The 6 Essential Needs of Mankind

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I once thought that the government could provide those packaged army meals to people in need rather money. I can’t remember what they are called. The are sufficient but they get old after a while. Incentive?
 
Notice how it says “You” did these things. Not “the government forced you to give them money so they…” could do these things.
 
Last edited:
I’d be ok with it. Good luck getting the bleeding hearts on board. Anything short of steak and lobster is cruel and unusual in their eyes.
 
I agree in principal. Particularly in a secular representative republic. But I do think the government owes it’s citizens the basics. The problem is when “basics” starts to include cell phones, tv, etc.
 
I did notice and whether it can be extrapolated to a social system is debatable. I think so because it is a requirement to be a part of his kingdom. So the ruler says you must. The government of heaven says you must.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
I personally think it would make more sense if we just had a universal basic income, untaxed, for people who need it. i.e. 20k a year. If you work part time and make 10k a year we make up the difference with the extra 10k as a society.
Click to expand...
That’s a negative income tax (good idea). A universal basic income means that you would get 20k whether you worked or not (not such a good idea).
 
Last edited:
The flip side of that for me, is if someone is mentally and physically able to work but choosing not to, they should at the very least be sent to pick up trash along highways or clean up public parks and things like that.
 
That misses the point. If I don’t have a choice about giving to the poor, providing care for the sick etc then it is not my good deed is it.
 
I know how you feel but we do have a choice apparently. Jesus says you can choose not to do these things but you will not be with him in his kingdom. So I was, like, why that harsh choice? I think it is simply this. Not to do these things is evil. So great an evil, apparently, that you will not inherit the kingdom if you don’t do them.
 
It is a fair point. If we owe the poor these basic things, what do they owe but to work for them if they can. I think it is fair.
 
There would still be plenty of opportunities tor charitable giving for those that are so concerned it needs to be done personally. For a start unless every government used such a system there would be foreign aid, likely disaster relief and the occasional treat for those on just the basics
 
Well, sorta, considering all the sex scandals that have come to light
 
Still doesn’t mean you should be forced to do them. If you are forced to do them, then that is not you being charitable.
 
Your missing the point. You can’t use the sheep and the goats to argue for a welfare state, because the sheep and the goats involves personal choice. Forcing people to give taxes to find the welfare state is not the same thing.
 
2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.
Click to expand...
CCC 2402

The parts I have bolded imply that people can be forced to give taxes to fund a welfare state.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Maybe I’m just not that “nice” of a person overall. I’m a firm believer if you aren’t paying for it you take what you’re given and be grateful. And I think a lot of people who are generational recipients of government aid would benefit from having someone make decisions for them until they can make better decisions under our current way of doing things.
Click to expand...
A lot of people worry about what this entails. If you’re relying on government charity, you have to make sure you’re catching everyone in some sort of timely fashion.

So for example, when I was most in need - I wasn’t working primarily to major mental health issues that were not responding to first-line treatment. I also had a lot of panic attacks that made treatment difficult for me (because if I tried to do therapy, I’d start getting panic attacks and basically go to non-functional). I was also struggling to eat and losing weight that I didn’t have to lose, so a certain amount of “junk food” was actually a good idea. Because of my health, I also really wasn’t cooking. I know how, I just didn’t have the energy to do it. Obviously, trying to apply the same methods as you would with someone who was overweight and just wasn’t able to keep a job due to not working wouldn’t have helped.

On the private side, well, I daresay my family saga shows some of the issues with that. We had a bit of a case of “being able to get your basic needs met means being dragged into destructive family conflict regardless of the effect on you, but since you can’t find a job that pays all the bills you’ll just have to put up with it (even if it’s destroying your mental health).”
 
This is why I tend to lean more on the side of private charity than government welfare. Private charities can be more discerning with who needs the aid (as in your case) and who just wants it so they don’t have to work.

Government can’t do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top