joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005 Status: offline
|
I just dont see the OP's arguement holding enough solid matter to make a case. If the person doesnt like their fellow citizens, to the point of causing suffering, onto those citizens; should we not question that person's loyalty and sanity? Is it 'to much' of a burdern on Americans, that they help their fellow citizens out of a rough spot (one they did or did not create)? Its one thing to have a difference of opinion. Its quite another to argue, killing someone's sole means of survival, because the first is a miser. But the OP's post seems to imply, that if the person is accepting financial help from the goverment, then they should not have a say in that goverment. Would this mean, that college students, who get student loans, should not have a say in their goverment, until their loans are paid of? How about those in the military, whom EVERTHING they have, owned, and used, was given to them, by the goverment? Should either group, not have a say in their goverment? According to the OP's arguement: YES! The OP's theory, on the surface sounds like an arguement that a conservative would give. Below the surface, is sounds like an arguement to change the goverment from a Democratic Republic to Monarchy Feudalism. That those who 'work', are consider the 'nobility', and those who dont, are the 'slaves/peons'. After all, can any one of us absolutely and completely, define, 'work'? Such to, that it can be applied to every adult member of society, fairly, and without bias? I highly doubt it. Not without creating intensively HUGE goverment. And the creation of this agency, would cost considerably more money, then simply keeping the system 'as is'. Hence, why I dont see this arguement, even in theory or 'on the drawing board', working if put in to practice.
|