Quote:
Originally Posted by jc3900
I wonder why he has similar views.
|
The truth? I believe he was ill-informed. He's a good kid, and very bright too.... But my son grew up advantaged in many ways. He's very healthy; not disabled in any way. He doesn't have to rely on government programs. Yet. Hasn't started working either. Grew up in mostly decent middle-class-like Suburbia... and is still living at his mother's house.
Given his current experiences, it's understandable to me anyways, why he would hold certain views, such as wanting a more Machiavellian approach to government. (Even if Machiavelli is oft-times misinterpreted.) Because he hasn't had to suffer yet, wondering if he could ever get help from somewhere, just for a chance to get back on his feet.
And yet, the irony is that he IS in fact, very dependent on social assistance. Not the governmental type, but the familial type. After all, he didn't exactly "opt-out" from our food assistance program, our shelter assistance program, or even our short-term vehicle loan program.
Oh, but you can say, "Well, that's not a fair comparison! That's what parents are suppose to do!" And you'd be right! However, the comparison is still reasonable: Just as parents are obligated to support their children, so too are governments obligated to support their citizens!
If not, then what's the point of their existence?
Like it or not, agree or disagree, we are all "in the same boat", and we are more dependent on each other than we may even realize. But that's OK, because cooperation and support is the superior long-term strategy for survival.
We need Social Security. Period. We need to fix it, but opting-out isn't the answer.