Spending too much time at Pandagon today
There's a college freshman, a philosophy major running a blog. That alone should let you know how deep the doo-doo is capable of becoming. Said college freshman is apparently a big-L Libertarian.
Where's the Three Strikes laws when you need it most?
Said blog is named Hot Abercrombie Chick! and immediately joins the list of unlinked references.
Common arguments in support of welfare often say something to the effect that the needy require assistance to live, state welfare programs serve the greater good, etc. And of course there are others--maybe not better arguments, but still others. This is a general counter-argument that will probably cover most common arguments in favor of state-supported welfare, and is made under the assumption that we find theft, burglary, and destruction of others' properties to be somehow immoral.
The question is this:
If, in any situation, we find it justifiable for any person or group to take the property of any other person without the consent of the other (whether by force, or threats of jail, etc.), we cannot argue that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that act. On what, then, do we base our objections to theft?
Do you consent to live in this country under the rule of law, you little Y & R refugee? If so, pay your taxes. If not Get Out.
Why do I act as ignorant as you? After all you have inexperience as an excuse.
Because I remember Two Wongs Make It White.
