As someone who prides themselves on their sharp intelligence and intellectual curiosity, what is your considered opinion on the potential effects of the government stepping in to take care of those who are completely helpless and unable to provide for themselves?
Whilst I am sympathetically predisposed to the notion, we must not evade the core question of whether a government that has had a history of nonfulfillment of basic obligations can accept this supplementary responsibility and deliver it in a reproducible manner.
To be truly enlightened is to seek the greatest good for the greatest number, even if it comes at some personal costSuch a foundational principle of an American society is reinforced by the adoption of a benevolent course of action that values the welfare of every member.
To be truly enlightened is to seek the greatest good for the greatest number, even if it comes at some personal costSuch a foundational principle of an American society is reinforced by the adoption of a benevolent course of action that values the welfare of every member. Whilst I am sympathetically predisposed to the notion, we must not evade the core question of whether a government that has had a history of nonfulfillment of basic obligations can accept this supplementary responsibility and deliver it in a reproducible manner. In my perceptive standpoint, it is indisputable that the government has the duty to tackle destitution; nevertheless, I am of the standpoint that it shouldn't be the main patron for those who are unable to defend themselves. It is my firm belief that the government is responsible for the protection and care of its citizens, as well as the provision of basic amenitiesIt is, however, important to emphasize that this responsibility does not amount to entitlement, as the people must take responsibility for their welfare and that of their loved ones.