Can anyone break this argument?

[rikules]

(I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

so
what you are saying is;

conservatives should start dieting, exercising, stop smoking tobacco and start eating healthy foods to minimize the dangerous of obesity, heart disease, diabetes because YOU
don't want to be a slave is who forced to pay for the irresponsible lifestyles of these people?


I agree.

why should a gay guy or a single guy/female have to pay for insurance and towards
medicare/medicaid that is being DRAINED by people with irresponsible lifestyles?

and why should single people be forced to pay into an insurance system or medicare/medicaid that is being OVERLY TAXED by married conservatives with wives and too many children?

 

[FireGod]

This thread was going along so good too

 

[Liberty]

(I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

so
what you are saying is;

conservatives should start dieting, exercising, stop smoking tobacco and start eating healthy foods to minimize the dangerous of obesity, heart disease, diabetes because YOU
don't want to be a slave is who forced to pay for the irresponsible lifestyles of these people?


I agree.

why should a gay guy or a single guy/female have to pay for insurance and towards
medicare/medicaid that is being DRAINED by people with irresponsible lifestyles?

and why should single people be forced to pay into an insurance system or medicare/medicaid that is being OVERLY TAXED by married conservatives with wives and too many children?

you missed the point completely. From a philosophical stand point, those who advocated UHC (not me) and it's logical conclusion would be control over the lifestyles of individuals. If you want to go fuck hookers and get crabs, fine, but don't BILL ME FOR YOUR MEDICAL BILLS! Get it?

I believe anyone can damage their own bodies as much as they want if it does not impede on the liberty of other individuals. Any law that restricts the life style of individuals is obviously tyrannical and the wrong direction if you value liberty. Thus, UHC violates liberty.

I am for private charity to provide for the truly needy. Some say that isn't enough, but before you say that, let's give it a try. I have faith in the person, not in government...

 

[boedicca]

There is one major reason why we should all be leery of the Government providing Health Insurance/Care to Those In Need: it makes what care they receive Everybody's Business.

There is a special level in Hell where one's life is not one's own, and is bandied about by other people's opinions, preferences, biases, and plain old busybodiness.

 

[saveliberty]

The breakable part of this scenario is, businesses do not ultimately pay for health care or taxes. Costs associated with the product or service offered by the business are all passed on to consumers. Some services and products are easier than others to pass these costs on. For those that can't, they lose their business and pursuit of happiness.

 

[Twofox]

If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

This is a classic political-philosophical question that people have been contemplating for centuries. To what degree are people responsible to their fellow man? People have concluded that pure laissez faire capitalism does not work and that pure socialism does not work. Why is it that B should NOT be responsible for ‘A’? You are using circular logic to say that he should keep it because he earned it. It would be as if I were to argue that ‘B” should give it to ‘A’ so that ‘A’ does not die in the street.

There is no simple answer. It comes down to a difference of opinion about to what degree people should be required to help their fellow human beings.

Here is my reply: B (by his good fortune to be in a relatively free society, and by his being intelligent and resourceful enough, and by being able to receive a education, is in a position to help those less fortunate. It is simply the right thing that he be required to do so to an extent. Society has concluded that we will not have desperately needy people starve on the street. We will have government serve as a safety net for those who have nowhere else to turn.

I like your signature line. To play devil’s advocate, I’d say that Capitalism is so good that those who can’t survive it should be swept out of the way.

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it?

‘A’, to the best of his ability (considering to what degree he might be mentally retarded or severely physically handicapped) is responsible for trying to become self-reliant.



Yes

Will the government force people to modify their behavior?[/ QUOTE=Liberty;2748304]
I’m not a fortune-teller


Yes



Contrary to what the Declaration of Independence says, not all people are created equal. Some people are born mentally and/or physically handicapped. Some are born into wealth and some into poverty. It is difficult, if not impossible, for some people to have liberty and responsibility if they were born with a handicap.



True enough. ‘B’ must lose a little liberty so that ‘A’ can have a better chance at survival.

[QOUTE]To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

There is a middle ground. If someone has $1,000,000,000 to spare, does he really lose any significant degree of liberty if he is required to give $1,000 to someone in need? The question is not whether or not to draw the line but where to draw the line.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representation of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

During the founding, slavery was condoned. Women were forbidden from voting. There was little concern about taking land from the Indians. Times change. We should not resort to a literal interpretation of the Constitution. If we did so, then private citizens can have ICBM’s and animal sacrifices would be allowed. Read the Bill of Rights. Finally, what is to happen to those who, due to severe mental retardation will never be self-reliant and cant find adequate help in the private sector. If it comes to it, are such human beings to be cast away to die in the streets?

I have to agree. There is a middle ground there somewhere. Gov't should be involved only to the extent that they allow us as a nation to have that safety net in place. Ever draw unemployment because you lost your job? Same concept. Building an institution that isn't corrupt or mired down with red tape is also an important topic to discuss along with this.

B has no obligation to A, but anyone paying taxes should be able to expect that those tax dollars are being spent correctly and getting to where they need to be.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can anyone break this argument?

yep, just watch Moe do it...

[youtube]M8Pk1UYkB3I[/youtube]

if I were to argue that ‘B” should give it to ‘A’ so that ‘A’ does not

 

[Liberty]

just ignore the troll.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

just consider the vapidness/vapidity of the OP question.

 

[rikules]

the word "greatest" is subjective. while you use it to describe a utopia of jobs and health care, i use the term "greatest" to describe the amount of liberty, choice, and responsibility of each individual to make their own way in life; which is much more realistic.

its all relative to one's personal opinion.

"the word "greatest" is subjective. while you use it to describe a utopia of jobs and health care, i use the term "greatest" to describe the amount of liberty, choice, and responsibility of each individual to make their own way in life; which is much more realistic."


I understand.

however
if a person doesn't have a job, so no money,
(assuming that we do away with ALL welfare/government subsidies (except for corporations and christian churches, of course)
that person doesn't have as much freedom or liberty or choice as you suggest


I also understand your use of the word "utopia"

however
I am NOT talking about a "utopia"

merely a country in which all the citizens, even those at the bottom, have comfortable and decent lives.

is that so bad?

I do NOT believe in EQUAL DISTRIBUTION of wealth

I have no problem with SOME PEOPLE "earning" more than others

I am opposed to cradle to the grave welfare but would gladly accept TEMPORARY WELFARE and education for people who need it UNTIL THEY ARE READY to reenter the job market

but when more and more of the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people...
while MORE and MORE people live in poverty
and can't afford decent health care
then I think something is wrong.

now...
I do NOT HAVE THE ANSWER!

so don't bother asking me for it....

That sounds fine, but who can have legitimate authority to accurately dictate exactly what is "a decent life"? No human being can have that power as it is different for each individual...

I don't know where the line should be drawn

I do know that lines HAVE been drawn before...

there was a day when coal miners lived in shacks, and worked in DEADLY conditions for slave wages, 6 days a week...

these people lived miserable and pathetically poor lives while the coal mine owners got richer and richer

unfettered capitalists had drawn a line;

"YOU will do ALL the work 6 days a week, 12 hours a day for NO MONEY and you WILL DIE EARLY because of black lung!"
"while we will REAP ALL the rewards and build MANY big mansions all over the country"


that was a very bad place to draw the line

so unions and politicians worked to move that line;
the owners were still getting rich and now the workers were living better, too....

things are still pretty good, today, in fact..better....;

reasonable working hours, plenty of time off, 3 and 4 and 5 day work weeks, health benefits, holiday pay....

and most workers live decent lives in nice housing....
and can afford good things for their families....

(btw...this reminds....."it's a wonderful life" was voted (by conservatives in the national review) as the greatest "conservative movie" ever made (back in the 1990's)...and one of the points jimmy steart makes in that movie is about workers living in decent housing and living decent lives......)

however
the basic question of this thread is "should government be involved in fettering the hands of capitalism in defense and protection of workers

I fear that if you tie the hands of government then big business will not behave in a moral manner
and we'd all be living in shacks again (I mean really...what right do we have asking for a decent livable wage simply because we do all the work for megacorp if it means the owners of megacorp can't buy another yacht?)

there's is currently an acceptable line drawn....

I would not want to see us go back to an earlier, more repressive time

 

[rikules]

(I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

so
what you are saying is;

conservatives should start dieting, exercising, stop smoking tobacco and start eating healthy foods to minimize the dangerous of obesity, heart disease, diabetes because YOU
don't want to be a slave is who forced to pay for the irresponsible lifestyles of these people?


I agree.

why should a gay guy or a single guy/female have to pay for insurance and towards
medicare/medicaid that is being DRAINED by people with irresponsible lifestyles?

and why should single people be forced to pay into an insurance system or medicare/medicaid that is being OVERLY TAXED by married conservatives with wives and too many children?

you missed the point completely. From a philosophical stand point, those who advocated UHC (not me) and it's logical conclusion would be control over the lifestyles of individuals. If you want to go fuck hookers and get crabs, fine, but don't BILL ME FOR YOUR MEDICAL BILLS! Get it?

I believe anyone can damage their own bodies as much as they want if it does not impede on the liberty of other individuals. Any law that restricts the life style of individuals is obviously tyrannical and the wrong direction if you value liberty. Thus, UHC violates liberty.

I am for private charity to provide for the truly needy. Some say that isn't enough, but before you say that, let's give it a try. I have faith in the person, not in government...

I think you miss the point completely....

if in the given scenario it is deemed unfair for B to have to give of his own for the benefit of A then, in my scenario I would ask "why should single people pay more into a system that benefits married people with children" (who pay LESS because of tax breaks for their families)?

or why should people who don't need much medical care because they are responsible for their own health and diets have to pay for people who refuse to take care of their own health and diets?

let's be REALLY fair and give NO tax breaks for families
That merely unfairly punishes single people
and let's deny people B with unhealthy life styles who stuffed themselves with fatty foods and refused to diet or exercise the opportunity to drain insurance or medicare or medicaid and make them pay for their own medical expenses so that C doesn't have to



and now I want to know why you think B giving for A's benefit is BAD (or fiscal slavery of some kind) but think that it's fine for C to have to pay MORE for B's benefit

 

[Liberty]

so
what you are saying is;

conservatives should start dieting, exercising, stop smoking tobacco and start eating healthy foods to minimize the dangerous of obesity, heart disease, diabetes because YOU
don't want to be a slave is who forced to pay for the irresponsible lifestyles of these people?


I agree.

why should a gay guy or a single guy/female have to pay for insurance and towards
medicare/medicaid that is being DRAINED by people with irresponsible lifestyles?

and why should single people be forced to pay into an insurance system or medicare/medicaid that is being OVERLY TAXED by married conservatives with wives and too many children?

you missed the point completely. From a philosophical stand point, those who advocated UHC (not me) and it's logical conclusion would be control over the lifestyles of individuals. If you want to go fuck hookers and get crabs, fine, but don't BILL ME FOR YOUR MEDICAL BILLS! Get it?

I believe anyone can damage their own bodies as much as they want if it does not impede on the liberty of other individuals. Any law that restricts the life style of individuals is obviously tyrannical and the wrong direction if you value liberty. Thus, UHC violates liberty.

I am for private charity to provide for the truly needy. Some say that isn't enough, but before you say that, let's give it a try. I have faith in the person, not in government...

I think you miss the point completely....

if in the given scenario it is deemed unfair for B to have to give of his own for the benefit of A then, in my scenario I would ask "why should single people pay more into a system that benefits married people with children" (who pay LESS because of tax breaks for their families)?

or why should people who don't need much medical care because they are responsible for their own health and diets have to pay for people who refuse to take care of their own health and diets?

let's be REALLY fair and give NO tax breaks for families
That merely unfairly punishes single people
and let's deny people B with unhealthy life styles who stuffed themselves with fatty foods and refused to diet or exercise the opportunity to drain insurance or medicare or medicaid and make them pay for their own medical expenses so that C doesn't have to



and now I want to know why you think B giving for A's benefit is BAD (or fiscal slavery of some kind) but think that it's fine for C to have to pay MORE for B's benefit

If B is forced into contract against his will, that is slavery. B voluntarily donating to charity to help A is a good thing.

 

[boedicca]

there's is currently an acceptable line drawn....

I would not want to see us go back to an earlier, more repressive time

Actually you do. You want us to go back to a modern form of FEUDALISM in which The State (this time run by a Secular Elite instead a Monarch) takes the bulk of one's productivity and doles out sustenance, while the ruling elite live large on our "surplus".

 

[midcan5]

I haven't scanned replies so maybe I am repeating someone, but this thought experiment posits two extremes and assumes they constitute reality. There are a great number of counters that threaten the stability of the premise.

Was the poverty stricken person always poor? One can assume not as most everyone exists in some social structure that supports the person, and thus the social setting. That being the case either the poor person or their family has provided monies to the state and as such under the laws of the state is able to gain assistance when needed.

There is also the responsibility of the shop owner to the society that provides them sustenance. No business operates in a vacuum, and thus they have a responsibility to pay for the social infrastructure in which hey operate. paying taxes etc are just part of the social agreement we make as citizens.

This so called unbreakable argument has no basis in a real world. I haven't time now to list more arguments against so simplistic a point of view.

 

[Liberty]

I haven't scanned replies so maybe I am repeating someone, but this thought experiment posits two extremes and assumes they constitute reality. There are a great number of counters that threaten the stability of the premise.

Was the poverty stricken person always poor? One can assume not as most everyone exists in some social structure that supports the person, and thus the social setting. That being the case either the poor person or their family has provided monies to the state and as such under the laws of the state is able to gain assistance when needed.

There is also the responsibility of the shop owner to the society that provides them sustenance. No business operates in a vacuum, and thus they have a responsibility to pay for the social infrastructure in which hey operate. paying taxes etc are just part of the social agreement we make as citizens.

This so called unbreakable argument has no basis in a real world. I haven't time now to list more arguments against so simplistic a point of view.

it's a philosophical argument meant to stimulate debate on the relationship between government and the fruits of an individual's labor. Ever hear of a platonic dialog? Something like that. Read the whole thread you might learn something.

 

[Oddball]

(I give credit to Andrew Wilkow for this unbreakable argument) There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

To preserve, strengthen, and defend liberty...or to submit and fall for the lies of tyrannical oligarchy and socialism. The choice is obvious for anyone who values the prospects and the potential of the human being.

I am not saying the current system is where we need to be, I am saying we need to look to our founding, and a literal representaion of the constitution...and cut everything that is hurting America and the people in the federal government to return to prosperity...and i mean prosperity for everyone. For if those poor people can say, create a business EASIER...would they not be more prosperous? The current government puts up road blocks to prosperity instead of PROMOTING the growth of the talents of an individual so they can be successful.

Thanks for reading!

Racist!

 

[Oddball]

There is also the responsibility of the shop owner to the society that provides them sustenance. No business operates in a vacuum, and thus they have a responsibility to pay for the social infrastructure in which hey operate. paying taxes etc are just part of the social agreement we make as citizens.

That's why he pays his fuel taxes, city sewer and water, electric bills and other infrastructure costs, not a just rationale why he should be shaken down, under threat of criminal prosecution, to pay for services rendered to indigents.

 

[mattskramer]

If B is forced into contract against his will, that is slavery. B voluntarily donating to charity to help A is a good thing.

I agree. Yet, what if there are some mentally handicapped indigent and ignorant adults (practically abandoned by friends and family) who don’t know how/where to go for charity? What if, provided that such people find prospective shelters, there is no vacancy? People might be too stingy with their wealth to give to those in need. There might be too many needy people and not enough giving in the private charity to “go around”?

I consider the “safety net” provided by government (tax money) to be a necessary evil for the over-all good of society. The issue for me, if there is one, is in deciding how much of a safety net is needed and how long it should be available for each supposedly needy individual.

 

[Madeline]

you missed the point completely. From a philosophical stand point, those who advocated UHC (not me) and it's logical conclusion would be control over the lifestyles of individuals. If you want to go fuck hookers and get crabs, fine, but don't BILL ME FOR YOUR MEDICAL BILLS! Get it?

I believe anyone can damage their own bodies as much as they want if it does not impede on the liberty of other individuals. Any law that restricts the life style of individuals is obviously tyrannical and the wrong direction if you value liberty. Thus, UHC violates liberty.

I am for private charity to provide for the truly needy. Some say that isn't enough, but before you say that, let's give it a try. I have faith in the person, not in government...

I think you miss the point completely....

if in the given scenario it is deemed unfair for B to have to give of his own for the benefit of A then, in my scenario I would ask "why should single people pay more into a system that benefits married people with children" (who pay LESS because of tax breaks for their families)?

or why should people who don't need much medical care because they are responsible for their own health and diets have to pay for people who refuse to take care of their own health and diets?

let's be REALLY fair and give NO tax breaks for families
That merely unfairly punishes single people
and let's deny people B with unhealthy life styles who stuffed themselves with fatty foods and refused to diet or exercise the opportunity to drain insurance or medicare or medicaid and make them pay for their own medical expenses so that C doesn't have to

and now I want to know why you think B giving for A's benefit is BAD (or fiscal slavery of some kind) but think that it's fine for C to have to pay MORE for B's benefit

If B is forced into contract against his will, that is slavery. B voluntarily donating to charity to help A is a good thing.

Remember, B has money because he runs a business (as opposed to inheriting it, etc.). B has customers, suppliers, etc. This is one reason B chooses to live among his neighbors, one of who is A.

In choosing to live there and in profiting from the commerce of/with his neighbors, B runs up a debt to them. We call this debt "taxes". How high that debt should be is debatable, but IMO -- and I freely admit, this is a personal opinion -- B is best served and in fact does owe for some portion of the cost of health care of some sort for A whilst A is unable to pay those costs alone.

We keep talking about how much we should "take" from B...but what about what we "take" from A for B's benefit? What about the government resources dedicated to facilitating B's business that could otherwise have been dedicated to A's well-being? As a member of the community, doesn't A have some right to a portion of the government's largess, just as B does?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Basically, L's argument is that the poor and the powerless deserve to be poor and powerless and that we need to return to the days before the king and aristocracy were robbed of what was rightfully theirs.

I say we let him join the king in the guillotine.

Actually, his challenge is that you justify your position. Since you are incapable of doing that, you have to resort to idiocy, which you excel at.