I’m not cruel because I think society operates best — in terms of human outcomes — if incentives and disincentives are tied to decisions in ways that maximize the likelihood and benefit of personal responsibility.

Parents need to be responsible for their children. The state should only step in if they fail in their responsibility.

How is it folks like yourself can understand these concepts across a myriad of domains, including things like wildlife and their rehabilitation, and the importance of fostering self-sufficiency, but not this?

It’s not kindness to create people dependent on the state, or to advantage businesses that do not pay a living wage by subsidizing their employees.

Hell, look at what we’ve done to the cost of education by creating government-backed loan programs that simply allow universities to charge as much as students can afford to mortgage from their future.

>I’m not cruel because I think society operates best — in terms of human outcomes — if incentives and disincentives are tied to decisions in ways that maximize the likelihood and benefit of personal responsibility.

And how did personal responsibility make housing unaffordable?

>Parents need to be responsible for their children. The state should only step in if they fail in their responsibility.

How neat and tidy.

>How is it folks like yourself can understand these concepts across a myriad of domains, including things like wildlife and their rehabilitation, and the importance of fostering self-sufficiency, but not this?

What are you talking about? Everyone who's poor and powerless should be helped. More importantly, though, they shouldn't be taken advantage of by wealthy interests. That includes animals, that includes expectant mothers who don't make enough money to survive because the "money to survive" dial was cranked up to 100 in the last five years. But please, lecture us some more about how that's HER fault.

>It’s not kindness to create people dependent on the state, or to advantage businesses that do not pay a living wage by subsidizing their employees.

It's also not kindness to raise their rent for no other reason than you can.

>Hell, look at what we’ve done to the cost of education by creating government-backed loan programs that simply allow universities to charge as much as students can afford to mortgage from their future.

And we could end it all tomorrow by saying "the US government must fund university education". You know, like they do in Europe, or like we did a few decades ago in the United States. You're pointing to a radically predatory policy decision, designed to benefit rich people, and saying: "See? Government doesn't work!" But that's "conservatism" for you: say government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it.

I don't know if you truly believe that education costs would come down if we stopped shunting students into indentured servitude (guess which loans are the only ones that can't be discharged in bankruptcy? What a curious law of the universe that must be!), but if that's the case, then I have a fabulous bridge I'd be willing to part with for a modest price.

I will never stop fighting against people who wield the power of the state to punch down and then point the finger at those same people and blame them. It's disgusting, it's abhorrent, and it must stop.

> I will never stop fighting against people who wield the power of the state to punch down and then point the finger at those same people and blame them. It's disgusting, it's abhorrent, and it must stop.

I can see that. Your ideology creates the problems you think we just need more of your ideology to solve.

You’re not some warrior for freedom or the oppressed, you’re just another person that mistakes enabling for actual care, and thinks serving the interests of the powerful is revolutionary.

So sure, let’s build a system that forces everyone into the workforce, benefits employers who pay too little, and produces worse outcomes for children.

How revolutionary.