| > this concept that we should leave everyone to fend for themselves and should simply ignore those who are less fortunate borders on sociopathy. Actually, it borders on something we call "nature." Whatever position we take about nature, what we can't do is ignore it. The antipode of nature would be a society in which there really is a social safety net that isn't temporary and discretionary, absolutely reliable, and not means-tested. Such a thing would collide with reality, the collision would be spectacular, and reality would prevail. > I, for one, take comfort in knowing that even if everything in my life falls apart, there are some basic social safety nets in place to keep me from starving to death of the streets. But there is no such thing, not in the way you seem to think. If such a net existed as more than a limited approximation, it would be destroyed by overexploitation. Human societies live in nature, and nature is in charge. Nature doesn't waste anything. The human reproductive capacity is limited only by available resources and premature death. > The number of essential government services that you use everyday, even without leaving your house is surprisingly high. Yes -- and the number of ways that government can misuse or waste tax revenues is surprisingly high. I recommend a skeptical attitude toward government and hypothetically perfect social safety nets. You're young -- you'll figure it out. “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” ― Winston Churchill |