Originally Posted by Benzo
No it means people stepped up, you said they wouldn't
I am in full support of social program support, which is why I am not an anarchist. History does support, how has Socialist societies or old school monarchies treated its people?
Only if I accept your thesis as is true.
I don't believe it is.
i didn't say people wouldn't step up, i implied that only a select few will, and it shoud be the government's responsibility to care for the weak and underpriviledged. now you're straight-up putting words into my mouth.
the old-school monarchies and socialist governmenst argument is incredibly weak. you can do a lot better than that. you propose a confusion between authoritariansim and socialism. as acgm has pointed out, there are many happy and successful socialist nations that are not authoritarian.
you missed my point about the logical hurdle you made regarding my last point. you don't need to accept the thesis prima facie, you need to assess it based on the rationale that follows, although i will acknowledge that the word 'and' is causing confusion at the start of the 3rd senbtence. you can delete that.
compassionate conservatism implies that you are willing to accept some curbs on free markets, by definition. once you do that, you can't just argue from the position of free markets anymore. you need to make the position based on a needs analysis and balance. that is the rationale behind the thesis that the position is untenable, not a point that merely follows it.