Is it morally right to accept government benefits?

[Original_Intent]

The immorality is in the legalized plunder. The immorality is in voting for someone because they promised you something that someone else would pay for.

A good many people would never have been driven to the point that they needed assistance if htey had not been repeatedly plundered in the first place. And we also know that "the poor" are not the real beneficiaries of the plunder, it is those who are doing the plunder, and they "help the poor" only to gain their votes. And the ultimate goal is to make us all dependents of the state. This we must resist to the utmost of our capacity, however, I feel that after years of being plundered for the support of others, should the need arise, I do not think there is anything wrong with taking from programs that you were forced to support, but should do all in your ability to return to a state of self sufficiency as quickly as possible, and I also think you have a responsibility to turn to your family first for assistance.

[SmallFarm]

Well there is a way to avoid paying income taxes without breaking the law. Don't earn an income.

[patriotsaint]

The immorality is in the legalized plunder. The immorality is in voting for someone because they promised you something that someone else would pay for.

A good many people would never have been driven to the point that they needed assistance if htey had not been repeatedly plundered in the first place. And we also know that "the poor" are not the real beneficiaries of the plunder, it is those who are doing the plunder, and they "help the poor" only to gain their votes. And the ultimate goal is to make us all dependents of the state. This we must resist to the utmost of our capacity, however, I feel that after years of being plundered for the support of others, should the need arise, I do not think there is anything wrong with taking from programs that you were forced to support, but should do all in your ability to return to a state of self sufficiency as quickly as possible, and I also think you have a responsibility to turn to your family first for assistance.

Absolutely agree, which is why I voted for number two.

[creator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Read that Wikipedia entry, and think about what is has to do with this discussion. (I'd like to get your take on it)

Then visit this discussion: "Righteousness NOT Revolution"

[patriotsaint]

How many of us have ignored or even turned our noses up at beggars and panhandlers - do we just assume they are trying to make a buck the easy way or earn their next drink or drug fix? Or do we seek them out and offer beds in our homes to them and meals at our table like the Savior did and told us to do? There may actually be those who are destitute and (even if they wanted to) - cannot collect benefits. But maybe there are those on the streets who simply don't believe in it, and would rather beg on the streets - than collect from a corrupt system and forcibly take money from others. So how many of you who are so adamant that we should not collect benefits under ANY circumstances, and would rather their families be beggars on the street - how many of you are CURRENTLY bringing the homeless and jobless and food less into YOUR homes, and sharing your food storage and your extra blankets and your living room couch - in order to start the cycle of charity that should circumvent the corrupt welfare system in our country?? I would wager NONE.

Sanctimonious assumptions.........And who on earth said that you must give a homeless person a spot on your couch to be Christ-like? Contrary to the picture you are painting, there are more than two options. We don't have to choose between making a homeless shelter out of our home and embracing the government welfare system

The reason we have this corrupt system is because the people in this country are NOT charitable and will NOT do what it takes (and did not do what it takes up to this point), to prevent a corrupt system from this from developing. And I feel that those who are adamantly preaching against it, are not truly doing their part to combat it. I hear people all the time complaining about "welfare sucking leaches" (including on this forum and in this thread), but do those complainers go seek out those families and offer all the extra they have to help those people avoid using the system when they are in need????

More assumptions and an incorrect statement. The corrupt system did not develop because people are uncharitable. The corrupt system developed because of secret combinations. Yes, the people should have been more active to oppose the corruption, but that is why secret combinations are so effective........they are secret.

YES there are PLENTY of people who take advantage of "the system" but there are always going to be those. There are those in the church who take advantage of the church welfare system and eat up the fast offerings we paid to help those who truly need it. It's not our place to judge them, it's our place to help and offer charity to those in need, and the bottom line is.... WE DON'T. So this corrupt system of welfare will STAY.

You assume we don't. There are plenty of people who do far more than pay a fast offering.

Nobody has argued that the needy shouldn't be helped. The bottom line is that the government is not the correct vehicle for helping the needy.......especially when the government does so by forcibly violating the agency of individuals and taking their property against their will.

[Jason]

I just don't think we should vilify those who are forced into a position of needing help and accepting government assistance - because in our society that is what's available. And the FACT IS.... most people are NOT charitable enough! We need to focus the blame on those who deserve it, and present feasible ways to remedy the system, not just judge those who accept help as "unrighteous" for doing so.

....along the lines of the wicked are in need of harsher task masters! Forced to give charity....interesting thought. Government facilitates that because they gain more power in the process....but I'll buy that!

[patriotsaint]

And the FACT IS.... most people are NOT charitable enough! We need to focus the blame on those who deserve it, and present feasible ways to remedy the system, not just judge those who accept help as "unrighteous" for doing so.

So it's OK to judge "most people" as uncharitable and it's OK to pass a blanket judgement on those who you deem deserve blame, but it's not OK to judge the plunder of property and usurpation of agency as unrighteous?

I don't see how that is consistent.

[creator]

I don't think it's fair to limit the poll to only the three options given in the first place, and vilify those who BECAUSE OF an unrighteous system, and BECAUSE OF secret combinations and corrupt government, and BECAUSE OF lack of charity in this world - have chosen to accept government benefits when they have been forced into an unfortunate situation where there aren't many alternatives to begin with and they as individuals may not have alternative choices.

Vilify the secret combinations, vilify the greedy and uncharitable, vilify the dishonest lazy welfare leaches who don't need it, but don't vilify those who are trapped in the system and are trying to do the best they can with the circumstances they are given - in a corrupt evil world, to honestly support their families when they feel they have to use resources when they are needed to become self sufficient.

I agree

[creator]

I posted this response on another similar thread and also wanted to post it here in case anyone felt I was "vilifying" them for ever having been in a situation where they had to partake of the spoils of our corrupt system. My intent was not to judge, condemn or vilify...

It's not always the best way to approach a discussion, but sometimes I put forth a question or a statement not because it's my stance but as a way to present an idea, get feedback, learn from others, and possibly a new perspective. Such was the case in this discussion.

My perspective has definitely changed on this issue.

As one friend told me, in regards to this discussion, which helped change my perspective: "you are thinking of yourself as free. not in bondage"

You could say I've been able to come to terms better with the fact that we are slaves in a corrupt system, to an extent. As a nation (world?) we are in bondage. I have a tendency to want to think like a freeman, not a bad thing, but must also realize that while principles do govern, we also must consider the best strategy/tactic for the situation - and if in bondage this could very well mean that you find yourself faced with only two options, none of which are ideal, or good, but options handpicked by the master, so you simply choose the better of the two (Battle of Blair Mountain), and look forward to a better day, while also doing what you can to make that better day come sooner, standing up for freedom, spreading the principles of the Gospel and Liberty, while avoiding "tweaking the tail of the beast".

[patriotsaint]

I appreciate that clarification Jules.

[Squally]

A few years ago I would have felt more strongly against any welfare or govt aid, but that was before I realized we are enslaved and the options are limited as the elites gather in the wealth and collapse the US. There are virtually none who don't partake in one way or another by living within the gadianton system already set up.

Taking welfare from the gad managed government at this juncture may end up a necessary evil for some who would have never imagined it. Until this constrained system is changed and or completely overthrown, victims getting help might be necessary since the prison has its confines and limitations. I guess what I am saying is that I won't automatically judge those who use govt aid at this point as I recognize that many are actually victims of the bondage they are in.

[armedtotheteeth]

The government has no $$$ to give anymore, its all gone. Anyone who takes money from the government in any form is adding to the debt which we all know leads to bondage!

"Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency." ETB BYU 12 April 1977

This prophetic warning has been ignored and we are now insolvent as a nation, and yet we still are arguing to the contrary of what prophets has said.

The argument of "I am just getting back what i was forced to pay in" is moot. The money has been spent. The $$ being paid out now in benefits is putting us further back from any type of recovery.
Don't you get it, the LDGs want you on government aid. They are more then happy for you to get a freebe, they want to be your savior. We are playing right into their hands. flaxen cord!

[Jason]

The government has no $$$ to give anymore, its all gone. Anyone who takes money from the government in any form is adding to the debt which we all know leads to bondage!

"Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency." ETB BYU 12 April 1977

This prophetic warning has been ignored and we are now insolvent as a nation, and yet we still are arguing to the contrary of what prophets has said.

The argument of "I am just getting back what i was forced to pay in" is moot. The money has been spent. The $$ being paid out now in benefits is putting us further back from any type of recovery.
Don't you get it, the LDGs want you on government aid. They are more then happy for you to get a freebe, they want to be your savior. We are playing right into their hands. flaxen cord!

As far as I can tell....I haven't seen rationalization based on being "a contributing taxpayer". More along the lines of "stuck in this wicked system" and "playing by the rules"...which some have interpreted to be the "law of the land".

You are warning about spilling the milk when it has already been spilt (http://www.millennialstar.org/heber-j-grant-and-fdr/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) ....now we face the fallout!

[AllTen]

I posted this response on another similar thread and also wanted to post it here in case anyone felt I was "vilifying" them for ever having been in a situation where they had to partake of the spoils of our corrupt system. My intent was not to judge, condemn or vilify...

It's not always the best way to approach a discussion, but sometimes I put forth a question or a statement not because it's my stance but as a way to present an idea, get feedback, learn from others, and possibly a new perspective. Such was the case in this discussion.

My perspective has definitely changed on this issue.

As one friend told me, in regards to this discussion, which helped change my perspective: "you are thinking of yourself as free. not in bondage"

You could say I've been able to come to terms better with the fact that we are slaves in a corrupt system, to an extent. As a nation (world?) we are in bondage. I have a tendency to want to think like a freeman, not a bad thing, but must also realize that while principles do govern, we also must consider the best strategy/tactic for the situation - and if in bondage this could very well mean that you find yourself faced with only two options, none of which are ideal, or good, but options handpicked by the master, so you simply choose the better of the two (Battle of Blair Mountain), and look forward to a better day, while also doing what you can to make that better day come sooner, standing up for freedom, spreading the principles of the Gospel and Liberty, while avoiding "tweaking the tail of the beast".

Thanks Brian for the comment.

It reminds me something I believe I heard Steve Pratt say:
"Liberty is the freedom to choose the right"

[buffalo_girl]

Thanks, I 'll stick with my provincial view that those that can need to be up and doing for themselves. There is no question that there are far more people capable of working that are on welfare rolls than those who have "nowhere to turn". Your insistnece ont he other thread that everything that I state is maybe how it should be, but "what do they do in the meantime?" is, sad to say the socialist, bleeding heart liberal line that has gotten us into our dire situation in the first place. For the umpteenth time, I am NOT saying "It sucks to be you to the poor". What I am saying, and what is consistent with gospel principles is be self sufficient, and after that turn to your family, then the church, and if those FAIL you, then turn to the public charity, legalized theft or whatever you want to call it.

The example you gave of the 21 year olds seemed to indicate that you were unsure whether they would go to their family for help. That sounds like a problem on THEIR part. If they go to their families and they will not help then condemnation on the family and then church should help them (and as the church does will likely ask them to give some service in exchange for the help - this is not selfishness this is for THEIR benefit.) Now last time I said this you said "Fine that is how it should be but what do we do in the meantime?" I'm telling you THIS is what we do in the meantime. It seems like you are not getting the answer you want and so you are just ignoring what you don;t want to hear.

The above is an example of what concerns me about our 'heated' discussions on the Forum.

Brian presented an interesting problem regarding 'government' entitlements, doles, tax extortion, etc. Mummy & Brian agree that the system is now so convoluted and absolutely corrupt EVERYONE has been corrupted by it.

Some of us DO NOT live in the United States, but are also members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (I live in North Dakota - which is pretty much like living in another country, if not another world.)

Some of us are hard core Libertarians. Some of us realize it doesn't matter one whit what political party line we want to believe, the US/NWO is in control right now and we have to do our best to take care of our families given the realities of our time and place.

Sometimes folks have to make decisions they thought they would never, ever have to make - decisions in conflict with their higher ideals. Some of us live in countries more socialist than ours.

Regardless, those differences of national reality are surely secondary to our being members of Christ's Church. That was the point I was trying to make. Can we honestly base the way we treat each other on the fact that some of us live in a country where socialized healthcare is an accepted aspect of life and even appreciated for what it provides?

I am NOT advocating the dole, obamacare, euthanasia, corporate welfare, life-long pensions & elite health care for politicians, tobacco subsidies, goat subsidies, ethanol subsidies, public schools subsidies, Wall St. bailouts. I would just as soon see all of it disappear right now so we can get on with 'real life'!

My plea for consideration of and patience with our 'national' differences in how we 'talk' to each other was misinterpreted. When I use the term 'provincial' I am referring to our 'worldly' perspectives and how we treat each other based on a 'cultural' norm.

Utah has its very own subset 'cultural' norm which has its perspective based on all sorts of things besides the Gospel of Jesus Christ - including adherence to the Objectivist philosophy promulgated by that famous atheist, Ayn Rand. (I met her many years ago after a lecture at Lewis & Clark College. She was as hard as nails and having an affair with her much younger disciple, Nathaniel Branden. Her best asset was her kindly, and extremely well-mannered husband, Frank O'Connor.)

Again, the point I'm trying to make here is that we, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ, are first of all, 'fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God'. All our other differences can be overcome through living the Principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

In addition to the issue of 'manners', what I said got mixed up with something ChelC said. Somewhere along the line, people started behaving like attack dogs over this hybrid post. I lost my temper over patriotsaint's 'highfiving' Shadow's comment about my post.

Perhaps we all need to work on trying to understand another person's point-of-view before we decide that person's opinion makes him/her someone unworthy of our company to be scornfully cast aside. You may not agree with the perspective or the opinion, but then again, you may not understand it either.

In either case, it isn't the person you should be rejecting.

For the record: We subsist on our own land, work some off farm to earn 'money' for taxes, insurance, seed, equipment, etc., are on NO USDA or other government programs, have NOT earned enough income in the past 12 years on the land to pay income tax, and DO pay full tithing on every 'dollar' we receive. The bishop will NOT take sheep, chickens, eggs or horses 'in kind'. WE ARE POOR in the eyes of the world. VERY POOR, but never without what we need.

[ChelC]

I wonder why your bishop won't take it. I know sometimes there have been farmers who've paid tithing in grain, and the church facilities take it (even if it's sub par and would normally be rejected). I guess they just don't know what to do with it?

[freedomforall]

I've read a lot of these posts on this thread. I have to say that I am appalled with the anger, accusations and innuendo contained herein. And at the same time I applaud those who have tried to tone it down.
I want to remind everyone here about a man who was born and raised in a corrupt society. He was poor and yet was rich in spirit. He was clothed with less than beautiful garb, yet he was satisfied. He had little, yet gave much. He taught righteous principles, yet was scorned and laughed at.
Did he live his life righteously even though there were always those around him that were wicked. And because he lived among so much wickedness, did that make him any less righteous? Did he refuse food from those he deemed wicked, or did he partake and give thanks? Against all odds did he stand against wickedness, yet did he love those who drove nails in his hands and feet before standing him up attached to a cross?

Would a caged, hungry POW say no to a communist that is feeding him rat meat when he is starving?

Our purpose on this forum is not to condemn but to enlighten, buildup and help one another to live more righteously, no matter what our circumstances are or where we live. Christ lived among the wicked, yet lived a perfect life, and no where have I read that God The Father was upset with his son for accepting anything from a wicked man. In fact, Christ himself said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Sometimes we have to give something to a corrupt government, and at the same time, we strive to keep ourselves worthy of God's blessings by doing our best to live, think and act in accordance with gospel principals. And sometimes we take something from government...a government that is corrupt in every way, yet it is all we have at this time. If the government were acting and doing as the Savior would accept, then we wouldn't have to take anything from it. There would be no rich, nor poor because a righteous society gives and a socialistic society takes...and that's the difference.

I can't imagine hundreds of LDS all of a sudden putting a stop to their SS checks and VA benefit checks. Only but a few grew up on a farm where they learned how to grow food, raise livestock and earn a living from the selling of crops--and where grown children continue the trend so that older mom and dad don't starve to death. We have very little bartering opportunities where we can exchange goods one with another as did the people in Book of Mormon times.

The mission here is not to criticize one another, Satan's way, rather, it is to build each other up and help where we can emotionally, spiritually and to have charity, God's way!

[buffalo_girl]

I wonder why your bishop won't take it. I know sometimes there have been farmers who've paid tithing in grain, and the church facilities take it (even if it's sub par and would normally be rejected). I guess they just don't know what to do with it?

We are told it is 'Church Policy'.

I'm not sure a bishop who drives a late model Jaguar - whose wife drives another one in a different color - would indeed know what to do with it - sub par or not.

An endangered breed of English work horse or an English Leicester ewe or ram? Probably not. Brown eggs, Plymouth Rock hens? Don't know. Appears not to be of interest.

For our part, we thank the Lord daily for our animals and our blessings. We pray for the well-being of our family, flocks & herds, and all that we have stewardship over. We do the best we can and sincerely hope the Lord considers our efforts to be a bit more than sub par.

[gkearney]

I wonder why your bishop won't take it. I know sometimes there have been farmers who've paid tithing in grain, and the church facilities take it (even if it's sub par and would normally be rejected). I guess they just don't know what to do with it?

The Bishop should have contacted the "Tithing in Kind" office at church headquarters. As a clerk I have had occasion to handle tithing paid in wheat and in cattle. The Church has a very effective system for handling transactions like this.

[ChelC]

I wanted to clarify the "sub par" comment. I was in no way suggesting your donations would be sub par, BG. What I meant was that when my husband gets grain from church farms, he has to test a sample for moisture, protein, broken pieces, etc. He assigns it a grade, and if it isn't good enough, it's trucked back to the farmers who must sell it, usually for animal feed. My husband has mentioned in the past being instructed that if a farmer pays tithing in grain, that are to take it... period.

That's why I find it sad that efforts would not be made for you to pay your tithing, and surprising that a bishop wouldn't make it happen.

[freedomforall]

BTW I take 475 a month in VA benefits. The governement told me I have a service connected disability from PTSD after they sent me to Iraq and I don't feel a bit guilty for taking their fake monopoly money

There hasn't been much said about veterans receiving VA benees. Perhaps it has nothing to do with this thread.
There are a lot of Viet Nam vets getting monthly checks from the gov't, and by the way, the draft was in affect until 1975, so we had seven choices 1 Army ..2 Navy ..3 Marines ..4 Air Force ..5 Coast Guard ..6 run to another country or ..7 go to jail. I was a Marine in Nam during 1968-69 during the time the worst TET offensive took place. The VN conflict was not even a war, yet 50,000 Americans lost their lives, some were put into POW camps, and many more were affected by Agent Orange, which by the way, was another fine idea by our gov't. So now more and more people are dying every year just from its affects. And at the same time, 1968, there were fine citizens walking around on campuses holding war protest signs that had no clue whatsoever of what was really taking place over there. WWII returnees got called heroes, Nam vets got called "baby killers, but then again, it was okay for America to drop Atomic bombs on Japan. I wonder if all the babies at that time survived. Heh, heh!
I don't think that getting VA benees, especially when the person was in a combat zone for any length of time, is getting something for nothing. And believe me, going through "hell" isn't my prefered choice of action toward getting benees.
Brian asked if it is okay to get benees from gov't ..having paid into it, right? My response is this: I went to battle because of gov't, I got disabilities because of gov't, therefore I have earned my benees from gov't.

[Original_Intent]

Thanks, I 'll stick with my provincial view that those that can need to be up and doing for themselves. There is no question that there are far more people capable of working that are on welfare rolls than those who have "nowhere to turn". Your insistnece ont he other thread that everything that I state is maybe how it should be, but "what do they do in the meantime?" is, sad to say the socialist, bleeding heart liberal line that has gotten us into our dire situation in the first place. For the umpteenth time, I am NOT saying "It sucks to be you to the poor". What I am saying, and what is consistent with gospel principles is be self sufficient, and after that turn to your family, then the church, and if those FAIL you, then turn to the public charity, legalized theft or whatever you want to call it.

The example you gave of the 21 year olds seemed to indicate that you were unsure whether they would go to their family for help. That sounds like a problem on THEIR part. If they go to their families and they will not help then condemnation on the family and then church should help them (and as the church does will likely ask them to give some service in exchange for the help - this is not selfishness this is for THEIR benefit.) Now last time I said this you said "Fine that is how it should be but what do we do in the meantime?" I'm telling you THIS is what we do in the meantime. It seems like you are not getting the answer you want and so you are just ignoring what you don;t want to hear.

The above is an example of what concerns me about our 'heated' discussions on the Forum.

Brian presented an interesting problem regarding 'government' entitlements, doles, tax extortion, etc. Mummy & Brian agree that the system is now so convoluted and absolutely corrupt EVERYONE has been corrupted by it.

Some of us DO NOT live in the United States, but are also members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (I live in North Dakota - which is pretty much like living in another country, if not another world.)

Some of us are hard core Libertarians. Some of us realize it doesn't matter one whit what political party line we want to believe, the US/NWO is in control right now and we have to do our best to take care of our families given the realities of our time and place.

Sometimes folks have to make decisions they thought they would never, ever have to make - decisions in conflict with their higher ideals. Some of us live in countries more socialist than ours.

Regardless, those differences of national reality are surely secondary to our being members of Christ's Church. That was the point I was trying to make. Can we honestly base the way we treat each other on the fact that some of us live in a country where socialized healthcare is an accepted aspect of life and even appreciated for what it provides?

I am NOT advocating the dole, obamacare, euthanasia, corporate welfare, life-long pensions & elite health care for politicians, tobacco subsidies, goat subsidies, ethanol subsidies, public schools subsidies, Wall St. bailouts. I would just as soon see all of it disappear right now so we can get on with 'real life'!

My plea for consideration of and patience with our 'national' differences in how we 'talk' to each other was misinterpreted. When I use the term 'provincial' I am referring to our 'worldly' perspectives and how we treat each other based on a 'cultural' norm.

Utah has its very own subset 'cultural' norm which has its perspective based on all sorts of things besides the Gospel of Jesus Christ - including adherence to the Objectivist philosophy promulgated by that famous atheist, Ayn Rand. (I met her many years ago after a lecture at Lewis & Clark College. She was as hard as nails and having an affair with her much younger disciple, Nathaniel Branden. Her best asset was her kindly, and extremely well-mannered husband, Frank O'Connor.)

Again, the point I'm trying to make here is that we, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ, are first of all, 'fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God'. All our other differences can be overcome through living the Principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

In addition to the issue of 'manners', what I said got mixed up with something ChelC said. Somewhere along the line, people started behaving like attack dogs over this hybrid post. I lost my temper over patriotsaint's 'highfiving' Shadow's comment about my post.

Perhaps we all need to work on trying to understand another person's point-of-view before we decide that person's opinion makes him/her someone unworthy of our company to be scornfully cast aside. You may not agree with the perspective or the opinion, but then again, you may not understand it either.

In either case, it isn't the person you should be rejecting.

For the record: We subsist on our own land, work some off farm to earn 'money' for taxes, insurance, seed, equipment, etc., are on NO USDA or other government programs, have NOT earned enough income in the past 12 years on the land to pay income tax, and DO pay full tithing on every 'dollar' we receive. The bishop will NOT take sheep, chickens, eggs or horses 'in kind'. WE ARE POOR in the eyes of the world. VERY POOR, but never without what we need.

I sure don't disagree with anything you said here, ChelC - err I mean buffalo_girl. And I don't look down on or have any bad feelings towards other saints regardless of what country they live in or how socialist their country is - particularly considering our own awful situation. HOWEVER,

when people start going off on how THANKFUL they are for such Socialist programs, start putting down others who support the correct principle as being nationalistic and that their way of doing things is every bit as legitimate and in line with gospel principles as free market, laizee faire capitalism (not to be confused witht he current corporatocracy in the U.S.) then yes, while not condemning them for following the incorrect traditions of their fathers, I am going to correct them and say that trying to lay the position at the feet of nationalistic arrogance is wrong. And nationality was not even brought into the conversation until they brought it into the conversation and started acting like they were being beaten up on by those of us in the U.S. And then others jumped in to their defense as if they ahd been attacked in the first place.

Sorry, not falling for the playing of the victim card here. If you want to defend socialism please do so on the merits and don't bring nationality into the conversation, and certainly don't then claim that the argument is being fought among nationistic lines, and the only reason you can;t make your case is you are outnumbered by "ugly Americans".

So, while I appreciate your peace-keeping intentions let's get to the root of the problem and say we are going to discuss principles, and the theatrics of bringing up nationality and victimhood have no place in a principled discussion where the goal should not be winning debate points but arriving at a shared understanding of the truth.

[Original_Intent]

Just to be clear.

Not condemning anyone due to what system they are forced to live under.
Not condemning anyone for participating to the degree they have to in said systems.
Will strongly disagree with anyone lauding or promoting said systems as being just as good or better than the self sufficiency principles that we ALL (not just U.S. members) are taught.

[creator]

BTW I take 475 a month in VA benefits. The governement told me I have a service connected disability from PTSD after they sent me to Iraq and I don't feel a bit guilty for taking their fake monopoly money

There hasn't been much said about veterans receiving VA benees. Perhaps it has nothing to do with this thread.
There are a lot of Viet Nam vets getting monthly checks from the gov't, and by the way, the draft was in affect until 1975, so we had seven choices 1 Army ..2 Navy ..3 Marines ..4 Air Force ..5 Coast Guard ..6 run to another country or ..7 go to jail. I was a Marine in Nam during 1968-69 during the time the worst TET offensive took place...

And I just hope others will (1) allow me the freedom to disagree with those wars and say they were/are unjust, that the US shouldn't have been involved, (i.e. "denounce war and proclaim peace") and also (2) realize that my statements are not an attack on the soldiers who were either 'forced' to go to war or enlisted because they felt it was the right thing to do. I've never been against the soldiers, regardless of what I think about the wars (some people have a hard time separating the two aspects).

Not to get off topic but this relates in the sense that we can, on principle, be against the existence of a welfare/socialist sytem and against/oppose a war, but still show love (not judgment or hatred) for those who partake in such things, especially considering the context.

[creator]

Will strongly disagree with anyone lauding or promoting said systems as being just as good or better than the self sufficiency principles that we ALL (not just U.S. members) are taught.

We definitely need to do all that we can to be self-sufficient... Just because we are in bondage to a corrupt system doesn't mean we give up on the areas where we are still free, and the many things we still can do to be self-sufficient. We just need to also realize that sometimes in such a corrupt system we truly might find ourselves faced with only 2 lesser choice... But whenever there remains a good option, that is what we should choose.