Quote: (12-02-2016 05:21 PM)John_Galt Wrote:
zatara:
My point was that Atlas Shrugged ends exactly the way you say no welfare would end: People start destroying shit, and killing each other. Your argument thus didn't make sense, since you seem to think I base my views on Rand, which, as I've explained in great detail, Rand did not create this philosophy, it's simply the law of nature, the way the world has always worked. You mention 150 years of history....what about the previous 6000
My argument was, and is, that in the real world state welfare is a necessarily evil. And that this has been empirically proven by recorded history to date. Whereas in this thread you have repeatedly argued for it to be removed, without awareness of the likely consequences. And you don't seem to have an answer as to how you'd make that work.
I'm still completely baffled as to why you think the plot ending of Atlas Shrugged has any relevance - I didn't mention the novel once in my post. I referred to Randian philosophy because you're echoing some of its core tenets. And because your username is John_Galt.
Quote:Quote:
People only die once, but they must be fed everyday. Do you not get that?
The point is people don't simply die, though. That's your naivety problem. In the real world, in all of modern history, significant numbers of desperate people refuse to die and instead will murder/steal to obtain what they need to prevent their death. Which is why almost all modern political systems have (reluctantly, in most cases) implemented and maintained state welfare systems.
The previous 6000 years of history aren't particularly applicable to modern society as the rapid population growth, industrialization, urbanization and most importantly the spread of literacy and resultant awakening of political consciousness of all economic classes since the C19th have radically altered the social and economic structures of the human race.
A pre-modern agricultural peasant had far lower awareness of the quality of life experienced by those in higher socioeconomic strata, had minimal expectations of their rights, and had far less opportunity to violently seize the property of others. Which meant, although not guaranteed, that they would be far more likely to accept death before rebelling. A modern human differs greatly.