You bring up a very good point.Some people really believe the only role the government should have is defense and security.Anything more they consider socialism but that's a lie.By that definition every industrialized country in the world besides the US is socialist.
The reality is that they choose social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a “law of the jungle.” But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others.
2007-08-29 06:31:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by justgoodfolk 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
The government is providing the poor with the opportunity in the "pursuit of happiness". The government is not supplying the money or happiness.
Terrorists don't have to specifically hit the poor to affect everyone's pursuit of happiness. Think about how the country was briefly in shock after 9/11 attacks, and everything stood still for a brief time. Now imagine that happening on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis.
Lastly, the private citizen should be vigilent and report anything they know about terrorist threats. That is a personal responsibility for their own good, as well as everyone else.
2007-08-29 06:35:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
It is supposed to represent the people but really only represents special interest groups and the corporations. It is clearly stated in the Constitution that the main job of the govt is to provide for the common defense - which means to protect us from foreign invaders and attacks. There is nothing in the Constitution which says the government is responsible for the choices citizens make.
That chance of being struck by a terrorist increases every day.
I hope it wasn't my tax dollars that paid for your public education.
2007-08-29 06:34:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
If I understand varied the solutions, Bush had not something to do with the upward thrust in spending and funds, yet Obama would desire to be blamed for the present boost. Is something incorrect with this image?
2016-10-17 06:07:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Erika 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Read the Constitution. Learn the Constitution. Love the Constitution. It's supposed to be the law of the land.
You will find that national defense is one of the prime, enumerated duties of the federal government.
Charity (welfare) isn't.
Constitutionality - more than just a good idea.
2007-08-29 06:34:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
The average citizen can do things to alleviate themselves from poverty: use social programs, get a job, get an education.
The average citizen can do nothing to protect themselves from terrorism of the scale that 9/11 was.
Does that answer your question?
2007-08-29 06:36:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
National Security is one of the few things the federal gov't should provide.
They also allow everyone the right and unhindered opportunity to earn a living. If people contribute, they are rewarded, if (physically capable), people do nothing to help themselves, then they are responsible and accountable for where they are in life. It's not my responsibility to pay more in taxes to be given to someone who opts to contribute nothing to society.
2007-08-29 06:31:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
The Declaration of Independence sums it up. The Government is to "Promote" the general welfare but "Provide" for the common defense.
2007-08-29 06:41:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
A good way to get people out of poverty is to cut them off the teet and send them out in the world to fend for themselves.
2007-08-29 06:26:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
You don't protect people from poverty . . . you enable them to achieve wealth by protecting their freedoms and rights, i.e. life, liberty, and property.
2007-08-29 06:35:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by HokiePaul 6
·
3⤊
1⤋