Should the conept of capitalism be held to be so inviolable, that in the greatest country in the world; the wealthiest country in the world; (who could easily appropriate the necessary resources that are at our disposal) yet we allow people to live & die on the streets?
2006-06-20 04:30:37 · 11 answers · asked by Cisco Kid 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
It's not only reasonable, it's necessary. Like all good things, capitalism becomes detrimental when taken to extremes. Specifically, a completely unfettered market inevitably tends toward a concentration of economic and political power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, until the system becomes undemocratic and oppressive.
2006-06-20 04:36:35 · answer #1 · answered by Guelph 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
almost all of the people who are on the street are there because they want to be, The majority of the real homeless are homeless for less than 3 months before they get back into a home.
I have tried to take people to shelters in the winter or hot summer, but they will not go because they require them to bath, or not drink, or not use drugs.
If a person would rather drink and use drugs than to have a home, that is thier choice not ours.
And they do have healthcare, the homeless can not be refused emergancy care at state hospitals ( that is why you and I pay so much for our care)
There are great private programs that will help them get off of the street but the person has to be willing to stay off the drugs and work, most of the homeless in
America will not work and will not stop using drugs,
2006-06-20 11:38:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You question is misleading.
The Capitalist rule of law ensures the fair trade and regulation of the food, shelter, and healthcare markets, but the state may not nationalize them. That would be communism, and that idea is over here.
2006-06-20 11:47:17 · answer #3 · answered by yars232c 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it shouldn't, a state has the responsibility to look after its poor and unfortuante, just as we have a duty to keep the state stable. This si exactly the reason why capitalism should be constrained and we should have a mixture..I still just prefer Socialism, or Social-Democratic methods
2006-06-20 11:33:37 · answer #4 · answered by thomas p 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not up to the government to provide for the indigent. We have charities for such things, and, before the government started stealing such a large portion of our incomes to set up their own charity, charities were always able to care for the less fortunate.
The problem is that when Big Brother starts handing out the freebies, it gets abused mercilessly. When there's no face-to-face contact, people aren't so ashamed to take more than they need for longer than necessary. They aren't afraid to cheat the system. When you had to look your benefactor in the eye, you felt responsible to try to get your life on track. Now, too many see handouts as a right instead of a gracious gift.
No one in America lives and dies on the streets unless it's by choice. There are enough government programs, charities, and low-level jobs available that no one needs to be homeless. They CHOOSE that lifestyle because they don't like living by any rules. They don't want to wake up to an alarm clock. They don't want to perform menial tasks in order to earn money to eat and have somewhere to sleep. They don't want any responsibility in their lives.
It is not reasonable to steal money that I have earned - for which I work hard - and give it to someone who CHOOSES to not contribute to society. That doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.
2006-06-20 13:22:54 · answer #5 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is not what capitalism is. Are you saying those businesses should pay for everyones food, shelter, healthcare?
Are you saying, that the people who work hard, and build a business, must be reposnsible for the ones who do nothing?
2006-06-20 11:34:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I certainly think the money should go towards that before subsidizing illegal aliens.
However, not to the point where there is not adequate reward for working harder and doing better than your fellows.
I don't think communism would go over well here.
2006-06-20 12:06:10 · answer #7 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean like Europe, Canada and Kuwait does?
Greatest/wealthiest in the world? who told you that?
2006-06-20 11:34:27 · answer #8 · answered by DaddyBoy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, what you are suggesting is communism. if you want that, move to china, commie! capitalism is for those who work, get paid. you are a commie!
2006-06-20 14:00:25 · answer #9 · answered by NONAME 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES!!! Communism sucks!!!!
2006-06-20 11:33:28 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋