> Why is it a _bad_ thing that society is the one bearing the cost, instead of an arbitrary purchaser of their labor? Because taxpayers are then paying for com

> Why is it a _bad_ thing that society is the one bearing the cost, instead of an arbitrary purchaser of their labor? Because taxpayers are then paying for companies like Walmart to increase their profits. They are able to reduce their labor expanses because "someone" will pick up their slack. The government should help you when you don't have a job, so that you can have time for education, your kids, or plain healthcare if needed. But if you are active and working, if you spend your day working for someone (either in an office in a 9 to 5, or as a "giggers" chasing the next one during your day), then you should be able to sustain yourself without additional help from the government. Because then employers will expect the gov to step in. They will drive their wages lower, and all the competition will do the same. And when the government is picking up the rest of the bill for everyone in the market, where the fuck should taxes come from? Finally > instead of an arbitrary purchaser of their labor? Labor has a cost. If you are unable to purchase it, then don't. But don't expect others to pay for the labor you would have liked to purchase. This is like saying that just because I'm the arbitrary purchaser of a tuna sandwich, I should get help to pay for it. This is beyond insane. > The notion that this is "subsidizing" purchasers of their labor is Orwellian bullshit. This is pretty ironic that you accuse me of using newspeak, while you expect the state to become the sole responsible party to support basic amenities for its citizen. Because the latter is pretty orwellian, and thus your accusation itself goes in line with the concept of newspeak. Anyway.