by KentuckyWildcat » November 5th, 2012, 12:40 am
[quote="Woeler1]I argue and debate politics in a respectful way. Debating everything I do not agree with is not a form of disrespect. It pisses me off that people think namecalling makes them superior. And you can be as much non-europe as you like, but before you do that, ask the poor... Freedom should not include the freedom to starve or live on the street. Help the people, all of them. And as long as there are families without a home, education or any other basic needs, there is something wrong with that. Every human deserves a decent life.
A government for the people. Not a people for the government.
If you deny that everyone in the US deserves a decent life. You're not a society. A society is united, not divided. A society works for each other, not for himself. A society helps the poor and treats the sick, not reject them.
We must stop thinking about the individual and start focussing on society.
I think this society suffers so much from too much freedom, too many rights that allow too many people to be too irresponsible. And that is in one sentence what I think. Call me a fool, not an argument. Call me a European, not an argument. Do I have a different worldview? Sure. Does that mean I should shut up? Nope.[/quote]
Since you believe so strongly against namecalling, remember that the next time you're about to call someone ignorant, delusional, etc. You seem to have a habit of it.
Anyway, to the main point of your argument, we're never going to agree. That's OK because the world would be a boring place if everybody thought exactly alike. I will offer a few counterpoints though.
1. You seem convinced that the US is some sort of disaster zone when that's just not the case. Specifically, your comment about education reveals that you don't know certain things about life in America since children are required by law to stay in school at least until high school. As for your comments about the poor, we do make efforts to take care of them. Poverty still exists of course, but it does in Europe too.
Further, it is quite frankly impossible in country as large and diverse as the US to ensure that everyone is on the exact same footing financially. Even if it was, we'll just have to accept that we have differing opinions of what is fair. To you, fair seems to mean giving everyone the same thing. To me, it isn't fair to take away from people who have earned more in order to prop up those who haven't. Such a system discourages innovation and hard work because individuals lack any incentive. Before you assume that I'm completely callous, I do firmly believe in charity. I just don't think that the government should mandate a redistribution of wealth.
2. I also support the freedom to make bad choices. Simply put, since you seem to be advocating a restriction of freedom to do things you deem "irresponsible". Who gets to decide what qualifies as irresponsible though? The government? History has proven that once a government is granted power over an area of it's citizens' lives, it never gives it back. This could theoretically lead to more and more oppression by an increasingly enpowered government. Quite honestly, if people want to be irresponsible, I'm fine with them suffering the consequences for their own choices rather than expecting the government to pick them up.
Come death. Come suffering. I will not live in fear. In this fleeting life where time escapes us, the path of least resistance is a slow quiet death. I'd rather burn out than fade away.