Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Relative Slavery
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="acropolis" data-source="post: 56318477" data-attributes="member: 213198"><p>Let me make this absolutely clear: I care only about reducing suffering, not about how it is done. I don't care about the virtue of giving, I only care about helping those who need it. A single hungry child suffers more than a wealthy person who a tiny fraction of his wealth.</p><p></p><p>There are no rights, there is no creator, there is just human suffering. I do not know which system offers the least suffering, but it is certainly not libertarianism.</p><p></p><p>You want to talk about a lack of freedom? What about the child born into poverty? In the libertarian nation, where money is the only way to freedom, this child does not go to school because his parents can't afford it, he doesn't receive medical care, he may not even eat most of the time. She will have no future, no hope of success, even if she survives to adulthood. Her life is worth more than your precious lucre. There is no guarantee with charity, which means that children will certainly slip through the cracks. They already do and there is no law against charitable giving. There are people who have billions of dollars, and yet there are still kids, some of whom I know personally in this school district, who don't have shoes that fit, who do not have winter jackets, who do not eat unless it is at school. That is morally intolerable. Public assistance can guarantee that they do get the material support they need, and their lives are more precious than any dogma related to the sanctity of private property or charity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="acropolis, post: 56318477, member: 213198"] Let me make this absolutely clear: I care only about reducing suffering, not about how it is done. I don't care about the virtue of giving, I only care about helping those who need it. A single hungry child suffers more than a wealthy person who a tiny fraction of his wealth. There are no rights, there is no creator, there is just human suffering. I do not know which system offers the least suffering, but it is certainly not libertarianism. You want to talk about a lack of freedom? What about the child born into poverty? In the libertarian nation, where money is the only way to freedom, this child does not go to school because his parents can't afford it, he doesn't receive medical care, he may not even eat most of the time. She will have no future, no hope of success, even if she survives to adulthood. Her life is worth more than your precious lucre. There is no guarantee with charity, which means that children will certainly slip through the cracks. They already do and there is no law against charitable giving. There are people who have billions of dollars, and yet there are still kids, some of whom I know personally in this school district, who don't have shoes that fit, who do not have winter jackets, who do not eat unless it is at school. That is morally intolerable. Public assistance can guarantee that they do get the material support they need, and their lives are more precious than any dogma related to the sanctity of private property or charity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Relative Slavery
Top
Bottom