4 ms·
That’s fine, but the incongruence comes when one expects unlimited supply of healthcare and a cash payment for decades in old age. Especially if one didn’t rai
by lotsofpulp 10mo ago
That’s fine, but the incongruence comes when one expects unlimited supply of healthcare and a cash payment for decades in old age. Especially if one didn’t raise enough productive kids to pay for it, so then the question becomes if you’re not planning for tomorrow, why are others who are planning for tomorrow paying for your tomorrow?
- nchmy 10mo agonice try ron paul
- lotsofpulp 10mo agoPuzzling reply (assuming ron paul is being used as a pejorative), considering your adjacent comment seems to agree with my sentiment.
- nchmy 10mo agono, not even slightly. Im very much in favour of socializing all sorts of things. Ron paul was used to describe the sort of (seemingly) libertarian "leave me alone, i dont want to know you. please go die" views you espoused.
- lotsofpulp 10mo agoI did not espouse such views. There exist resource constraints in reality which contradict the attitude presented by the post I responded to, unless they were willing to forego those socialized benefits.
- bombcar 10mo agoAs the other comment pointed out; living for today doesn’t mean NOT planning for the future. The key is not assuming that some future date will bring happiness - that is something that has to be found each day.