Negative liberty helps the poor more than positive liberty

[dank69]

What a typical response for a partisan hack like yourself. Its so blatantly obvious that everything you do is controlled by your racist views! Everyone with half a brain sees right through your bullshit crepe strawman arguments. I guess I shouldn't expect anything different out of you though.

You forgot illiterate.

 

[jacc1234]

Yes that's right, illiterate!

 

[Moonbeam]

I think what he's trying to say, Moonbeam, is that one problem with the welfare state is the rich end up getting more welfare than the poor.

Could be that's what he's saying, I don't know, and could be he's right. I don't know that either.

 

[Moonbeam]

Crepes > (Waffles + Pancakes)

Indeed, in almost all things important I have discovered the answer is always some third way.

If bamacre is right and this is about welfare the two idiot ways of seeing it go like this:

Give them nothing, and of course their children die of hunger, as just on absurdity, or give them enough to keep them alive, at which point they have more children and teach them to be dependent, as an alternate absurdity.

Welfare is required because there are people who can't support themselves, maybe lacking the mental capacity, or who via accident, become incapable of doing so. But people do not value what they get for free, and hate folk who help them because they see they are dependent and pride gets stepped on.

So what you do is to help people in a way that isn't obvious, you give them enough to live if they do something of value for it. It doesn't have to be of huge value, but of value to some degree and then folk feel they have earned it and don't hate you for the hand out. To help people you have to build their feelings of self worth to the point where they trust their own self to be of value and worth. You can't directly help a person who feels worthless and you can't stop a person who loves himself. He will become the highest of the high.