These supermen must be something to see, just taking care of themselves and no one else, building their own houses and roads, growing their own food, healing their own wounds and diseases without medication. I don't remember anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights saying "Your on your own, folks." As if everyone has the ability do to everything for themselves. I suppose if someone gets a broken leg and can't afford the medical bills we should just shoot him like a horse. We ALL take from the systems we've put in place. Maturity doesn't stop with self-sufficiency. It requires the internal need to take care of others.
2007-10-17 11:10:07 · 4 answers · asked by socrates 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You advocate for the benefits of community support, and people working together for the common good of the community and everyone in it -- very noble goals.
The question is -- should such contributions be forced and mandatory -- or should people be allowed to "opt out" of the community and be on their own.
Personally, I believe that if people want to contribute to a shared resource pool and take care of those less fortunate -- bless them. But I don't believe it should be mandatory -- if you don't want to receive the benefits, you should be allowed to not contribute either -- but you pick one or the other -- you cannot receive the benefits without also contributing to the system.
2007-10-17 11:20:08 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When the Bill of Rights and Constitution were written you didn't have a line of people at the welfare office with their hands out - the basis of life back then was you work or you die. Sure people might have tossed a few coins to the poor, but they sure didn't feel the need to be responsible for him and take care of his every need to years, and years, and years....and then proceed to take care of the next generation as well!
When "we the people" got constitutional and bill of right happy every able man was not only expected to work to care for his own but he was also expected to take up arms to protect our country. Today the only thing some people want to work on is a ride to go pick up their welfare check.
I believe we should help our fellow man - but there is a difference between a hand-up and hand-out. Even the Lord days give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.....etc.....we are not teaching people to FISH!
I would gladly sign up to teach fishing, but I don't think I should be forced to give up my fish because someone else was to lazy to learn.
2007-10-17 11:40:20 · answer #2 · answered by Susie D 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Essentially the Constitution of the United States does not have a provision that requires the taxpayers to take care of others.
If you want to make it mandatory that the taxpayers take care of others that would require a Constitutional amendment.
I think that it would be a very good thing for you to do the things that are required to get the Constitution of the United States amended so that the taxpayers are required to take care of others.
I wish you great success with your endeavors.
2007-10-17 11:28:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If that is really your question, my answer is "no".
2007-10-17 11:17:37 · answer #4 · answered by raichasays 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋