Why are we so obligated to accommodate poor people/losers and their mistakes?
Why do I have to pay for some retard who is constantly churning out children when he full well knows he cannot provide for them?
Why don't we simply let the weak and poor die?
because all human life has value otherwise we get into inconclusive debates about where the line should be drawn that always end up with a lot of innocent people dead for very little reason
>>1136259
Because 1917 will happen.
You have no obligations.
All obligations are spooks.
Taxation is theft.
>>1136259
Single mothers raising children who go on to be single mothers.
The state and the times enable that behavior, which throws entire communities into a vicious cycle. It's a large part, I think, of why the black community is so horrifyingly maladjusted (nearly 3/4 of black children are born out of wedlock).
There are other problems that add to this, but it's a large part of the problem.
You should take care of the people in your identity group. This is because humans are social and reach full potential in groups.
However, these groups must be small. Taking care of everyone in a nation is difficult for people to justify, which is why conflict arises like this.
Start your own group, take care of those 20 to 50 people, and fuck the government, you don't owe a prostitute in Alabama or a fisherman in Alaska anything.
>>1136259
>>1136295
Think of the country as being a big private company who owns the land you live on. It's claimed, maintained, built upon by this company. Taxes are just a name for rent you're being charged for being here and using services. Welfare is essentially an insurance program. You are not paying 'your' money to the government (ownership/management) they are collecting *their* money from you that you owe them.
>>1136358
Nice spooks.
>>1136358
>social contract shite
All of that falls apart when you realize that a visiting foreigner can freely use your roads and call the police without ever paying a dime in taxes.
>>1136371
It's free-market capitalism you memester
>>1136358
>they are collecting *their* money
>>1136259
...because you live in the death throes of European civilization
>>1136295
but theft is a spook to. why can I not expand my property?
>>1136380
That boy is unreally cute.
>>1136377
No it doesn't. The government can let anyone use their services or products free of charge if they want to, for any reason, it's their prerogative just like it is any other company's.
>>1136259
>Why don't we simply let the weak and poor die?
because they don't simply die
when people can't eat or find work they turn to crime or something even more dangerous - political activism
try and leave the poor out to dry and expect them to starve. you'll find really quickly they will be forcibly taking what they need, and you won't survive if you try to stop them
>>1136388
>expand
But all is already your property.
>>1136380
Yep. Their property and goods they can charge you if they want for being and living and working on their property and using their services.
>>1136392
Which is why my criteria for an ideal society is;
100-200 million people
Above 110 iq average
No physical deformities
>>1136399
>Using the police to reprimand thieves is anti-free-market
>>1136380
>he thinks his scraps of paper given to him by the government are not only his possessions but have any intrinsic worth beyond what the government declares
>>1136420
It's literally extortion. Like a bunch of mafia thugs coming into your store telling you either you pay them money for "protection" or they're gonna torch your place because their area is "their territory". The state is just the strongest mafia out there.
>>1136415
ideals are just that, ideals
they are literally unachievable by any means
>>1136420
I absolutely typed 'apprehend' I didn't catch the auto-correct.
>>1136431
There is no difference between the mafia and a regular business in free-market capitalism. Would a business not have claims to property or 'territory'? Would they not use an armed force to remove thieves and tresspassers from their claimed property? Would they not have the right to charge any fee they choose for people using their land, goods or services however they determine those to be?
