"No religion is true, but some religion, any religion, is politically necessary. Law and morality are insufficient for the large majority of men. Obedience to the law and to the morals are insufficient for making men happy. […]Law and morality are therefore in need of being supplemented by divine rewards and punishments."
This is why I can't be a "true" libertarian. Some people need government to slap their hand and tell them not to do something.
There-is-no-force if one chooses a particular option and subsequently receives something as a result.
Seriously. That's it.
You can choose undisclosed or private.
Your words are an exaggeration, while I have the sad experience of taking in kids who were sleeping on park benches without enough food to eat.
Not if the price is a surgical and permanent.
I have never said I don't see a problem
The last paragraph has nothing to do with Chris's suggestion of housing and feeding welfare recipients.
Your winky up there, is ghoulish.
Your winky is ghoulish.
Wouldn't it be easier to just cut back the money per child and reduce the incentive? Or would they continue to breed and simply unload the newborns onto the system burdening us further? I'm honestly curious what solutions sound compassionately viable?
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Why do they have to have social workers? I don't get where you are coming from with this. Welfare recipients automatically get a case worker but they don't have social workers unless there is some kind of issue. As it is now, welfare recipients don't live with case workers or social workers, so I don't see why any of that would have to change.
As far as food goes, I'm not sure how much it would cost. I guess food stamps could remain the same.
Let's not forget, these are just scenarios that we are discussing. It's nothing to get worked up about. Feel free to disagree but there's really no need to be "frightened" over conversation and debate. We SHOULD be able to discuss these things.
Case workers/social workers to evaluate who's going in and out of occupancy would be good to have on site, if we are going to be serious about getting people on their feet, rather than warehousing them.
I thought the idea was to take food stamps out of the equation.
Yes, this is just a scenario and we are discussing it and while didn't express fear of this particular solution, I am concerned about putting all welfare recipients in one location, shelter, in a community. So no problem there.
I don't really see the need for this, unless there is some history of neglect/abuse.Case workers/social workers to evaluate who's going in and out of occupancy would be good to have on site, if we are going to be serious about getting people on their feet, rather than warehousing them.
Well, if it would be too expensive, then I would suggest sticking with food stamps.I thought the idea was to take food stamps out of the equation.
I don't think it would be possible to have ALL of the welfare recipients in one community sharing one building. In my town, we have several low-income/Section 8 apartment buildings.Yes, this is just a scenario and we are discussing it and while didn't express fear of this particular solution, I am concerned about putting all welfare recipients in one location, shelter, in a community. So no problem there.