Safety net--at whose expense?

Reader comment on: Disability Nation

Submitted by Harry Binswanger (United States), May 17, 2013 20:15

None of this is to say that . . .there shouldn't be a government-provided safety net

Okay, but separately, I hope you agree that a government-provided safety net is immoral. "Government provided" means: "forcibly looted from someone."

Anyone who wants to engage in charitable endeavors is free to do so. Just don't point a gun at the head of others and make them pay for it.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
Not invented in America [67 words]Robert MarchenoirMay 19, 2013 18:32
Everyone Should Have a Right to a Job [287 words]Eugene Patrick DevanyMay 18, 2013 11:29
What if we returned funding disability responsibility to the 50 states? [158 words]Mark MIchaelMay 18, 2013 06:57
What if we returned funding disability responsibility to the 50 states? [158 words]Mark MIchaelMay 17, 2013 23:13
⇒ Safety net--at whose expense? [66 words]Harry BinswangerMay 17, 2013 20:15
How many of these folks hired the lawers who advertise on TV [13 words]LyleMay 17, 2013 13:38

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Safety net--at whose expense? by Harry Binswanger

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.