Why I choose responsibility over catering to everyone's specific wants

a reply to: mOjOm

This post is not as broad as you are making it, but I'll clarify.

I am very against the ways in which the government uses our money.

I believe that they are a reflection of the citizens.

The motto of America seems to be "do what you want, and if you mess up, the Fed will save you"

From business bail outs to people taking advantage of social programs they don't need. I'm making a point that irresponsibility doesn't trickle down from the top.

Funding wars based on greed is a much more heinous act than social programs, but the mentality is the same. No accountability, no responsibility. Do what you want, and have someone else pay the price.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Let's see if you can give me the exact reason that taxes taken from my check should go to those people, though. Less emotion, more logic.

This is a good question though and you deserve an answer.

One good reason is because if that money wasn't going to them local economies would crash everywhere as all the money would be in the hands of very few people and they don't spend enough of it to keep things going. All that food stamp money goes right back into the system at a local level. Those people are buying food and items that are needed to survive. Food stamps don't buy beer, or smokes either BTW. There are restrictions on what you can buy with food stamps. It's because of that redistribution of wealth that keeps the economy going. Nobody stores their food money. It get's spent every month keeping people fed, keeping people employed and keeps the money moving and changing hands which is needed or everything crashes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm pretty powerless as a person. I could impact local laws, possibly help shape state laws, but I can't change an entire nation. I suppose this could have very well been posted on the rant forum, due to the lack of a solution.

It's more an observation.

The government does whatever they want, and other people pay the price.

Some people do whatever they want, with others paying the price.

The mentality is rampant and does not just exist in presidents, senators and congressman.

And on both accounts, you have people defending both their party of the government, and citizens with that mentality. Both are wrong.

I suppose to be more clear, my point is - this mentality is what I believe is destroying our country, and this mentality is a lot more wide spread than some seem to think.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Well, I won't argue that irresponsibility and corruption are a problem. However I think your attention should really be on those who are really abusing the system the most and not the ones barely scraping by.

Sure there is some abuse in the Gov. aid system. But most people taking assistance do use it because they need it. Bankers who almost crash the economy and get bailed out without a care in the world are far more dangerous than some guy getting $130 a month in food credits.

a reply to: mOjOm

Thank you for the answer, it's refreshing to see a lack of emotion, and a surplus of logic. That is something I can more or less understand, and support.

a reply to: mOjOm

I suppose my first post is more about the mentality of people who support, without question, without reservation or thought, all habits, vices, all acts of irresponsibility.

Each individual in need of help is their own person, and may or may not have the right mentality.

But there's millions that will fight for the "right" to be as irresponsible as a person sees fit, and want social programs to cover all mistakes made.

This mentality seems to fuel agendas, and maintain our government as it is. So long as someone promises money will go to this agenda and that, or that this social program and that will be funded, they continue to have public support. They can continue to fuel their own wars and money making projects, because people are happy they have theirs.

I think many responders to this thread have attempted to deflect from the OPs question. If I understand the OP, he is asking why he (society) should be made to pay for the irresponsible life choices of others (regardless of gender).

I agree with the OP that we should not be made to pay from our pockets to support other people who live irresponsibly. The disconnect usually comes because of a difference in world view.

I see myself as a free man who. Is responsible for the good and bad outcomes of my own decisions. Krazy and his ilk see us all a equally sharing the responsibility for each other through what they consider an evolved society.

My problem is I don't want or need society to take care of me. Part of being free...in truly living...is being personally responsible and taking some risks in life. Society and Government take that from us and suck the meaning and freedom from me in an effort to protect the collective.

I just want the choice to live a free man in a voluntary society.

a reply to: deadlyhope

As a society we should certainly try and reward good behavior more and concentrate on the bad behavior less. We have a habit of rewarding Greed, Arrogance, Selfishness, Pride, etc. Which isn't a good idea and will only make things worse over time.

To some degree you also have to allow people to do stupid stuff. That's how we all learn what to do, or at least that is the idea anyway, some people of course never learn. But most people usually figure out what to do if you allow them the chance to fall a few times and get back up again.

a reply to: Metallicus

Thank you! It seems you directly interpreted my post - though I do admit to lacking eloquence, and showing an amount of ignorance in my first post.

I agree with you, though. I just want to live my own life. I don't want to rely on others, and I don't want others to rely on me ( involuntarily, both ways)

Though what others post certainly is true. The government being irresponsible with wars and weapons and bail outs and such is much worse than society funded things like food stamps, and such.

I just wish I could imagine that every person who asked for any help actually needed it. Not according to my opinion, but according to their own capacity to make choices that would put them in better situations, financially, and otherwise. I realize I cannot measure that capacity, but I do see how it's become a social issue - to fund those in need, without "judgement" as some call it.

"judgement" has become a much worse term than it really is. It's not religious, or has anything to do with morality - it has to do with summarizing a person's experience and begging the question - should they be expected to do better?

My answer, aimed at the government, myself, and as far as I can tell, some others? Is yes.

( myself being a self-judgement that I don't ask assistance, but I could contribute more in various ways)

a reply to: mOjOm

Good point. Positive and negative reinforcement - laws and restrictions, social programs and different forms of aid.

I wouldn't want the job of finding a good balance, though. Especially when it's politically incorrect to deem someone's lifestyle as bad, regardless of what they do.

Entitlement.. What a person believes they deserve. How would we shape it? How can you define what each individual deserves?

originally posted by: Metallicus

I just want the choice to live a free man in a voluntary society.

The trouble though is that you only want to voluntarily participate in the benefits of society but when it comes to making a contribution to that society that's when you want to be free from it. But it doesn't work that way. You can't just drive on the roads society provides without giving a little something to help build them for example.

Society creates an environment where you can move about safely and with ease by creating an environment with laws, law enforcement, traffic lights, roads, etc. But if it was completely voluntary whether or not anyone helped fund those things do you think they would be here??? Maybe, maybe not. But also who would organize it??? Who and how would it be funded???

a reply to: deadlyhope

Finding the right balance is obviously the tricky part. Especially when there are examples that come in every form possible. There are people who get assistance while working at the same time because their job doesn't pay enough. WalMart for example is known for this which seems strange. That one family is worth more money than almost 50% of the rest of the country combined. Think about that. Approx. 10 people in one family have the same wealth as approx. 150 million people combined. Yet for some reason they pay their employees so little that they can still get Gov. assistance and are actually encouraged to do so by Walmart.

So they rake in all that money and get away with paying their employees so little that they qualify for assistance money which is then paid for by taxpayers. Something isn't right in that economic model IMO.

Another way to look at it is to see money as being equal to energy or electricity for example. Think of dollars as electrons. Stored money or Wealth that has accumulated in one place is like a battery. It stores that energy for use later on. So when you want a device to do something it draws from that battery and does whatever it does. It creates activity. Without that energy however it just sits there and does nothing. Same with money.

As long as it sits in one place it doesn't do any good. It doesn't change hands, which means no action is created. It's just stored. Now, you wouldn't hook an entire power plant to run just one fan, right??? It would be over kill as there is no way just one device is going to use that much energy. You distribute it out so you can run a fan and a fridge and everything else too. Same with money. The Walton's can only use so much of that wealth which means their power surplus of wealth just sits there and so does society because it has no electrons (dollars) changing hands creating activity.

It's no wonder they call money currency???

a reply to: mOjOm

Oh, I've had my own thoughts on economic models, considered making posts but things about taxes and law and such are in vain more than anything.

Combining fair and flat taxing, removing most write offs, requiring patents to be super specific, and limit their ability to deny competition, supporting small businesses like our nation depends on it, taxing imports higher... A good combination of those would seem to heal a lot of the business and financial problems . limiting the terms of judges, senators, and congressman.. But.. There would also be a lot of powerful, angry people.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Metallicus

I just want the choice to live a free man in a voluntary society.

The trouble though is that you only want to voluntarily participate in the benefits of society but when it comes to making a contribution to that society that's when you want to be free from it. But it doesn't work that way. You can't just drive on the roads society provides without giving a little something to help build them for example.

I appreciate you actually discussing the issues and having a well thought opinion. I felt like some posters were being deliberately obtuse or deflecting in an effort to avoid the OPs question. It happens to me all the time so I felt bad for him.

I agree with you to an extent and I am not certain how to resolve the issue. Since society is always going to have its hooks into us in the long run I suppose I simply attempt to minimize its incursion into my life.

a reply to: Metallicus

Personally I believe in city and county governments having a lot of power. The state having quite a bit and the Fed having a very small amount. That way, America would be diverse, have different ideologies all over the place, and you could live in places that cater to your desires. There would certainly be places that tax less, but give less. And others that tax more, but give more.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Metallicus

Personally I believe in city and county governments having a lot of power. The state having quite a bit and the Fed having a very small amount. That way, America would be diverse, have different ideologies all over the place, and you could live in places that cater to your desires. There would certainly be places that tax less, but give less. And others that tax more, but give more.

You sound dead on my philosophy. I believe in minimizing Government intrusions into our lives...especially at the Federal level.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm pretty powerless as a person. I could impact local laws, possibly help shape state laws, but I can't change an entire nation. I suppose this could have very well been posted on the rant forum, due to the lack of a solution.

I agree with you there. It SHOULD have been posted in the rant forum.

It's more an observation.

The government does whatever they want, and other people pay the price.

Some people do whatever they want, with others paying the price.

The mentality is rampant and does not just exist in presidents, senators and congressman.

And on both accounts, you have people defending both their party of the government, and citizens with that mentality. Both are wrong.

I suppose to be more clear, my point is - this mentality is what I believe is destroying our country, and this mentality is a lot more wide spread than some seem to think.

Our country isn't being destroyed... It is just as functional as it has ever been. You may not like the directions it is heading it, but that doesn't mean that we are on the verge of collapse.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So we are not crazy in debt, we have not been facing more social and race issues than ever, the unemployment rate is just dandy, poverty is being battled against....?

Me thinks out country is worse off than some think so.

But better off than others depict.

Collapse is a big word. It's more like.. Slowly sinking. But things could change so it rapidly sinks. Or things could change so it rises once more.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So we are not crazy in debt,

The debt to GDP ratio isn't that bad. It's been worse, but it has actually dropped over the last few years.

we have not been facing more social and race issues than ever,

It's called the internet; it's a lot easier to get your opinions out there to be heard no matter who you might be.

the unemployment rate is just dandy,

The unemployment rate IS dandy. Have you checked it out lately? It's at 5.1%. And before you try to counter about people not particpating in the workforce, U6 is also a lot lower than it used to be. See

poverty is being battled against....?

Poverty has been battled against since forever. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Me thinks out country is worse off than some think so.

Methinks you haven't actually researched your opinion very thoroughly.

But better off than others depict.

Collapse is a big word. It's more like.. Slowly sinking. But things could change so it rapidly sinks. Or things could change so it rises once more.

Or you are just repeating Republican rhetoric without fact checking it first.