what kind of locust mentality is that?
Person A can feel good that he is helping Person B. Person (Uber Rich) can feel good is he helping everyone, and Persons D - Z can be greatful for the system.
This is the strong helping the weak. The healthy helping the sick. The rich have a greater responsibility to the poor, because they can afford to help others.
this is the bedrock of society, living together, helping each other out according to our strengths and recieving help from others according to our weaknesses.
Not, well I pay more, so surely I should get a better service, or at least a wine menu and fancy meal when I go in to have my ingrowing toenails removed.
Getting that little edge, or special advantage or luxury is so important for people now that they are willing to see the complete dissolution of any form of benevolent society that doesn't directly benefit those who least need it (i.e themselves).
See this mentality all the time commuting. The train to stanstead is about 50 minutes from London and there's a first class section.
Its seats are about the same, only they get a little paper thing over the headrest. there's a few more tables and obviously its alot less crowded than 2nd. People pay more than double for this luxury. you smuggle your own drinks and sarnies on the train and the people looking through from 1st want to complain. Its not enough to live in luxury, you want to see other people dieing the mud to really make you feel like a king.
How fragile are some people's ego's and what kind of inferiority complex must you have to live like this?
It doesn't really work like that though does it. We've had well over 50 years of free, compulsory education for each and every child in the country, and still people abuse it and don't make the most of this wonderful opportunity.
You say people are grateful for the system that supports them, I'd suggest that many think that it's their right to be supported. This nanny statism is a major problem in my opinion because people seldom do things if others are there to do it for them. So where families were once expected to provide for their own, and indeed neighbourhoods for their own, now the state is the shoulder to cry on.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in philanthropy and helping others, but we have a society now where the safety net is so big it's smothering. As I've said before, charity should be a voluntary thing, not obligatory. Making mistakes is all a part of life and there should be punishments for making them, it's all a part of learning. At the moment the cushion is so big people can almost make mistakes with impunity.
I'm adopted and you wouldn't believe the hoops my parents had to jump through to prove themselves worthy. Yet time after time people can knock out children with no thought of how to raise the child and the state steps in to provide housing, money, goodness knows what else. Now if people want to help single parents, or the jobless (remember the 13 years of free education every kid has?) then fair enough, you should be able to spend your money the way you want, but no one should be obligated to help another. That's a basic freedom, the right to live your life how you like so long as you don't hurt anyone else.
It's about taking responsibility for your own actions and your own life. Go to places in the third world and they'd give their right arm for 13 years of free education, yet so many of our kids absolutely waste it. Why should anyone be obliged to help someone who has wasted such an opportunity in life? We've had a welfare state now for over 50 years and yet we still have millions of poor and uneducated people. Surely if it was working at all the numbers would be getting less and less, but they grow ever greater each year. We're not helping the poor, we're making them dependant.
