4 ms·

> It wasn't done privately before Of course it was, and still is. It’s done less privately now because the funds that would be given to private resources are c

> It wasn't done privately before Of course it was, and still is. It’s done less privately now because the funds that would be given to private resources are confiscated before they can be given. An excellent example: Catholic charities. > That's why the government programs exist One of the stated goals, but also a reduction of the influence of religious institutions is another. > Just slink off and die' isn't really a workable alternative. This is fallacious; look at the the homeless in SanFran. That’s what our current government programs amount to.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> Of course it was, and still is. It’s done less privately now because the funds that would be given to private resources are confiscated before they can be given. An excellent example: Catholic charities Of course it wasn't, and still isn't. An excellent example: Catholic charities don't help everyone in need, or there would be nobody in need. > One of the stated goals, but also a reduction of the influence of religious institutions is another. What religious institutions do is up to them, but they were failing to achieve the goal before, and they're failing now, so clearly we need public help as well. > look at the the homeless in SanFran. That’s what our current government programs amount to. Where are the Catholic charities solving the problem, then? That's what private assistance amounts to, as well. We can either find a way to increase private assistance, or increase public assistance, until the goal of a true social safety net is achieved. In any case, I'm still not hearing an alternative, and notwithstanding your claim that the following is somehow "fallacious", 'just slink off and die' still isn't really a workable alternative. So propose something better.
- thinkerswell 3y ago
  > Catholic charities don't help everyone in need Neither do state sponsored programs, we’re talking about trade offs here, and I’m saying that Id rather the money not be taken by force and incompetently redistributed just so we can wind up with more of the terrible system we have now. > Where are the Catholic charities solving the problem, then? You mean the ones that aren’t receiving funding because the people are being taxed to hell? I think we’re going in circles and have different ideological starting points. I’ll leave the last word to you.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

> Of course it was, and still is. It’s done less privately now because the funds that would be given to private resources are confiscated before they can be given. An excellent example: Catholic charities Of course it wasn't, and still isn't. An excellent example: Catholic charities don't help everyone in need, or there would be nobody in need. > One of the stated goals, but also a reduction of the influence of religious institutions is another. What religious institutions do is up to them, but they were failing to achieve the goal before, and they're failing now, so clearly we need public help as well. > look at the the homeless in SanFran. That’s what our current government programs amount to. Where are the Catholic charities solving the problem, then? That's what private assistance amounts to, as well. We can either find a way to increase private assistance, or increase public assistance, until the goal of a true social safety net is achieved. In any case, I'm still not hearing an alternative, and notwithstanding your claim that the following is somehow "fallacious", 'just slink off and die' still isn't really a workable alternative. So propose something better.

thinkerswell 3y ago
> Catholic charities don't help everyone in need Neither do state sponsored programs, we’re talking about trade offs here, and I’m saying that Id rather the money not be taken by force and incompetently redistributed just so we can wind up with more of the terrible system we have now. > Where are the Catholic charities solving the problem, then? You mean the ones that aren’t receiving funding because the people are being taxed to hell? I think we’re going in circles and have different ideological starting points. I’ll leave the last word to you.