It is inappropriate in this context to conflate the individual to the collective. 'Recipients' and 'donors' should be determined on an individual basis with the latter making the uncoerced choice to provide 'benefits' to the former.
Surely if providing 'benefits' has merit then no coercion is needed. Furthermore, if the majority of people are 'kindhearted' human pet lovers and wish to minster to the 'needs' of their human pets then one should have no problem raising all sorts of voluntarily given funds.
I believe we give handouts as a convenience to prevent violence/social unrest. If they were hungry enough, they could catch fish, shoot small game (or take fresh roadkill) and grown their own food. There are plenty of edible wild plants (some urban too).
I know from personal experience that nothing improves marksmanship like hunger.
Last edited by OldBay; 12-07-2012 at 06:09 PM.
There is really nothing wrong with shopping at Walmart, Target, etc.
My children are my legacy.
I'm not really a supporter of businesses that rely on the government to take care of their employees for them. Of course I'm also a fan of quality rather than quantity, and am rather sickened by the cellulite encrusted shoppers at those sorts of establishments.
To each his own though I suppose.
Here's another article:
And BTW, my comments were about how Walmart and Costco treat their employess. It's night and day on most fronts, especially pay, benefits and working conditions. Costco doesn't rely on the government to provide benefots, etc.
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278