True-Love-Liberals vs. Depopulation-Liberals


#1

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there's much confusion over Liberalism.

The True-Love-Liberals seem to have the best wishes and good intentions, but most reasonable people should be able to see that govt safety nets alone can't improve lives to a satisfactory level.

The Depopulation-Liberals want TV, movies, and music to promote more kinky shallow love-less sex, drugs, instant gratification, addiction to shallow amusements, independent individualism, i.e. selfishness, in the hopes that more people will live for personal pleasure rather than true, romantic love. This is an intentional weakening of true, romantic love. This is not progress. This promotion is a Regression into a Neanderthalian desire to act on base instincts for the Self. Increases in birth control will lead to decreases in marriage and family, which will lead to decreases in population. Many of the kids will become financial obligations of the taxpayers because many will grow up without fathers. This is how depopulation and socialism appear to be working in Europe.

While True-Love-Liberals seem to have the best wishes and good intentions, the Depopulation-Liberals are intentionally ruining True, romantic love in the music, TV, and movies in order to drive a wedge between True love between men and women.

What say you?


#2

[quote="ManOnFire, post:1, topic:252483"]
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there's much confusion over Liberalism.

The True-Love-Liberals seem to have the best wishes and good intentions, but most reasonable people should be able to see that govt safety nets alone can't improve lives to a satisfactory level.

The Depopulation-Liberals want TV, movies, and music to promote more kinky shallow love-less sex, drugs, instant gratification, addiction to shallow amusements, independent individualism, i.e. selfishness, in the hopes that more people will live for personal pleasure rather than true, romantic love. This is an intentional weakening of true, romantic love. This is not progress. This promotion is a Regression into a Neanderthalian desire to act on base instincts for the Self. Increases in birth control will lead to decreases in marriage and family, which will lead to decreases in population. Many of the kids will become financial obligations of the taxpayers because many will grow up without fathers. This is how depopulation and socialism appear to be working in Europe.

While True-Love-Liberals seem to have the best wishes and good intentions, the Depopulation-Liberals are intentionally ruining True, romantic love in the music, TV, and movies in order to drive a wedge between True love between men and women.

What say you?

[/quote]

Where did you get this categorization of liberals? I never heard of it before. Maybe SOME liberals, under the guise of freedom of speech, don't mind the promotion of shallow, loveless sex, drugs, and instant-gratification amusements in music and on television, but that certainly doesn't describe me or any of my liberal friends. And most liberals don't believe in ONLY government safety nets either; but they do like the idea that they are still there for those in need. Your perspective on the meaning of liberalism seems rather skewed to me.


#3

I'm reminded of G.K. Chesterton's thoughts on anarchism in his 1908 spy novel The Man Who Was Thursday. Anarchism at the time was not just a vague word rebellious teenagers used for shock value, but a serious philosophical and political position. Chesterton speculated (in the novel it was fact, or seemed to be fact anyway- the ending complicated things) that there were two circles of anarchists. The outer circle, whom a character called the innocent section, who honestly believed anarchy would bring about a better world for all to live in, and an inner circle or supremely guilty section, whose real goal was human extinction.

Not everything is the same in modern liberalism as in the anarchism of a century ago, obviously, but I wonder if something similar, and even somewhat historically connected, might be true of modern liberalism: an ignorant many who honestly believe in humanity and think their philosophy best serves it, and a minority that is under no such illusions.

A dramatization of the Chesterton reference if anyone's interested:

youtube.com/watch?v=e8Kl7mc6cIo


#4

Defining Liberalism is hard.There are Libertarians, Statist Liberals, Moderates etc. I do think though that the a majority of Liberals are moderates meanig they want the government out of people's lives for the most part, in terms of morals and money. but do not mind having some sort of safety net for the common good. There are a good number of people, who are heavily influential, who are outright Leninists on the far left and Ayn Randians on the far right. I am personally a fiscal moderate-social conservative. :)(Also there needs to be a line drawn between fiscal Liberalism and social Liberalism.)

"The Depopulation-Liberals want TV, movies, and music to promote more kinky shallow love-less sex, drugs, instant gratification, addiction to shallow amusements, independent individualism, i.e. selfishness, in the hopes that more people will live for personal pleasure rather than true, romantic love..." This is a characterization of the far-left and far right socially.

Hope this helps!


#5

[quote="ManOnFire, post:1, topic:252483"]
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there's much confusion over Liberalism.

The True-Love-Liberals seem to have the best wishes and good intentions, but most reasonable people should be able to see that govt safety nets alone can't improve lives to a satisfactory level.

The Depopulation-Liberals want TV, movies, and music to promote more kinky shallow love-less sex, drugs, instant gratification, addiction to shallow amusements, independent individualism, i.e. selfishness, in the hopes that more people will live for personal pleasure rather than true, romantic love. This is an intentional weakening of true, romantic love. This is not progress. This promotion is a Regression into a Neanderthalian desire to act on base instincts for the Self. Increases in birth control will lead to decreases in marriage and family, which will lead to decreases in population. Many of the kids will become financial obligations of the taxpayers because many will grow up without fathers. This is how depopulation and socialism appear to be working in Europe.

While True-Love-Liberals seem to have the best wishes and good intentions, the Depopulation-Liberals are intentionally ruining True, romantic love in the music, TV, and movies in order to drive a wedge between True love between men and women.

What say you?

[/quote]

As long as you are grouping, where do you think Pope Benedict lies? He is farther left fiscally than probably any politician in the US...

And what about the Right that promotes a systems that in an unrestricted sense is the most greedy and anti-Christian form of economics in the history of mankind? (laissez faire capitalism).

When Christ told the rich man to give away everything to follow Him, did He put conditions on that? I hear the right complaining about "moochers" all the time, usually the same people who use to wear the WWJD buttons back in the 90s. I have to ask my self, did Jesus say "give everything away and come follow Me... but only give it to people who you know deserve your good will based upon your limited understanding of their life situation" I don't know about anyone else but I don't find that in my Bible.

Jesus didn't ask people if they deserved His healing, or His forgiveness, in fact in many cases its the fact that people were NOT worthy that was the whole point of the story or parable. As we remind ourselves each week before approaching the Altar, "I'm not worthy..." Yet we champion people and a system which promotes judgementalness with the primary goal being self worth, not necessarily self betterment, but self worth.

As a Pro-Life Gun toting fiscal liberal who believes in fiscal responsibility I have almost no party representation in America politics... but there are a lot of people with similar beliefs and understanding throughout the world and I believe my political beliefs appropriately reflect my religious beliefs and vice versa. It's taken years to get to this congruency. I also truly believe our Pope and I would have similar answers to almost any question in regards to politics and I pray in regards to faith as well. I'm good with that, I would much rather be in line with the Holy Father than some right wing American politican who seems to want to use God for his political gains.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong...

Joe


#6

[quote="ManOnFire, post:1, topic:252483"]
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there's much confusion over Liberalism.

The True-Love-Liberals seem to have the best wishes and good intentions, but most reasonable people should be able to see that govt safety nets alone can't improve lives to a satisfactory level.

The Depopulation-Liberals want TV, movies, and music to promote more kinky shallow love-less sex, drugs, instant gratification, addiction to shallow amusements, independent individualism, i.e. selfishness, in the hopes that more people will live for personal pleasure rather than true, romantic love. This is an intentional weakening of true, romantic love. This is not progress. This promotion is a Regression into a Neanderthalian desire to act on base instincts for the Self. Increases in birth control will lead to decreases in marriage and family, which will lead to decreases in population. Many of the kids will become financial obligations of the taxpayers because many will grow up without fathers. This is how depopulation and** socialism appear to be working in Europe.
**
While True-Love-Liberals seem to have the best wishes and good intentions, the Depopulation-Liberals are intentionally ruining True, romantic love in the music, TV, and movies in order to drive a wedge between True love between men and women.

What say you?

[/quote]

Can i just ask why do so many Yank's see Europe as Socialist???


#7

[quote="meltzerboy, post:2, topic:252483"]
Where did you get this categorization of liberals? I never heard of it before. Maybe SOME liberals, under the guise of freedom of speech, don't mind the promotion of shallow, loveless sex, drugs, and instant-gratification amusements in music and on television, but that certainly doesn't describe me or any of my liberal friends. And most liberals don't believe in ONLY government safety nets either; but they do like the idea that they are still there for those in need. Your perspective on the meaning of liberalism seems rather skewed to me.

[/quote]

Well there is the third branch called Strawman-Liberals which are the types of people that conservatives like to talk about to scare people. I believe the OP's two examples are subcatagories of the Strawman-Liberal.

"Vote for me because Scaryman McLiberal wants to take away your hard earned money and give it to the poor! Jesus clearly wanted you to keep it all for yourself and let the poor pick themselves up by their bootstraps!"


#8

[quote="meltzerboy, post:2, topic:252483"]
Where did you get this categorization of liberals? I never heard of it before. Maybe SOME liberals, under the guise of freedom of speech, don't mind the promotion of shallow, loveless sex, drugs, and instant-gratification amusements in music and on television, but that certainly doesn't describe me or any of my liberal friends. And most liberals don't believe in ONLY government safety nets either; but they do like the idea that they are still there for those in need. Your perspective on the meaning of liberalism seems rather skewed to me.

[/quote]

I got this catergorization of liberals by reading through the various threads on this site. I just can't understand how so many True-Love-Liberals can have so much hope that things will improve when so much basic instinct is being peddled in the popular media. People are becoming weaker, not stronger, by the increasing exposure to portable media. Single motherhood has risen from 10% a few decades ago to 50% here in the US. What does that say? It tells me that too many men mostly want sex without committment. We've been reduced by the media. The research shows that kids are better in the long run with 2 parents at home. Taxes must be raised to pay for a greater numbers of dependents on the State. It seems logical that President Obama wants taxpayer funded abortion because it's cheaper to abort kids if sex was the goal in the first place, and the man doesn't love them enough to help raise them. Philosophy departments are worried about overpopulation. The easy way to "cure" overpopulation fears is to shift the emphasis of sex from "true love" to "personal pleasure." That's what we're seeing in the popular media. Once sex functions for personal pleasure, then more kids will be aborted and the overpopulation problem "solved," according to the pernicious plan of the Depopulation-Liberals. So, it seems like a waste of energy for True-Love-Liberals to hope that things will improve when the plan is to Reduce the public into a base desire for personal pleasure. I don't know how they can continue to have Hope in the face of this paradox. More money can't fix a problem that was caused by a lack of unconditional, true love in the first place.


#9

[quote="Aelred_Minor, post:3, topic:252483"]
I'm reminded of G.K. Chesterton's thoughts on anarchism in his 1908 spy novel The Man Who Was Thursday. Anarchism at the time was not just a vague word rebellious teenagers used for shock value, but a serious philosophical and political position. Chesterton speculated (in the novel it was fact, or seemed to be fact anyway- the ending complicated things) that there were two circles of anarchists. The outer circle, whom a character called the innocent section, who honestly believed anarchy would bring about a better world for all to live in, and an inner circle or supremely guilty section, whose real goal was human extinction.

Not everything is the same in modern liberalism as in the anarchism of a century ago, obviously, but I wonder if something similar, and even somewhat historically connected, might be true of modern liberalism: an ignorant many who honestly believe in humanity and think their philosophy best serves it, and a minority that is under no such illusions.

A dramatization of the Chesterton reference if anyone's interested:

youtube.com/watch?v=e8Kl7mc6cIo

[/quote]

Thanks so much for the reference. I see a parallel with the issue of legalization of marijuana. For every hard working mature adult who could handle it's legalization, there are several who would make it their lifestyle, which places personal pleasure above living a more productive adulthood. Fascinating psychology.


#10

[quote="ManOnFire, post:1, topic:252483"]
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there's much confusion over Liberalism.

The True-Love-Liberals seem to have the best wishes and good intentions, but most reasonable people should be able to see that govt safety nets alone can't improve lives to a satisfactory level.

[/quote]

Ummm, okay??? But for a family wondering if there will be enough money to feed their children for a week or for someone wondering how the heck she can take her asthmatic child to the doctor without health insurance--government safety nets can be the difference between life and death.

Anyone who doesn't see this has clearly never been in such a situation or known someone who has. It's naive to say that government safety nets can't improve lives. Would you honestly prefer the alternative--higher crime rates and starving children?


#11

[quote="Brav3N3wWorld, post:10, topic:252483"]
Ummm, okay??? But for a family wondering if there will be enough money to feed their children for a week or for someone wondering how the heck she can take her asthmatic child to the doctor without health insurance--government safety nets can be the difference between life and death.

Anyone who doesn't see this has clearly never been in such a situation or known someone who has. It's naive to say that government safety nets can't improve lives. Would you honestly prefer the alternative--higher crime rates and starving children?

[/quote]

I can't speak for ManOnFire, but certainly you are right that social safety nets are crucially important to protect the poor from disaster. And in my prudential opinion, some government involvement in providing those safety nets, rather than leaving it entirely to private and religious charity, is probably needed to prevent people from falling through the cracks of uneven private initiatives.

Such government programs can go too far, but that's more a practical, prudential matter which people of good faith and good will may well disagree on. To me at least, the more immediate issues here are the social and life issues, the things that speak to the very meaning of human life and human relationships, and really right to how we perceive truth and goodness. There are currents of relativism, hedonism, nihilism, etc. in modern society, and these certainly seem to be having a strong influence on politics, especially on the left side of the aisle. Sort of like how Nietzsche and other horrible philosophers had an influence on the politics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

When in my first post on this thread I mentioned that Chesterton "speculated" that there was a sort of nihilist conspiracy within modern (his time's "modern") anarchists, what I should have said was that he recognized the evil philosophies that were giving rise to bad politics, while also recognizing that the majority of actual anarchists had more or less benevolent intentions towards humanity. It's the same, I'd wager, with pro-choice people, pro-homosexual marriage people, etc. Most of them aren't fully conscious of the philosophies that underly these attacks on life, love, and order, but those influences are still there driving the whole machine.


#12

[quote="jwashu, post:5, topic:252483"]
As long as you are grouping, where do you think Pope Benedict lies? He is farther left fiscally than probably any politician in the US...

[/quote]

I'm curious, what makes you say this?


#13

[quote="ManOnFire, post:9, topic:252483"]
Thanks so much for the reference. I see a parallel with the issue of legalization of marijuana. For every hard working mature adult who could handle it's legalization, there are several who would make it their lifestyle, which places personal pleasure above living a more productive adulthood. Fascinating psychology.

[/quote]

I'd definitely recommend reading the book. There is an important, very intellectually and spiritually stimulating revelation at the end, but I won't mention it since it would absolutely ruin experience of reading the book for anyone who hasn't yet.

Just for fun, here's two more YouTube clips related to The Man Who Was Thursday, one also intellectually stimulating though less immediately relevant to the topic, the other just kind of cool.

youtube.com/watch?v=oVDqyhr6Y-M&NR=1
youtube.com/watch?v=9WHCwBukyH0


#14

[quote="Paddy1989, post:6, topic:252483"]
Can i just ask why do so many Yank's see Europe as Socialist???

[/quote]

Here's part of the depopulationist plan: kill true love between men and women by getting men to lust (not love) women, then men will be too intolerant for family life, then replace dads with welfare checks. Women will need financial help. Once this financial burden becomes too great for society, then socialism will prevail, and the elitists who planned it will be the rulers.

This writer explains (emphasis mine):

"More than a decade ago, the social scientist Charles Murray warned that the U.K. was fast developing an underclass similar to the one that plagued the U.S. in the 1960s and '70s. In the Sunday Times in 1996, Murray wrote, "Britain has a growing population of working-aged, healthy people who live in a different world from other Britons, who are raising their children to live in it, and whose values are now contaminating the life of entire neighborhoods — which is one of the most insidious aspects of the phenomenon, for neighbors who don't share those values cannot isolate themselves."

Proof of the validity of Murray's thesis was evident on the streets of Tottenham, Manchester, Birmingham and other neighborhoods and cities this week. Thankfully, the U.S. has not yet succumbed totally to the lure of the welfare state. But the class-warfare rhetoric coming from the White House and liberals in Congress encourages the same kind of entitlement mentality that has infected the U.K.

It is not impossible to imagine an American future with a majority of children growing up in fatherless homes, dependent on government to provide for all of their needs, resentful of the rich and insistent on a larger share of wealth than they have earned. The phenomenon is rampant throughout Europe. While the American people have, to date, eschewed fully embracing the welfare state, President Obama has tried his best to expand it under his tenure. The only thing that has stopped him has been a weak economy.

The riots in England should be a wake-up call, a reminder to Americans that their instincts in rejecting the welfare state are sound. But the only way to ensure that what has taken place in England and elsewhere in Europe won't happen here is to vote out of office those American politicians who embrace the welfare state."

**Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." **To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

creators.com/conservative/linda-chavez/ingratitude-insolence-and-entitlement.html


#15

I agree to a certain extent there are problem’s with the welfare state but then tell me, how else would these home’s be sustained, i mean most of these families are just about or sometime’s lower than the poverty line with welfare. If it wasn’t for such a state you would end up seeing families being even smaller with probably a maximum of 2 children as they wouldn’t be able to afford anymore and children would be seen as an even more of a hassle. Do you not think the fact that in so many cases both people working can still barely pay bill’s at time’s and keep children etc is also responsible for this. The state has been forced to intervene, i despise socialism by the way and would be a Distributist but people in Europe actually look at the US and the state of many working class area’s and “Ghetto’s” as something they don’t want to happen to them although in many cases it still has.


#16

[quote="jwashu, post:5, topic:252483"]
As long as you are grouping, where do you think Pope Benedict lies? He is farther left fiscally than probably any politician in the US...

And what about the Right that promotes a systems that in an unrestricted sense is the most greedy and anti-Christian form of economics in the history of mankind? (laissez faire capitalism).

When Christ told the rich man to give away everything to follow Him, did He put conditions on that? I hear the right complaining about "moochers" all the time, usually the same people who use to wear the WWJD buttons back in the 90s. I have to ask my self, did Jesus say "give everything away and come follow Me... but only give it to people who you know deserve your good will based upon your limited understanding of their life situation" I don't know about anyone else but I don't find that in my Bible.

Jesus didn't ask people if they deserved His healing, or His forgiveness, in fact in many cases its the fact that people were NOT worthy that was the whole point of the story or parable. As we remind ourselves each week before approaching the Altar, "I'm not worthy..." Yet we champion people and a system which promotes judgementalness with the primary goal being self worth, not necessarily self betterment, but self worth.

As a Pro-Life Gun toting fiscal liberal who believes in fiscal responsibility I have almost no party representation in America politics... but there are a lot of people with similar beliefs and understanding throughout the world and I believe my political beliefs appropriately reflect my religious beliefs and vice versa. It's taken years to get to this congruency. I also truly believe our Pope and I would have similar answers to almost any question in regards to politics and I pray in regards to faith as well. I'm good with that, I would much rather be in line with the Holy Father than some right wing American politican who seems to want to use God for his political gains.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong...

Joe

[/quote]

I agree that we should be fiscal liberals to the extent that people have basic food, basic clothing and basic shelter, which was more of a challenge in Jesus's day than the US today. We already have more than that in the US to the point where some people "find" money for unhealthy addictions which are holding them down. Spending money on consumerist bling isn't helping them climb the ladder of success. It's only making them MORE dependent. The statistics of those on govt aid is only RISING. What we're doing is NOT working, and hasn't worked for decades. Why are so many people so delusional to these facts? It's almost as if well-wishers are happy to imagine and dream about helping people while the reality shows we're clearly on the wrong path.

The biggest problem is that many people worship the Pop Culture media ahead of Church teaching. Church teaching is taking a back seat to the Culture. More people break the Church's rules to fit the Culture. Our instant gratification media Culture has weakened people into acting on base instinct for selfish pleasure, lust, drugs, and violence. This has weakened men into running away from marriage and kids, which creates socialism, which is just what the socialists planned. Their plan is working beautifully. Their mode of delivery is the media culture. That's why minimizing exposure to it has freed me from it's enslavement.

Let me ask you: How does your fiscal liberal policy help people who are too easily tempted astray into unhealthy lifestyles by the media culture? It doesn't. You're policy is enabling more poverty for weak people who have cast aside Church rules in favor of the media Culture. That's the problem. Do weakened people have the free will to genuinely improve their lives? Or not? That seems to be the question we should be answering.

Which is the worse social injustice: the govt supremely interfering in taxpayers lives to give their money to people who have become enslaved to the media culture as their savior with no oversight by govt to make sure they are investing taxpayer money wisely? Or censoring the media to provide innocent content to allow the poor to not become distracted into poverty via the adoption of unhealthy lifestyles in a secular media culture which has defeated the Church for all practical purposes?


#17

[quote="Paddy1989, post:15, topic:252483"]
I agree to a certain extent there are problem's with the welfare state but then tell me, how else would these home's be sustained, i mean most of these families are just about or sometime's lower than the poverty line with welfare. If it wasn't for such a state you would end up seeing families being even smaller with probably a maximum of 2 children as they wouldn't be able to afford anymore and children would be seen as an even more of a hassle. Do you not think the fact that in so many cases both people working can still barely pay bill's at time's and keep children etc is also responsible for this. The state has been forced to intervene, i despise socialism by the way and would be a Distributist but people in Europe actually look at the US and the state of many working class area's and "Ghetto's" as something they don't want to happen to them although in many cases it still has.

[/quote]

The entire social structure is undermined when government becomes provider. Jesus told the Church to look after widows and orphans, WE as the Church should be providing help to people when necessary, and then those people feel a responsibility to repay the aid as they can. When we remove our own responsibility, it is easy for us to rationalize our lack of involvement because the government uses its coercive powers to take our taxes in order to give to others, so "I've done my share." Then too, the government does not demand repayment of debts, so taking without repayment ends up killing our souls, for we know in our hearts that we are losing our dignity. Men without dignity have no attachment to their families, they walk out, they become "playas" making several babies and never becoming a husband and father. Welfare is a PLAGUE upon the earth. The Bible tells us again and again, "He who will not work, should not eat!" Harsh? I don't think so. Of course we need to take care of the truly disabled, as well as widows and orphans, but there is so much rampant fraud within any government program, as well as able-bodied and able-minded people getting benefits instead of working! It kills their souls. *

*(that is a manner of speaking, of course I understand that the soul is immortal but it drags them down inside to take without giving back.)


#18

[quote="ManOnFire, post:14, topic:252483"]
Here's part of the depopulationist plan: kill true love between men and women by getting men to lust (not love) women, then men will be too intolerant for family life, then replace dads with welfare checks. Women will need financial help. Once this financial burden becomes too great for society, then socialism will prevail, and the elitists who planned it will be the rulers.

[/quote]

i'm very upset by this breach in trust, one of my fellow liberals has obviously showed you our secret plan.


#19

Giving/taking without repayment you could say is essentially Charity, also there is no possible repayment we could pay to God yet we still ask for his salvation. My point is we often give and take without repayment expected. I understand your issue with the fraud part and people just taking money because they don’t want to work but you are merely addressing how such a system can be abused rather than address the system itself. As i said before there are single mom’s who are reliant on such a thing and even families where only one parent work’s and are unable to sustain a household, how else are they to survive. I dislike as much as you where people have to rely on the State to survive but it is a fact and one which we can’t ignore. Should we blame the capitalist’s who aim to maximize profit and to a certain extent are the cause or the socialist’s who to a certain extent has put the State in such a position where it must provide for those who CAN’T themselves. We only have to look at Nation’s where so many who are impoverished and are helped by no-one to see how lucky people who can sustain a family because of the State are


#20

[quote="Paddy1989, post:19, topic:252483"]
Giving/taking without repayment you could say is essentially Charity, also there is no possible repayment we could pay to God yet we still ask for his salvation. My point is we often give and take without repayment expected. I understand your issue with the fraud part and people just taking money because they don't want to work but you are merely addressing how such a system can be abused rather than address the system itself. As i said before there are single mom's who are reliant on such a thing and even families where only one parent work's and are unable to sustain a household, how else are they to survive. I dislike as much as you where people have to rely on the State to survive but it is a fact and one which we can't ignore. Should we blame the capitalist's who aim to maximize profit and to a certain extent are the cause or the socialist's who to a certain extent has put the State in such a position where it must provide for those who CAN'T themselves. We only have to look at Nation's where so many who are impoverished and are helped by no-one to see how lucky people who can sustain a family because of the State are

[/quote]

Giving and helping is indeed charity, and that is a good thing, missionaries do it all the time, while bringing the Word of God to a hungry world. The givers should not expect repayment but the takers should want to repay. They would have more responsibility if they were helped by people they know and see and worship with.

I am not merely addressing how such a system can be abused. The solution is in getting people OFF the dole and back working again. In the US, this can be done by cutting taxes so that companies will hire more workers. And by cutting off long-term benefits such as 2 years worth of unemployment payments. The size of government has got to be reduced in people's lives, and those who are able to work, should work. I guarantee you that if people were given 6 weeks of unemployment, and told after that benefit is gone, it's gone, they'd get out and find jobs before the payments stopped!

When you say "the State" what exactly do you mean? That is the government, and the government is comprised of people with some sort of values system or ideology. If that ideology is that the government should be involved in every aspect of our lives from the cradle to the grave, and should make decisions for us such as what car we should drive or what light bulbs or toilets we should install in our houses, then we will have an overpowering government and a lot of people on the dole. If government is scaled back, then people will need to start assuming more responsibility for themselves and one another.

In poorer countries, the situation is different and usually there is a corrupt leader or government keeping the people from rising up by starving them.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.