4 ms·

> If food is plentiful, then everyone (even "useless" people like, I don't know, myself 28 years ago when I was 18 inches tall) has the right not to go hungry.

> If food is plentiful, then everyone (even "useless" people like, I don't know, myself 28 years ago when I was 18 inches tall) has the right not to go hungry. If we are stranded where is no food, a "right to food" makes no sense because there is no food available. When you are 18 inches tall, you were incapable of work. Are you suggesting that if someone is capable of work, but elects not to work, then others should provide that person food, shelter, etc? edit: Why the down-vote? I am honestly asking for clarification on this view.

michaelochurch 15y ago
What about all those 8-year-olds who are capable of work, but do not? Should we be sending them back into chimneys?
- phren0logy 15y ago
  That's a straw man. Let's say after high school / age 18.
oelewapperke 15y ago
Well you should think like in the article. The article is blaming people for counting on social security and other government handouts instead of saving up and paying for it themselves. The solution to this, of course, is MORE government handouts, more taxes on those who did manage to get a bit of money together. In general boiling down to massively punishing those who did do what the article describes as the ideal. In most socialist parties in Europe this is actually a known tactic : make people screw up their lives, give them crumbs so they live miserable lives but don't have enough incentive to fix things (sometimes people like this die in their home, and it isn't noticed for 2 months. Then everybody's shocked how "society abandoned" these people, when of course it's the exact reverse). Then socialists blame society for "forcing people into unemployment". Massive numbers of people will choose the easy option, no matter how horrible the life it gives. And of course, accepting responsability for your own life is ... not the easy option. So it must be closed off, or you best be prepared for disaster. London was but a warning, like the car burnings of Paris were before. And you can make the mistake of assuming these riots, and car burnings are over, but that's a mistake. What really happens is that there is a constant low-level rioting that's been going on for a decade now. What "set off" the big riot was simply a screwup on the hands of the police. Maybe someone got transferred and their replacement neglected to deploy the police the first night ... whatever. And the people who are on the street every night got their chance, the message spread, and a few thousand people joined the riots, because the first 10 got through the security. Car burnings are a constant menace for 13 years in most French cities, but usually people get caught after 1-5 cars. So most nights, we're talking 5 car burnings over all of France. What happened during the "riots" is simple : some guy burns 10 cars without police intervention, calls his friends. Of course, the solution to this is to force the taxpayer to provide the infrastructure for these groups to become million-members groups, instead of a few thousand member groups like they are today. That's socialism. That's Europe.

michaelochurch 15y ago

What about all those 8-year-olds who are capable of work, but do not? Should we be sending them back into chimneys?

phren0logy 15y ago
That's a straw man. Let's say after high school / age 18.

oelewapperke 15y ago

Well you should think like in the article. The article is blaming people for counting on social security and other government handouts instead of saving up and paying for it themselves. The solution to this, of course, is MORE government handouts, more taxes on those who did manage to get a bit of money together. In general boiling down to massively punishing those who did do what the article describes as the ideal. In most socialist parties in Europe this is actually a known tactic : make people screw up their lives, give them crumbs so they live miserable lives but don't have enough incentive to fix things (sometimes people like this die in their home, and it isn't noticed for 2 months. Then everybody's shocked how "society abandoned" these people, when of course it's the exact reverse). Then socialists blame society for "forcing people into unemployment". Massive numbers of people will choose the easy option, no matter how horrible the life it gives. And of course, accepting responsability for your own life is ... not the easy option. So it must be closed off, or you best be prepared for disaster. London was but a warning, like the car burnings of Paris were before. And you can make the mistake of assuming these riots, and car burnings are over, but that's a mistake. What really happens is that there is a constant low-level rioting that's been going on for a decade now. What "set off" the big riot was simply a screwup on the hands of the police. Maybe someone got transferred and their replacement neglected to deploy the police the first night ... whatever. And the people who are on the street every night got their chance, the message spread, and a few thousand people joined the riots, because the first 10 got through the security. Car burnings are a constant menace for 13 years in most French cities, but usually people get caught after 1-5 cars. So most nights, we're talking 5 car burnings over all of France. What happened during the "riots" is simple : some guy burns 10 cars without police intervention, calls his friends. Of course, the solution to this is to force the taxpayer to provide the infrastructure for these groups to become million-members groups, instead of a few thousand member groups like they are today. That's socialism. That's Europe.