| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> Except no one is talking about x-box'es
> and no one expects the state to provide x-boxes on welfare.
> But had Fred Bloggs Jr been hungry because of the lack of income to buy
> food, he most certainly would have been cared for by the state.
Not necessarily "would have" in all cases, and most assuredly not "should have".
It is *not* the duty of the state to ensure that everyone is cared for. That
your state has chosen to do that (the will of the majority imposed on all
funds it) doesn't mean that it is correct. Merely defacto.
Therefore my argument stands whether the example is using x-boxes or food.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKou8D.K9v@lugnet.com... (...) I don't think your argument stands one bit. You were trying to use this as justification as to why Iraqi children should suffer, because of the crimes (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKKrsr.651@lugnet.com... (...) Except no one is talking about x-box'es and no one expects the state to provide x-boxes on welfare. But had Fred Bloggs Jr been hungry because of the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
