Eturnalshift wrote:
Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of people who think like me so I don't have a bunch of real-world examples...
Ah, but this isn't true. Cato and a bunch of Victorian conservatives would agree with you, almost word for word.
Your argument boils down to "I don't know anything about prior ideas, but I'm assuming mine are new, so you should take my word for it."
Why should we? And why should you believe your ideas are so novel when you have no knowledge of what else is out there? Should we believe it's a coincidence the least informed people are also those most in favor of libertarianism?
Eturnalshift wrote:
Because of that, the recipients don't respect what they (and their neighbors) have because they didn't have to work for it.
Couldn't I make the same claim about you? In fact, I believe I did, actually. A major cause in this social issue is simply that those who have what they do are - willfully - ignorant of why.
Eturnalshift wrote:
Because the community has little respect for itself and what each other owns, crime goes up... after all, "what's yours is mine."
Classical Jewish texts are seen by many as not stressing the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger." ...A rabbinic tradition...postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" ...which is interpreted as a lack of compassion.
Suffice to say, no functional society has ever operated on the principle of individual insularity. All societies ARE societies precisely because it is understood that people have obligations towards each other beyond the purely contractual.
Eturnalshift wrote:
On the other hand, as you point out, places where employment is higher is believed to be generally safer as there is less crime and theft. Why? Because I think these people, who aren't subsidized by the government, have a higher respect for themselves, their property, their neighbors property and their community. Why? Because they worked for it.
It's never that simple. They didn't wash up on Plymouth Rock and build middle class white America.
No one who comes from a difficult background would refuse to trade places with someone living a comfortable middle class existence. And those who are seldom suffered such hardship to get there.
"Worked for it". What, exactly, does that mean?
