while it often works out in peoples' best interests -- such is the beauty of capital investment -- you should never lose sight of the fact that indeed that is nothing more than a gamble. You put all your money into Enron? You put all your chips on red? Whoops. So tell me how it is that a person's unfortunate gambling losses have all of a sudden become everyone's problem for which to compensate?

Finally, yes, I would sit by and watch them die, as we watch them die every day, whether that's cold and in the street or warm and in a hospital bed. Death is a part of life, and it's unavoidable, really. Some are able to stave it off longer than others, but prolonging life takes work ... whether that's work to generage something edible, or work to afford medical treatment, or work to build a home ... why should the efforts one person makes to insure their own comfortable existence be stolen and handed off to someone else? Do you see how discouraging that must be for those who are willing or able to tend to their own needs?

Jas0n · 02-05-2007, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We should just let a bunch of bears loose in the cities and have the homeless wrestle them for their hides.

They could wear the fur, eat the meat and we could broadcast it on PPV with the money going to the people who paid for the bears to be there.

It's win/win/win for the free market!

Bullshit. Who do you think pays for the capture, control, and release of those bears? TAXPAYERS.

7960 · 02-05-2007, 05:28 PM

Why do I work at all? Why can't I just sit back and demand $0.01 from every other american? Why do I need to pay for my house? Why can't I force everyone else to pay for it? Why does *ANYONE* need to take responsibility for himself when everyone else is going to pay?

And a question for people who think it's ok to take my money to pay for someone else: do you pay extra at tax time? Do you take all the deductions? Do you have disposable income after you pay your bills? Do you have a TV and cable/satellite?

Because if you do then you're a hypocrite.

Scrum · 02-05-2007, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Bullshit. Who do you think pays for the capture, control, and release of those bears? TAXPAYERS.

We have a private company to do that you silly communist.

Kytro · 02-05-2007, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

I wouldn't "deal with that problem" if it costs so much as a dime. Nobody is responsible for those homeless people but them, which means I'm not going to riflebutt money out of taxpayers to keep freeloaders afloat for another winter. If individuals feel some sense of compassion for the homeless, they can do what they see fit financially or in service, but to obligate the entire nation in the form of tax expenditure would be tantamount to blaming every working man and woman for the condition that those homeless people face. Not only is that bad economic policy, it's just plain ridiculous.

Don't complain too much about the crime rate then.

JSmythe · 02-05-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Private organizations

Thorgrim · 02-05-2007, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Your first statement is false in theory, and only true in practice because not everyone has the will to work for what they perceive as what they need. Or maybe your first statement is true, insofar as someone has to do the employing. In either case, there's no argument that some invisible force holds people back from providing for themselves. Where did you pick that nonsense up?

Yeah, people lose their "life savings" when they invest it someone and that someone happens to not turn out to be as profitable, for any reason at all, as hoped. But here's the funny thing about that. That isn't called a "life savings." That's called "gambling." And while it often works out in peoples' best interests -- such is the beauty of capital investment -- you should never lose sight of the fact that indeed that is nothing more than a gamble. You put all your money into Enron? You put all your chips on red? Whoops. So tell me how it is that a person's unfortunate gambling losses have all of a sudden become everyone's problem for which to compensate?

Finally, yes, I would sit by and watch them die, as we watch them die every day, whether that's cold and in the street or warm and in a hospital bed. Death is a part of life, and it's unavoidable, really. Some are able to stave it off longer than others, but prolonging life takes work ... whether that's work to generage something edible, or work to afford medical treatment, or work to build a home ... why should the efforts one person makes to insure their own comfortable existence be stolen and handed off to someone else? Do you see how discouraging that must be for those who are willing or able to tend to their own needs?

Uh, economics 101
natural rate of unemployment

ask your fellow libertarians, the correct answer to my question is "well they shoulda saved, and if they didnt its their own damn fault! rar! lincoln sucks"

Jas0n · 02-05-2007, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Don't complain too much about the crime rate then.

Complain about it? There are laws in place that prohibit certain activities... if people break those laws, they're to be punished. If you're suggesting we perform some wealth redistributive maneuvers in order to prevent crime, you are in essence trying to prevent theft by committing it. I am in favor of letting the crime happen if it must, and then punishing people for it handily, rather than committing the crime with governmental backing and perpetrating a system that presents itself as a threat to everyone who works for what they earn. How about you? Are you in favor of crime as a crime deterrant?

JSmythe · 02-05-2007, 06:55 PM

I just don't understand how a being that is supposed to be by definition all-loving and all-merciful would let anyone go to hell. Surly no action, not even Hitler's, is enough to warrant an eternity in a hell-type place.

Jas0n · 02-05-2007, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Uh, economics 101
natural rate of unemployment

ask your fellow libertarians, the correct answer to my question is "well they shoulda saved, and if they didnt its their own damn fault! rar! lincoln sucks"

The NRU refers to people who are fired, laid off, in transitional periods between jobs, things like that -- not people that we generally consider "homeless." The Natural Rate of Unemployment isn't an excuse for homelessness, it's simply an observation about the constantly-shifting job market. Economics 101 indeed.