Quote:
Originally Posted by sneddog
Are you advocating an isolationist policy for the US? Not a bad idea, but not possible, no nation on earth has all the resources it needs to be self sufficient. We need each other, that's all there is to it.
Poverty will never be eraticated by human instrumentality, because it is more a spiritual condition than a physical condition. But we must try. It is not the governments job to feed the poor, or provide for its citizenery. The governments job is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not provide for those things. We as individuals must bear one anothers burdens. I have found that those who advocate more government involvment are the one's who give nothing or very littel to actually help the poor. No they want to shrug that responsibility off on the government. Also these same people will pay less in taxes than anyone else, so that they are the least affected by the increase in the tax burden placed upon the people that is required to fund all these social programs.
|
It depends on what you mean by isolationist policy. Having better trade relations with other States is not necessarily what I would call isolationism. In that regard, the UN is a better arbiter of interstate commerce than is the US.
I have found the opposite to be more true. That people who advocate for private charity tend exhibit more of the qualities you would ascribe to people who advocate for public charity.
Poverty can be solved easier than can any use of the general warfare to ensure our security and can be more cost effective when done by a public sector.