By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What is compassionate about a nation having a welfare system?

TheRealMafoo said:


The only thing that gives us freedom, is limiting the people in power with a set of rules that they must follow. To not care about those rules, is the same as not caring about freedom.

Without them, the country belongs to Washington, not the people. NZ is a total different situation. Ultimately, the Queen of England owns your country.

Sadly today, there is no diference in freedoms in your country and mine. In fact, you have more. That's because it seems many US citizens no longer care about freedom, and are willing to give it up for a country that provides for them. I for one, do care.

I do care about freedom, I just don't see any reason why as a Kiwi I should care about upholding the constitution of a country on the otherside of the world. It's not my business to.

Also the fact that the Queen technically has a lot of powers doesn't mean she does in reality. If she ever were to abuse them we'd be a republic lickity split. Its a comfortable equilibrium we have, we'll let her have a huge amount of powers over us as long as she never actually uses them.



Around the Network
Rath said:
TheRealMafoo said:
 


The only thing that gives us freedom, is limiting the people in power with a set of rules that they must follow. To not care about those rules, is the same as not caring about freedom.

Without them, the country belongs to Washington, not the people. NZ is a total different situation. Ultimately, the Queen of England owns your country.

Sadly today, there is no diference in freedoms in your country and mine. In fact, you have more. That's because it seems many US citizens no longer care about freedom, and are willing to give it up for a country that provides for them. I for one, do care.

I do care about freedom, I just don't see any reason why as a Kiwi I should care about upholding the constitution of a country on the otherside of the world. It's not my business to.

Also the fact that the Queen technically has a lot of powers doesn't mean she does in reality. If she ever were to abuse them we'd be a republic lickity split. Its a comfortable equilibrium we have, we'll let her have a huge amount of powers over us as long as she never actually uses them.

Foreign nationals are still citizens of their country of origin, still have the rights given to them by their government, and still have an obligation to protect these rights. The city I live in (Calgary) tends to get some high profile Americans campaigning in it during presidential elections (rarely the candidates, but sometimes their spouses or other high profile members of their party) because of how high of a concentration of Americans we have in this city; having known some Americans, they still care deeply about the direction their country is taking even though they are not living in it currently.



HappySqurriel said:

Foreign nationals are still citizens of their country of origin, still have the rights given to them by their government, and still have an obligation to protect these rights. The city I live in (Calgary) tends to get some high profile Americans campaigning in it during presidential elections (rarely the candidates, but sometimes their spouses or other high profile members of their party) because of how high of a concentration of Americans we have in this city; having known some Americans, they still care deeply about the direction their country is taking even though they are not living in it currently.


???

I am not an American though, I have never been an American (though I have briefly lived in Canada). My remarks were about me personally not  needing to uphold the US constitution.

My tongue in cheek remark has been more trouble than its worth =P



Rath said:
TheRealMafoo said:
 


The only thing that gives us freedom, is limiting the people in power with a set of rules that they must follow. To not care about those rules, is the same as not caring about freedom.

Without them, the country belongs to Washington, not the people. NZ is a total different situation. Ultimately, the Queen of England owns your country.

Sadly today, there is no diference in freedoms in your country and mine. In fact, you have more. That's because it seems many US citizens no longer care about freedom, and are willing to give it up for a country that provides for them. I for one, do care.

I do care about freedom, I just don't see any reason why as a Kiwi I should care about upholding the constitution of a country on the otherside of the world. It's not my business to.

Also the fact that the Queen technically has a lot of powers doesn't mean she does in reality. If she ever were to abuse them we'd be a republic lickity split. Its a comfortable equilibrium we have, we'll let her have a huge amount of powers over us as long as she never actually uses them.


America having one of the biggest and the most advanced arm forces in the world seems like a good reason.



Can we get this topic back on topic please?

My remark was tongue in cheek and I really have no desire to turn it into a debate about why the entire world should uphold the US constitution.



Around the Network
Rath said:

Can we get this topic back on topic please?

My remark was tongue in cheek and I really have no desire to turn it into a debate about why the entire world should uphold the US constitution.


The actual topic seems cahsed.  I haven't seen anyone really attempt to argue it is compassionate.  Which is odd, because i've seen plenty of people try and make that arguement before.

It's often brought up to try and combat that fact that on average the less likely you are to be for various welfare things, the more likely you are to donate money to charity, and the more likely that said amount of money will be a substantial amount of your earnings.

Same with volenteered work and blood.

 

This is purely as future policy changes by the way.  It's not, people in the US give more to charity then people in sweedon or something.  It's people in the same neighberhoods looking at the same realities.

Some wanting to help out, and others wanting the government to fix it.



Rath said:

Can we get this topic back on topic please?

My remark was tongue in cheek and I really have no desire to turn it into a debate about why the entire world should uphold the US constitution.


I agree you should not feel a need to care about the constitution. But on the same note, that need should carry over to your opinion about the US all together.

You seem to comment a lot on our politics, and I am glad you do, but when you start talking about how you feel the US government should conduct itself, is when you should care about the constitution. 

If you were a Kiwi that never had a comment about American Politics, I would absolutely agree you have no reason to care about any aspect of our government, including the Constitution.



Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

Can we get this topic back on topic please?

My remark was tongue in cheek and I really have no desire to turn it into a debate about why the entire world should uphold the US constitution.


The actual topic seems cahsed.  I haven't seen anyone really attempt to argue it is compassionate.  Which is odd, because i've seen plenty of people try and make that arguement before.

It's often brought up to try and combat that fact that on average the less likely you are to be for various welfare things, the more likely you are to donate money to charity, and the more likely that said amount of money will be a substantial amount of your earnings.

Same with volenteered work and blood.

 

This is purely as future policy changes by the way.  It's not, people in the US give more to charity then people in sweedon or something.  It's people in the same neighberhoods looking at the same realities.

Some wanting to help out, and others wanting the government to fix it.

Seemed like, when asked directly, no one admits that the government doing it is compassion.  However, if you argue politically for there NOT to be more government spending in an area to help the poor, or to cut back, the person arguing this is said to lack compassion.  The argument only seems to come up when used to bash someone's character, rather than how the poor really get helped.  Any discussions about helping the poor should be on the poor, not on those doing the giving or having the call for giving be called back.  I do believe it is fair game to ask someone who says there should be less done by the government to help the poor, exactly what they propose be done.  If there is no answer, or if you get someone replying about my situation that I should go kill myself, so he didn't need to pay tax dollars, then you can question compassion on the part of that person.