TheRealMafoo said:
SamuelRSmith said:
TheRealMafoo said:
I am for pure capitalism, with government stepping in to do what government is supposed to do. protect people.
For example, they should make sure a drug does not kill you, or an appliance does not burn down your house. They should not make sure you can somehow afford that drug, or that appliance. |
To play devil's advocate, the Government isn't really protecting you if you can't afford the drug, in some sort of sick way, they're just protecting those who can afford to be protected.
And job losses can have a really negative effect on people's mentality. It's a well known fact that crime levels are higher in areas with higher unemployment, surely the Government is putting your life in danger if it's not protecting other people's jobs.
|
Sorry, but that's poor logic. If a Volvo is the safest car in the world, I could argue that the government is murdering people because they do not force you to drive a Volvo. This is the argument your making.
A country that pays people to not commit crimes, is a country with something fundamentally wrong.
|
Isn't that what your in support of, though? A Government that protects people.
Seems a bit nanny-stateish, to me.
(Yes, I know it's not actually what your in support of, but all Governments serve to protect, they just have different ways of going about it. Our Government, for example, protects people by giving them welfare).
