Social safety nets are ideological slavery

Social safety nets promote the concept that individuals must rely on government in order to survive. Those who buy into this concept become cognitive slaves to the government and provide political affluence to their handlers.

Much as masters in the 1800s talked of their slaves as "family" who they look after and took care of like family, politicians who believe in welfare speak of taking care of those in "need" because they care about them, as if they could not survive on their own. Just like the real purpose of slaves was to provide the proverbial cotton, modern slaves provide votes to those who have caused their false economic slavery.

Even if I am wrong about the ideological basis, as I do believe that welfare promoters think they are doing the right thing, it does not negate the fact that these politicians are buying the votes of some citizens by taking the money of other citizens and convincing everyone that it is moral.

I should mention that slave masters also used to place themselves on the moral highground by believing that what they were doing is right, taking care of those who they believed couldn't take care of themselves.

 

I'd say taxes are. 100% tax is just flat out slavery. How is 45% that much better?

Even the plantations offered food and board.

 

If government can not help citizens out when they need it the most why to have a government in the first place ?

Citizens voting for free stuff are individualists looking after their interests .

 

I agree. I say that taxes should be optional........But, at the same time, if you choose not to pay them, you get no money or aid from the government, and are not allowed to use any programs that are paid by taxes.

No public schools, you are billed for using public roads, no SS/Medicare, no welfare/unemployment, etc.....

 

So, having help when you lose your job or get hurt and can't work or pay for your hospital bills - that's slavery? derp.

 

Do yourself a favour mate and read 'Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America' by Gilbert King. Set in the 1940s.

Then get back to us.

 

Social safety nets promote the security of a society.

In modern societies government exists in order to protect society and the individuals who compose society as they are – in a modern society – unable to protect themselves and to provide for themselves as if they lived in an agrarian society.

 

Yup, let's just keep kids stupid or dead because their parents can't afford to pay taxes. Sounds like a great third world nation.

 

I don't believe for one second that the majority of welfare pimps are supporting it for sincere reasons of aid. They are buying perpetual votes.

 

No, lets make the parents fork over the money to send them to expensive private schools, since they did not pay their fair share of the costs of public schools.

 

I personally believe the tax system is set up in a way that is definitely skewed to a big government agenda. I have problem with the concept of taxes, unless they are funding unconstitutional efforts (like the department of education etc.). The 16th amendment does allow individual income tax by the federal government, however.

I'm not sure if I agree that races are slavery. You would have to make a more elaborate argument correlating taxes to slavery in order for me to congee to a conclusion regarding your statement.

 

Read the Constitution. It clearly states the purpose of government.

No one ever votes for "free" stuff. Things of value do not just manifest themselves at the winds of a vote. The "free" things you speak of were voted away from one person to give to another, i.e. stealing. Furthermore, citizens voting things to themselves is collectivist theft, not individual efforts seeking rational self-interests.

 

Yes, it is. I already stated why. Derp.

 

Helping someone in need is completely different from making a person dependent on you. Citizens voting for "free stuff", are not looking after their best interests because in reality, they are making themselves dependent on the government. Additionally, nothing that a government gives to citizens is "free" as it is paid for by citizens who pay taxes.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, and you feed him for life. In other words, don't give things to people, give them the knowledge to acquire those things on their own. That is how you help them.

 

No, it is charity, and the government should not be involved in charity.

 

Probably you didn't get my political message , what i mean is that the masses can redistribute the wealth with their vote and this is what they will do from now on.

 

Hence the hard push by a 20% ideological cohort
to legitimize tens of millions of uneducated, low skilled illegals....

precious few of whom will ever earn enough to eclipse qualifying thresholds for EITC wage subsidies, Section 8, EBT, food stamps, WIC, Obamacare subsidies, utilities subsidies...

If they actually cared about "helping" the "poor", they'd be focused on the indigenous fauna.....not trying to import and legitimize a voracious invasive species.

 

Seems fair.

 

I completely agree you. I believe that people will vote for what they believe to be is in their best interest, and sadly, many people believe that wealth redistribution is in their best interest.

 

Some prefer the savage practice of the old and sick being dishonored and prefer being Fair I Sees, and some want economic parity which is being a brother’s keeper. Some will not be happy until the urchins are living in a wooden elephant in the square of a Dickens novel or have no ability to accumulate capital for great inventions and wealth creation… They are two sides of an evil coin.

 

Not to the lazy bums who (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) aboout taxes. They want to be given a free ride, being allowed to not pay a cent while still having full access government programs.

 

Like nearly every other liberal, you do not see the fallacy in an argument which insinuates that, just because conservatives do not believe the federal government is the answer, we want the destitute to remain destitute. Should they perish, may it be due to their labors that raise them from stagnate condition in which the current system currently binds them.

I digress, your argument is flawed and based on an invalid assumption.

 

I'm more concerned with what should be in the constitution than what is. A constitutional amendment would be fine if required.

Slavery is using force to have someone work without reward, is it not? Tax takes away your reward by threat of force, how is that much better?

Sure, they'll give you public housing and keep you alive, but they take so much more from you than that.

 

Giving money to Government for the sake of Charity is like giving money to a charity that brags "Up to 20% of our proceeds go to the needy!"

It's slavery, because the Government is out for itself, and supply & demand can't temper it to be honest. If you remove it from a limited frame, the mechanism we created to serve us instead becomes our ruler.

 

I am a Constitutionalist, and I try not to concern myself with the 'what ifs' in terms of the Constitution.

I can't say that all taxes are synonymous with slavery. Federal revenue is required to run the legitimate parts of government. I can agree that it is slavery in its current form, however.