by jlw61 » Mon 08 Sep 2008, 09:48:41
Actually, you forgot the other way of feeding people. Through the generousity of others. In the situation that is being described, the government is the sole decision maker of who get's food and under what circumstances.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')align=center]Giving government money and power is like giving a teenager booze and the car keys.[/align]
Logic dictates that you need to see what government tends to do with such powers. Over the past 50 years, whenever a new law has been passed (look up the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on terrorism) or a right curtailed (look up the history of the 4th amendment then the rest) government tends to push the envelope, to the disadvantage of the citizen.
If government has the right to demand short term sterilization (3 month shots) for the right to eat, then eventually they will have the right to take away the children of those who ask for help. Perhaps even, given the path of recent history, start filling up work farms with the impoverished. That would then end up with the enslaving of large portions of the population for the benifit of the rest. Kind of like how things used to be.
Not a nice scenario and given the history of the world to date, I think it reasonable to say that history proves that government does not play well with others.
The best solution is to take decisions, beyond the basics of governance, away from governement and relegate government to a limited role, such as defending the borders, arresting and prosecuting people who violate the rights of others, and for the most part leaving people alone.
The Plan - Over the next 10 years:
a) Close almost all overseas bases
b) Close about 50% of the domestic bases
c) Cut back the military (while maintaining a
real good deterence)
d) Curtail the powers and duties of a of lot federal departments (see recent news articles for ideas)
e) Quit putting people in jail for victimless crimes and release those accused of same
f) Cut govenment spending by about 50% (all, not just non-discretionary) including all corporate welfare.
g) Eliminate most federal grant programs
h) Roll back RICO, FISA, Patriot Act, etc, etc, etc
i) End the war on terrorism, drugs, and poverty in that order
j) Encourage farming again by eliminate all taxes on single family farms producing food.
k) Eliminate all taxes on households earning under the poverty level
...but I digress.
Not only will this pay off the national debt within a few decades, but there will be a savins of a trillion or so dollars every year. With the wealth created, the public will spend the money in ways that make sense to them. Part of that will be supporting churches and charities of their choice.
The people who should be helping the poor are the churches and charities with no real power other than to say "The kitchen is now open" and "We think you might want to consider something..."
What will happen? Who knows, perhaps man kind really is too stupid to survive, but I can guarantee you that if government is given more control, nothing but misery and death will follow. However, if people are given the freedom to do as they decide, then there is a small chance something good could come from it.
The concept is easy, perhaps too easy: Give freedom a chance.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'N')ope, my "Implied Plan" is nothing like that at all. I figure nature will take care of the problem pretty well, people will just starve if there are too many of them.
I do not place myself in the role of GOD and tell anyone they can or cannot reproduce based on their financial means at a given moment. If it turns out long term their progeny cannot survive because the parents could not provide, so be it. I am a thorough Darwinist this way. I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of exposing an infant on a mountaintop because you cannot provide for it, I have no problem wit the idea of aborting an infant either. Choices individual people make based on their own economics.
Sorry Cash, you cannot get more absolute than I am with respect to human life. I just do not place the responsibility for the choice in the hands of the government, while you do. You want some kind of means test for having children, its absurd and could not be enforced. I will let nature take its course. Children will die if the parents cannot support them. That is the way it IS. Its the way of nature. I accept this as the nature of life on earth, and I do not inject myself into determining who lives and who dies by a means test. That is what you are doing.
Well, thank you for making your thoughts clear - I appreciate that.
In essence then, here is one difference between our thoughts on this - please correct anything with which you disagree:
1. If a woman came to me, as the government, with a child in her arms, on the verge of starvation, I, as the government, would be happy to give her and her child food provided that she first received a shot so she could not make another child.
2. You, as the government, would allow her and her baby to starve.
And in your view, my system would be wrong because I would be "playing God" by "administering a means test" for her reproduction, while your system would be right because you would apply no means test for her reproduction and she, and her baby, would starve.
I gotta say, that is one of the top 5 most bizarre positions I have seen somebody take.
Ever, in all my life.
I do, however, laud you for making it clear.