Imagine, someone actually saying people are not entitled to cradle to grave subsidization by the tax-payer? That if people are continually shielded from
negative economic effects, it makes them lazy and weak. About TIME someone said it.

On 2021-11-25 5:17 p.m., RichA wrote:
> Imagine, someone actually saying people are not entitled to cradle to grave subsidization by the tax-payer? That if people are continually shielded from
> negative economic effects, it makes them lazy and weak. About TIME someone said it.
>

Let them eat cake!

On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 19:59:42 UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2021-11-25 5:17 p.m., RichA wrote:
> > Imagine, someone actually saying people are not entitled to cradle to grave subsidization by the tax-payer? That if people are continually shielded from
> > negative economic effects, it makes them lazy and weak. About TIME someone said it.
> >
> Let them eat cake!

Hardly the same. But people shouldn't expect to go through life with no negative consequences. A rich person can die of cancer at 40 almost as easily as a poor person, it just happens.
The state shouldn't be required to absorb 100% of it. Economically, all these things are nothing but a path toward full communism. The manipulation of labour markets, control of production,
re-distribution of income with no thought to how it is earned. The complete disregard for different abilities among people that results in mindless attempts to "equalize."

On 11/26/2021 8:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 19:59:42 UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2021-11-25 5:17 p.m., RichA wrote:
>>> Imagine, someone actually saying people are not entitled to cradle to grave subsidization by the tax-payer? That if people are continually shielded from
>>> negative economic effects, it makes them lazy and weak. About TIME someone said it.
>>>
>> Let them eat cake!
>
> Hardly the same. But people shouldn't expect to go through life with no negative consequences. A rich person can die of cancer at 40 almost as easily as a poor person, it just happens.
> The state shouldn't be required to absorb 100% of it. Economically, all these things are nothing but a path toward full communism. The manipulation of labour markets, control of production,
> re-distribution of income with no thought to how it is earned. The complete disregard for different abilities among people that results in mindless attempts to "equalize."

Society hardly purports to obviate all "negative consequences". At most
it hopes merely to take a few off the table... like starvation...

On 11/26/21 5:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> Hardly the same. But people shouldn't expect to go through life with no negative consequences. A rich person can die of cancer at 40 almost as easily as a poor person, it just happens.

hardly, a rich person can afford the best doctors and treatment, the
poor can't.

in any event, the poor die 7 times more than rich folk