By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Khan said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Kasz216 said:


The implicatons seem clear... and really only make sense so long as you accept the position that "nobody wants people to die out in the street."


The problem with that statement, is government taking over the job of taking care of people, is going to kill more people in the end then if they just let us do it.

When government was not feeding and housing people, people in this country were not dying in the streets. They were being well fed, well houses, and in much safer environments. A larger portion of this group of people also contributed in some fashion.

It was a much better system. I hate it when people think because I don't want government doing something, that it means I don't want it done (I know that's not you Kasz). 

I'd like some statistics on that, definitely.

I looked, and I cant find any. But I also can't find any that say I am wrong.

But look at it this way: When people feed and housed people, and not governments, they don't put them all in on location. They don't feed them only the cheapest of foods.

150 years ago, if you were hungry and knocked on someones door, they fed you from the food they had in the house. They also might put you up somewhere. Hell if it was an outbuilding in the country, it was safer than today. There was also a lot of exchange of labor for goods.

For example, someone might house and feed you, if you did repairs around the house, or some menial labor that the owner of the food or home didn't want to do.

However, the numbers of people who needed this help was also very small, because the government didn't breed a class of dependent people. No one was going to send you a check every week, so as an American, you made sure you had a skill and a job.

That's not true today.