Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

if people care about them (which they should), they should voluntarily pay to an organization that helps poor people in court. So a private organization that is voluntarily funded can do what the government does now.

Levitate's Utopia ..... :/

Interesting new docu about charity can't handle the hunger problem in the US: www.hungerisunacceptable.com (incl interview with the makers)

This is the reality, not some unrealistic idea how it should be but never will be.

"Hunger is unacceptable" is a utopian statement. It would mean that if somebody sits on the street without any attempt to find a job, he should get food by the government. For as long as he lives. Crazy.

What else is there, "No roof is unacceptable" and "No healthcare is unacceptable"?

Yes, you got that right. All these are unacceptable. It doesn't need to be luxurious but it needs to be there for the less fortunate people. It doesn't need to be unconditional meaning that the people need to make efforts according to their own abilities to secure their own health, food and shelter. But this needs to be secured by the state. Social security is primary function of the state.

Rubihno rulz.

Would u become our president? Our Basescu is nothing compared to u.

Je m'amuse en lisant tes commentaires hilares

It doesn't need to be unconditional

So the value you defend here is not that nobody should die from hunger? Because if that was the value you were defending, it would be unconditional.

Social security is primary function of the state.

(Rule of) law and order is the primary function of the state. Even if you defend social security, social security comes after law and order.

the banks since it is not like any other company that can go bankrupt and not disbanded the universe, should be either only public (and those who want to invest to make it to the real economy and not to the interest and casinos market), or be under strict state control ...
The party of the super-profits to spend when the bubble grows and instruct the taxpayer to pay when burst must immediately stop!

The HAIRCUT more than 100mm is the medium of injustice in that depositors are more responsible by taxpayers at least ...!

So the value you defend here is not that nobody should die from hunger? Because if that was the value you were defending, it would be unconditional.

No. I am defending a value that if a person asks from the state to give him some kind of food, shelter and healthcare that he needs in order to survive and that he's not able to acquire for himself, the state should provide. That means providing social security.

(Rule of) law and order is the primary function of the state. Even if you defend social security, social security comes after law and order.

I agree. They are both primary functions but law and order definitely has a higher priority.

Here's a nice summary of basic purposes of a government.

Vive La Belgique walonne

I am defending a value that if a person asks from the state to give him some kind of food, shelter and healthcare that he needs in order to survive and that he's not able to acquire for himself, the state should provide.

So you have no problem with letting somebody die of hunger (from the government's POV) if he could have acquired the food if he had searched for a job (given he is a valuable asset and would have found a job if he searched for one)?

Here's a nice summary of basic purposes of a government.

I beg to differ.

So you have no problem with letting somebody die of hunger (from the government's POV) if he could have acquired the food if he had searched for a job (given he is a valuable asset and would have found a job if he searched for one)?

No. The part about "if not able to acquire" is more of a guidance and not a rule. Who can determine if someone is really able? Nobody. This part is aimed at the obvious situations and potential manipulations meaning that you can't come to collect your free food, shelter and healthcare from the state in your Porsche and wearing a Rolex. I wouldn't let anybody die of hunger and neither should the government. Those are the basics of what being a human really means.

I beg to differ.

Well, then link or write a comparable summary that you agree with.

I wouldn't let anybody die of hunger and neither should the government.

If I'd see somebody on the street who is dying of hunger, I'd buy him some food. Why must the government be involved?

Well, then link or write a comparable summary that you agree with.

Like you don't know that by now.

(Rule of) law and order is the primary function of the state. Even if you defend social security, social security comes after law and order.

I disagree.
The primary function of the state is what the state want it to be.
In a democracy it must be what electors want!

If I'd see somebody on the street who is dying of hunger, I'd buy him some food. Why must the government be involved?

Well, if someone asks the government to provide him with food, shelter and healthcare, if someone asks the government to save his life in this basic sense, what should be the answer from the government? What should the government do with his plea? Ignore him until he actually dies? Tell him to ask his neighbor? Tell him it's his own fault that he will die? What should the government do?

Like you don't know that by now.

Well, I couldn't make such a simple summary for you based on your fragmented and incoherent ideas. So I don't know. My guess is that neither can you. Otherwise it would already be made and you would just find a link to it like I did.

What should the government do?

Nothing.

What should the government do?

Nothing.

It shouldn't exist, right? :)