Darrinia
27-02-2006, 14:26
the issue at hand:
Social Inequality Reaching Embarrassing Levels [legislation pending]
The Issue
Commentators have warned that Darrinia's social inequalities threaten to make it an international pariah.
The Debate
"Look, I don't like it either," said Chamber of Commerce spokesperson Beth Longbottom. "Just on the way here, I had to step over three homeless people, and one of my shoes got caught on a beggar. But inequality is the price we pay for economic strength. If anything, we need fewer taxes, so those of us who are well-off can afford to be more generous. If we want to, that is."
This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
"I think we've forgotten what economic strength is all about," says social worker Billy-Bob Gutenberg. "The economy is meant to be a means to a high standard of living, not an end in itself. It's become an excuse for the rich to prosper while the poor fall through the cracks. Not everyone is poor because they don't feel like working. We must provide more welfare."
[Accept]
"Who says we're an international pariah?" demands military honcho Roxanne Jones. "What are their names? If that's the way the international community feels, we obviously need to prepare for war."
[Accept]
what is the best option for a libertarian? I am leaning towards the first ruling however the way it is wordedis obviously slanted to make those who oppose mandatory welfare and government forced charity seem villainously indifferent to the struggles of their fellow man.
The second option is exactly what would make every libertarian tell a congressman to shove it.
And the third is ridiculous... Perhaps I wouldbe better off dismissing this issue?
Social Inequality Reaching Embarrassing Levels [legislation pending]
The Issue
Commentators have warned that Darrinia's social inequalities threaten to make it an international pariah.
The Debate
"Look, I don't like it either," said Chamber of Commerce spokesperson Beth Longbottom. "Just on the way here, I had to step over three homeless people, and one of my shoes got caught on a beggar. But inequality is the price we pay for economic strength. If anything, we need fewer taxes, so those of us who are well-off can afford to be more generous. If we want to, that is."
This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
"I think we've forgotten what economic strength is all about," says social worker Billy-Bob Gutenberg. "The economy is meant to be a means to a high standard of living, not an end in itself. It's become an excuse for the rich to prosper while the poor fall through the cracks. Not everyone is poor because they don't feel like working. We must provide more welfare."
[Accept]
"Who says we're an international pariah?" demands military honcho Roxanne Jones. "What are their names? If that's the way the international community feels, we obviously need to prepare for war."
[Accept]
what is the best option for a libertarian? I am leaning towards the first ruling however the way it is wordedis obviously slanted to make those who oppose mandatory welfare and government forced charity seem villainously indifferent to the struggles of their fellow man.
The second option is exactly what would make every libertarian tell a congressman to shove it.
And the third is ridiculous... Perhaps I wouldbe better off dismissing this issue?