Put me in charge

[AMonger]

...Taken to its logical conclusion, people think it's OK to punish those who are on public assistance by taking their rights away. To say that it's voluntary, which makes it OK, still makes it a punishment. .

This is a good argument against those that maintain that because we choose to work in what the gummint calls "a regulated industry," we've willingly forfeited our rights against self-incrimination and even the right to remain silent. It doesn't work in this case, however, which I'll point out below.

"If you want to live off the dole, you'll live like we say."

That's slavery, actually. By definition, dole is charity or relief, and charity or relief cannot come with the strings of Constitutional Rights attached to it without it becoming slavery.

All income redistribution is theft. By giving someone WIC, or food stamps, or AFDC, or any other welfare handout, we're essentially giving them permission to steal without consequence. It's still theft, even if 51% of a given group of assclowns votes for it and another assclown writes his name across the bottom.

Same principle with unions: it's one thing for employees of ACME Widgets to send a rep into the boss's office and tell him they insist that he bargain with them collectively, and if he won't, they'll resign en masse, and then he'll be in quite a pickle, won't he? "So just be sensible, boss, and let's hammer out an agreement we can all live with, huh?"

If that's as far as it goes, they may be jerks, but they're not illegal/immoral/unethical jerks.

It's when they say, "...and if you don't, we're going to get our friends in government to prohibit you from replacing us permanently, and we're going to intimidate anyone who tries to work for you to keep you going," that they cross into illegal/immoral/unethical behavior. They've used the destructive power of government to abridge someone else's rights, tip the scales in their favor, and avoid the consequences of their actions.

Ok, the same is true of those who live off government handouts, handouts which, as long as they're taken absent the donors' free will in giving it, inherently constitute theft. If they "collected" their loot or groceries themselves, they'd be arrested for some flavor of theft, but because they launder their stolen proceeds through government, the act is decriminalized. Like the union thug, they use the power of government to avoid the consequence of their crime, something there is no "right" to do.

So, it cannot be said that limiting the activities their theft has gained them violates their rights. They have no right to food or a plasma TV or shiny rims for a car that they can't/won't obtain through their own labor.

So for taxpayers to limit what they do with stolen money can't be termed a violation of their rights. It's merely a reaction of THOSE FOOTING THE BILL limiting how THEIR money is going to be used i.e "I may not be able to stop you from stealing from me entirely, but it's being stolen from me under the guise of preventing you from starving and dying like a dog in the street, and you sure aren't going to use that money to buy a better TV than I can afford when I'm the one supporting you!"

Put another way, you can't complain that your rights are being violated when you have no right to what you have. If you were standing on the corner with a bag of dope in your hand, or some kiddie porn or something like that, and someone runs by and snatches it out of your hand, you can't complain that your rights were violated because there is no right to possess dope or kiddie porn. Likewise, there is no right for a poor person to sustain themselves on my money, so as long as it's happening without my consent, they can't complain that they object to any restrictions placed on their use of what they've stolen. If you're going to steal from me so you don't starve, it takes 'nads of elephantine proportions to claim I'm violating your rights when I insist you use the bare minimum necessary and only for actual necessities.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who expounded on the need to not make charity comfortable, but rather to DRIVE THE POOR FROM IT, for THEIR OWN GOOD.

 

[leezaback]

You have my vote, needed a good tickle today,thanks

 

[Turtle]

All? The assertion that "All income redistribution is theft" is absurd on the face of it. You would at least be closer to being correct if you had said, "All government mandated income redistribution is theft," since the breadwinner of a family who doles out $20 bills to his kids is, in fact, a prime example of income redistribution, but those receiving it would hardly be considered thieves. But even with the clarification of qualification, you have to remember that government mandated income redistribution is something that was voted on and approved by our elected officials. It doesn't become theft just because you don't like it, not does it allow you to come along and ad ex post facto restrictions out of spite and anger, which is what this is really all about.

As for trucking, unless you drive an actual CMV, then you still have all of your rights against self-incrimination and in remaining silent. Those who drive CMV's willing exchange those rights, as per current laws, in favor of protecting the public at large. Those who do not wish to give up their rights in order to to drive a truck can always drive a cargo van. Just because trucking has regulations that require people to give up some rights does not mean the same thing needs to be, or should be applied to something else like welfare. That's the classic Straw Man logical fallacy argument used to rationalize a "because I say so" desire.

 

[tbubster]

the billions of tax payer dollars that is given to people WHO CHOOSE to live on welfare is a danger to the public at large.I say this because as a choice for millions of people to live off welfare it takes billions of tax dollars away from schools,from police and fire departments.from city and states for much much needed road work.think about it if more rules and laws were put into place to make it harder for them to make that choice.they can choose to collect welfare and pee in cup,not buy flat screen tvs,go to bars/clubs on weekends,buy spinner rims.do 30 hours a week of community service I say only 30 because that leaves them time to look for real work.Or they can choose to get up every day and go to work and spend there money as they want.same reasoning different example.
im not calling it theft!because i belive you help when its needed.however in no way should that help come with no strings attached nor should it turn in to a long term thing. heres an idea term limits on being able to collect welfare.Everything in life comes with strings attached why are people so against attaching some strings on welfare?why is it ok for people to choose to live this way,but not ok for others not to want to pay for it?Its funny how people are ok with collecting welfare but that fast food/walmart/store clerk job is beneath them.