Get Rid of Marriage!
30 Dec 2009, 6:57 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Shakespeare would have something to say about this, in his play Romeo and Juliet, such as "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", so to call a rose a "lilac" would not actually change what the rose is, and neither would calling a lilac a "rose" change what it is either. How about we get rid of etymology instead, and then have a completely descriptive vocabulary with no prescriptiveness derived from the history of words? No more amelioration or pejoration, just invent and call things as we wish. I will start by calling dogs "barking rats" and calling cats "a waste of money" and calling parakeets "noisy beaks".
i apologize for contradicting you again but
No, Not for me. I'm good with things just the way they are. . . Im a dog person who fell in love with a sweet widdle cat, and now am a cat person who is still in love with dogs. Dogs are Dogs. Cats are free. Marriage is Marriage, and linguistic anarchy is ______ ______.
Yee haw
_________________
We're here for a good time... Not a long time...So have a good time, the sun can't shine everyday.
31 Dec 2009, 3:49 pm
SporadSpontan wrote:
If people were more generous with their wealth then the state would not have to be involved in redistributing that wealth to those in need.
That is VERY true.
That is why I oppose the State and advocate a free market.
With a free market the intelligent and the hardworking excels, the lazy doesn't.
With the State, the lazy gets stuff for free, creating an incentive to be lazy, and the lazy goes into politics to rob people the legal way because they are not intelligent nor hardworking.
31 Dec 2009, 7:28 pm
ASPER wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
If people were more generous with their wealth then the state would not have to be involved in redistributing that wealth to those in need.
That is VERY true.
That is why I oppose the State and advocate a free market.
With a free market the intelligent and the hardworking excels, the lazy doesn't.
With the State, the lazy gets stuff for free, creating an incentive to be lazy, and the lazy goes into politics to rob people the legal way because they are not intelligent nor hardworking.
The latest experiment with a free market in the American financial sector seems to have ended with an almost total wreckage of the American economy and severe damage to the rest of the world with the top financiers filling their pockets from the coffers of the treasury out of the taxpayers' contributions. This faith in the "free market" should, at minimum. be looked at with a bit more consideration, to say the least.
dddhgg
Veteran
Joined: 6 Dec 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,108
Location: The broom closet on the 13th floor
31 Dec 2009, 7:41 pm
No, traditional marriage is a lovely institution; please leave it alone. I wish it to be preserved for everybody whose guts I hate. 
_________________
Dabey müssen wir nichts seyn, sondern alles werden wollen, und besonders nicht öffter stille stehen und ruhen, als die Nothdurfft eines müden Geistes und Körpers erfordert. - Goethe
dddhgg
Veteran
Joined: 6 Dec 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,108
Location: The broom closet on the 13th floor
31 Dec 2009, 7:50 pm
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
If people were more generous with their wealth then the state would not have to be involved in redistributing that wealth to those in need.
That is VERY true.
That is why I oppose the State and advocate a free market.
With a free market the intelligent and the hardworking excels, the lazy doesn't.
With the State, the lazy gets stuff for free, creating an incentive to be lazy, and the lazy goes into politics to rob people the legal way because they are not intelligent nor hardworking.
The latest experiment with a free market in the American financial sector seems to have ended with an almost total wreckage of the American economy and severe damage to the rest of the world with the top financiers filling their pockets from the coffers of the treasury out of the taxpayers' contributions. This faith in the "free market" should, at minimum. be looked at with a bit more consideration, to say the least.
Ah, the ancient clash between socialism (and its descendants) and good old laissez-faire capitalism. It's almost impossible for this sort of discussion not to turn into an endless repetition of restating one's principles in a way subtly different from the previous one. Both views have their "assets" I think. Socialism makes the poor lazy and the lazy miserable, capitalism makes the lazy poor and the poor miserable. Either way ends in misery.
_________________
Dabey müssen wir nichts seyn, sondern alles werden wollen, und besonders nicht öffter stille stehen und ruhen, als die Nothdurfft eines müden Geistes und Körpers erfordert. - Goethe
SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here
31 Dec 2009, 7:52 pm
ASPER wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
If people were more generous with their wealth then the state would not have to be involved in redistributing that wealth to those in need.
That is VERY true.
That is why I oppose the State and advocate a free market.
With a free market the intelligent and the hardworking excels, the lazy doesn't.
With the State, the lazy gets stuff for free, creating an incentive to be lazy, and the lazy goes into politics to rob people the legal way because they are not intelligent nor hardworking.
Hey ASPER, I usually just try to stay out of political debates because my ideals are so much higher than I think can be achieved in any sort of immediate society. I'm glad to see that you have so much faith in the humanity of wealthy people. As for me I admit having a personal bias against those with wealth (which I appreciate to be a relative thing of course). I try hard to rejoice that there are people who have the good fortune of experiencing many enjoyments, but what leaves a bitter taste is that there are some who have in excess of as much as one dollar whilst others in the very same world (or country!!) are starving from a lack thereof.
Some of the restrictions enforced by institutions can sh*t me as well. But the fact that wealthy people are not distributing enough of their wealth within the current state-run structure is evidence for me that they are not going to fairly distribute it when left to their own devices.
Especially spine-chilling is the reference to 'lazy' people which could mean all types of people who have limited capabilites - and I certainly don't wish to have a world where some people excel whilst others don't. 'Not excelling' implies that they are left to die rather than provided with assistance. It's one thing that people are actually dying from lack of assistance in the current state-run structure, but it's more deeply disturbing to think that there are people who would actually plan for this in their notion of an ideal society.
Besides all that, I personally see no virtue in accumulating more property other than what is required to sustain one's life. However this is just idealistic - for although I may sleep on the floor and then use the same mat stacked up to create my meditation cushion, I still have a few things considered luxury items - such as this computer I'm currently typing at. So there you go!
(And to anyone else, please accept my apologies for being off topic!! ! - I just don't have anything to write about marriage at this point and this issue just sort of came up.)
_________________
happily reclusive
31 Dec 2009, 10:50 pm
Umm...no...
Civil courts are not feeling based. There is an intelligence in emotion. That is the rub.
Some get it, some don't. Some just want benefits. NT's want benefits mostly.
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
01 Jan 2010, 12:25 am
zer0netgain wrote:
Well, here is my take.
Marriage is an institution of the church. In American history, the state had no say about who could or could not marry. There were no marriage licenses. You either chose to be husband and wife and society accepted it as such or you were married in a church according to your faith.
The pickle began when states started saying you needed a marriage license and disregarding marriages at the common law.
I, for one, if I ever marry, will not get a license. I don't need or want the permission of the state to marry someone I love.
That said, the state should NEVER have gained the power to marry people. Licenses should be abolished. You gain no real benefit today by having the state "bless" your union.
So, leave marriage for the churches. Let the justice of the peace perform "civil unions." If the state wants to let people get civil unions with goats and sheep, fine.
The church can recognize civil unions if they so choose. The state can recognize marriages done by churches if they so choose. No reciprocity is required by either side.
I have mixed feelings about marriage licenses, on one hand I think they should be abolished (like you), but on the other hand I think they serve a legitimate purpose (it is stated that they exist to prevent polygamy).
Marriage is an institution of the church. In American history, the state had no say about who could or could not marry. There were no marriage licenses. You either chose to be husband and wife and society accepted it as such or you were married in a church according to your faith.
The pickle began when states started saying you needed a marriage license and disregarding marriages at the common law.
I, for one, if I ever marry, will not get a license. I don't need or want the permission of the state to marry someone I love.
That said, the state should NEVER have gained the power to marry people. Licenses should be abolished. You gain no real benefit today by having the state "bless" your union.
So, leave marriage for the churches. Let the justice of the peace perform "civil unions." If the state wants to let people get civil unions with goats and sheep, fine.
The church can recognize civil unions if they so choose. The state can recognize marriages done by churches if they so choose. No reciprocity is required by either side.
_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.
01 Jan 2010, 2:53 am
SporadSpontan wrote:
ASPER wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
If people were more generous with their wealth then the state would not have to be involved in redistributing that wealth to those in need.
That is VERY true.
That is why I oppose the State and advocate a free market.
With a free market the intelligent and the hardworking excels, the lazy doesn't.
With the State, the lazy gets stuff for free, creating an incentive to be lazy, and the lazy goes into politics to rob people the legal way because they are not intelligent nor hardworking.
Hey ASPER, I usually just try to stay out of political debates because my ideals are so much higher than I think can be achieved in any sort of immediate society. I'm glad to see that you have so much faith in the humanity of wealthy people. As for me I admit having a personal bias against those with wealth (which I appreciate to be a relative thing of course). I try hard to rejoice that there are people who have the good fortune of experiencing many enjoyments, but what leaves a bitter taste is that there are some who have in excess of as much as one dollar whilst others in the very same world (or country!!) are starving from a lack thereof.
Some of the restrictions enforced by institutions can sh*t me as well. But the fact that wealthy people are not distributing enough of their wealth within the current state-run structure is evidence for me that they are not going to fairly distribute it when left to their own devices.
Especially spine-chilling is the reference to 'lazy' people which could mean all types of people who have limited capabilites - and I certainly don't wish to have a world where some people excel whilst others don't. 'Not excelling' implies that they are left to die rather than provided with assistance. It's one thing that people are actually dying from lack of assistance in the current state-run structure, but it's more deeply disturbing to think that there are people who would actually plan for this in their notion of an ideal society.
Besides all that, I personally see no virtue in accumulating more property other than what is required to sustain one's life. However this is just idealistic - for although I may sleep on the floor and then use the same mat stacked up to create my meditation cushion, I still have a few things considered luxury items - such as this computer I'm currently typing at. So there you go!
(And to anyone else, please accept my apologies for being off topic!! ! - I just don't have anything to write about marriage at this point and this issue just sort of came up.)
The accumulation of property involves much more than personal comforts. It is basic in a capitalistic system in directing and controlling economic activity. Of course there are social advantages in being well off but a great deal of that involves power and that involves what kinds of enterprises develop and what kinds never get anywhere. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the current health system in the USA, what generates wealth is not always socially healthy
01 Jan 2010, 9:11 am
When I married my wife (not "partner") 40 years ago I promised before God to stand by her for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health till death do we part.
We have had lots of richer poorer and sickness since then.
She promised to love honor and OBEY me and she has. No matter what dumb-ass ideas I have had for "my elusive dream" she has backed me up and followed me all the way.
That is a true marriage as God intended.
A lot of really unpleasant things have happened in our lives but we will NOT let it affect us.
We pledged our honor. "Till death do we part" does not mean "until I get bored with you"
01 Jan 2010, 10:11 am
Wombat wrote:
When I married my wife (not "partner") 40 years ago I promised before God to stand by her for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health till death do we part.
We have had lots of richer poorer and sickness since then.
She promised to love honor and OBEY me and she has. No matter what dumb-ass ideas I have had for "my elusive dream" she has backed me up and followed me all the way.
That is a true marriage as God intended.
A lot of really unpleasant things have happened in our lives but we will NOT let it affect us.
We pledged our honor. "Till death do we part" does not mean "until I get bored with you"
We have had lots of richer poorer and sickness since then.
She promised to love honor and OBEY me and she has. No matter what dumb-ass ideas I have had for "my elusive dream" she has backed me up and followed me all the way.
That is a true marriage as God intended.
A lot of really unpleasant things have happened in our lives but we will NOT let it affect us.
We pledged our honor. "Till death do we part" does not mean "until I get bored with you"
People change and are surprised to discover many things about each other once they are married. I have stayed married for 48 years and gone through all sorts of times, bad and good but it makes no sense to stick with someone you simply cannot abide just because you both made a bad mistake.
01 Jan 2010, 6:41 pm
SporadSpontan wrote:
ASPER wrote:
SporadSpontan wrote:
If people were more generous with their wealth then the state would not have to be involved in redistributing that wealth to those in need.
That is VERY true.
That is why I oppose the State and advocate a free market.
With a free market the intelligent and the hardworking excels, the lazy doesn't.
With the State, the lazy gets stuff for free, creating an incentive to be lazy, and the lazy goes into politics to rob people the legal way because they are not intelligent nor hardworking.
Hey ASPER, I usually just try to stay out of political debates because my ideals are so much higher than I think can be achieved in any sort of immediate society. I'm glad to see that you have so much faith in the humanity of wealthy people. As for me I admit having a personal bias against those with wealth (which I appreciate to be a relative thing of course). I try hard to rejoice that there are people who have the good fortune of experiencing many enjoyments, but what leaves a bitter taste is that there are some who have in excess of as much as one dollar whilst others in the very same world (or country!!) are starving from a lack thereof.
Some of the restrictions enforced by institutions can sh*t me as well. But the fact that wealthy people are not distributing enough of their wealth within the current state-run structure is evidence for me that they are not going to fairly distribute it when left to their own devices.
Especially spine-chilling is the reference to 'lazy' people which could mean all types of people who have limited capabilites - and I certainly don't wish to have a world where some people excel whilst others don't. 'Not excelling' implies that they are left to die rather than provided with assistance. It's one thing that people are actually dying from lack of assistance in the current state-run structure, but it's more deeply disturbing to think that there are people who would actually plan for this in their notion of an ideal society.
Besides all that, I personally see no virtue in accumulating more property other than what is required to sustain one's life. However this is just idealistic - for although I may sleep on the floor and then use the same mat stacked up to create my meditation cushion, I still have a few things considered luxury items - such as this computer I'm currently typing at. So there you go!
(And to anyone else, please accept my apologies for being off topic!! ! - I just don't have anything to write about marriage at this point and this issue just sort of came up.)
Wealthy people should not distribute their wealth if they don't want to.
What I mean is, no one should be forced to give money to others because you need extortion, intimidation and violence to achieve that.
(Or do you agree people should be forced at the point of a gun to give their earned dollars?)
The reason why there is so much economic instability, corruption and there is poverty is because one group is able to achieve wealth with cooperation of an institution that has a monopoly on violence and a monopoly in the regulation of the economy.
(You would only realize this is you understand the nature of the State and how the market works.(Austrian Economics deals with that).
Without a State to lobby for, without subsidies, without patents, without restrictions and prohibitions the market just changes according to the quasi-natural regulation of Supply and Demand in which consenting individuals engage in voluntary transactions.
Lazy individuals are not born into society, they are manufactured and when they have children these lazy individuals reproduce(and the problem is not them having children but the fact that they have over 4 children and under unstable conditions).
Their children live like their parents, with their values and expecting the same privileges.
The State and its welfare has increased the number of these people because the State knows that in the future they will need people who think that taking money from one group to give it to another group is actually a good thing.
01 Jan 2010, 6:59 pm
Wombat wrote:
When I married my wife (not "partner") 40 years ago I promised before God to stand by her for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health till death do we part.
We have had lots of richer poorer and sickness since then.
She promised to love honor and OBEY me and she has. No matter what dumb-ass ideas I have had for "my elusive dream" she has backed me up and followed me all the way.
That is a true marriage as God intended.
A lot of really unpleasant things have happened in our lives but we will NOT let it affect us.
We pledged our honor. "Till death do we part" does not mean "until I get bored with you"
We have had lots of richer poorer and sickness since then.
She promised to love honor and OBEY me and she has. No matter what dumb-ass ideas I have had for "my elusive dream" she has backed me up and followed me all the way.
That is a true marriage as God intended.
A lot of really unpleasant things have happened in our lives but we will NOT let it affect us.
We pledged our honor. "Till death do we part" does not mean "until I get bored with you"
are you saying gay people cant be faithful?
again marriage isnt a religious isntitution. christians merely stole it and perverted it.(not allowing some people to marry)
also this is what the OP wanted, the removal of religion (although if you wanted you could still get married in a church) so as to provide equality for everyone.
_________________
If grass can grow through cement, love can find you at every time in your life.
SporadSpontan
Deinonychus
Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here
01 Jan 2010, 8:42 pm
ASPER wrote:
Wealthy people should not distribute their wealth if they don't want to.
What I mean is, no one should be forced to give money to others because you need extortion, intimidation and violence to achieve that.
(Or do you agree people should be forced at the point of a gun to give their earned dollars?)
The reason why there is so much economic instability, corruption and there is poverty is because one group is able to achieve wealth with cooperation of an institution that has a monopoly on violence and a monopoly in the regulation of the economy.
(You would only realize this is you understand the nature of the State and how the market works.(Austrian Economics deals with that).
Without a State to lobby for, without subsidies, without patents, without restrictions and prohibitions the market just changes according to the quasi-natural regulation of Supply and Demand in which consenting individuals engage in voluntary transactions.
Lazy individuals are not born into society, they are manufactured and when they have children these lazy individuals reproduce(and the problem is not them having children but the fact that they have over 4 children and under unstable conditions).
Their children live like their parents, with their values and expecting the same privileges.
The State and its welfare has increased the number of these people because the State knows that in the future they will need people who think that taking money from one group to give it to another group is actually a good thing.[/quote]
END QUOTE
lol! We are SO NOT talking about marriage at the moment!! I've been kicked out of too many places in the past so I hope this transgression doesn't get me kicked out of WP! lol!
Am I allowed to have an opinion somewhere inbetween the options of a complete lack of enforcement and people being held at gunpoint? Or would I be breaking some rules with that? lol! As much as I love the idea of a totally free society, people unfortunately make too many morally wrong decisions to allow them free-reign. This is not to say governments don't have the same fault. That's why I'm at a loss to suggest any other solution apart from a widespread education in ethics.
So with that said, a manner of force or obligation is sometimes necessary when it's based on moral reasons. Take for example a man with a life-threatening illness who will die unless he receives medical treatment immediately. The only doctor available that has the ability to provide the treatment would rather play golf that day. But due to his professional and societal moral obligations he is forced to forego his own interests. I do not see this type of force as a bad thing. But then, I wouldn't become a doctor either! So, no - I don't agree with force in the way of extortion, intimidation or violence. But I do think that if any fair society were to exist it would require a foundation of moral obligations. So therefore, as I've mentioned previously - I'm skeptical that my ideals could ever be realised any time in the near future at least.
I'm more interested in this issue at a more humane level and have so far not educated myself in world economics so I can't comment on states and markets and the Austrian Economy. And I think it's a fallacy to think that 'lazy' people produce 'lazy' offspring. Sometimes people born into unfortunate circumstances strive harder to achieve a wealth that their parents did not have. And sometimes those born into more fortunate circumstances become 'lazy' because they are not required to exert themselves.
_________________
happily reclusive
01 Jan 2010, 9:57 pm
SporadSpontan wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Wealthy people should not distribute their wealth if they don't want to.
What I mean is, no one should be forced to give money to others because you need extortion, intimidation and violence to achieve that.
(Or do you agree people should be forced at the point of a gun to give their earned dollars?)
The reason why there is so much economic instability, corruption and there is poverty is because one group is able to achieve wealth with cooperation of an institution that has a monopoly on violence and a monopoly in the regulation of the economy.
(You would only realize this is you understand the nature of the State and how the market works.(Austrian Economics deals with that).
Without a State to lobby for, without subsidies, without patents, without restrictions and prohibitions the market just changes according to the quasi-natural regulation of Supply and Demand in which consenting individuals engage in voluntary transactions.
Lazy individuals are not born into society, they are manufactured and when they have children these lazy individuals reproduce(and the problem is not them having children but the fact that they have over 4 children and under unstable conditions).
Their children live like their parents, with their values and expecting the same privileges.
The State and its welfare has increased the number of these people because the State knows that in the future they will need people who think that taking money from one group to give it to another group is actually a good thing.
Wealthy people should not distribute their wealth if they don't want to.
What I mean is, no one should be forced to give money to others because you need extortion, intimidation and violence to achieve that.
(Or do you agree people should be forced at the point of a gun to give their earned dollars?)
The reason why there is so much economic instability, corruption and there is poverty is because one group is able to achieve wealth with cooperation of an institution that has a monopoly on violence and a monopoly in the regulation of the economy.
(You would only realize this is you understand the nature of the State and how the market works.(Austrian Economics deals with that).
Without a State to lobby for, without subsidies, without patents, without restrictions and prohibitions the market just changes according to the quasi-natural regulation of Supply and Demand in which consenting individuals engage in voluntary transactions.
Lazy individuals are not born into society, they are manufactured and when they have children these lazy individuals reproduce(and the problem is not them having children but the fact that they have over 4 children and under unstable conditions).
Their children live like their parents, with their values and expecting the same privileges.
The State and its welfare has increased the number of these people because the State knows that in the future they will need people who think that taking money from one group to give it to another group is actually a good thing.
Quote:
lol! We are SO NOT talking about marriage at the moment!! I've been kicked out of too many places in the past so I hope this transgression doesn't get me kicked out of WP! lol!
Am I allowed to have an opinion somewhere inbetween the options of a complete lack of enforcement and people being held at gunpoint? Or would I be breaking some rules with that? lol! As much as I love the idea of a totally free society, people unfortunately make too many morally wrong decisions to allow them free-reign. This is not to say governments don't have the same fault. That's why I'm at a loss to suggest any other solution apart from a widespread education in ethics.
So with that said, a manner of force or obligation is sometimes necessary when it's based on moral reasons. Take for example a man with a life-threatening illness who will die unless he receives medical treatment immediately. The only doctor available that has the ability to provide the treatment would rather play golf that day. But due to his professional and societal moral obligations he is forced to forego his own interests. I do not see this type of force as a bad thing. But then, I wouldn't become a doctor either! So, no - I don't agree with force in the way of extortion, intimidation or violence. But I do think that if any fair society were to exist it would require a foundation of moral obligations. So therefore, as I've mentioned previously - I'm skeptical that my ideals could ever be realised any time in the near future at least.
I'm more interested in this issue at a more humane level and have so far not educated myself in world economics so I can't comment on states and markets and the Austrian Economy. And I think it's a fallacy to think that 'lazy' people produce 'lazy' offspring. Sometimes people born into unfortunate circumstances strive harder to achieve a wealth that their parents did not have. And sometimes those born into more fortunate circumstances become 'lazy' because they are not required to exert themselves.
Am I allowed to have an opinion somewhere inbetween the options of a complete lack of enforcement and people being held at gunpoint? Or would I be breaking some rules with that? lol! As much as I love the idea of a totally free society, people unfortunately make too many morally wrong decisions to allow them free-reign. This is not to say governments don't have the same fault. That's why I'm at a loss to suggest any other solution apart from a widespread education in ethics.
So with that said, a manner of force or obligation is sometimes necessary when it's based on moral reasons. Take for example a man with a life-threatening illness who will die unless he receives medical treatment immediately. The only doctor available that has the ability to provide the treatment would rather play golf that day. But due to his professional and societal moral obligations he is forced to forego his own interests. I do not see this type of force as a bad thing. But then, I wouldn't become a doctor either! So, no - I don't agree with force in the way of extortion, intimidation or violence. But I do think that if any fair society were to exist it would require a foundation of moral obligations. So therefore, as I've mentioned previously - I'm skeptical that my ideals could ever be realised any time in the near future at least.
I'm more interested in this issue at a more humane level and have so far not educated myself in world economics so I can't comment on states and markets and the Austrian Economy. And I think it's a fallacy to think that 'lazy' people produce 'lazy' offspring. Sometimes people born into unfortunate circumstances strive harder to achieve a wealth that their parents did not have. And sometimes those born into more fortunate circumstances become 'lazy' because they are not required to exert themselves.
"Widespread education in ethics".
Which would lead to what?
A free and responsible society!
We're heading there, lets speed it up.
It would be stupid to want to remove the State today and expect chaos not to arise tomorrow. No anarchist proposes that, this is just the fearful reaction some people have. They don't have a notion of time and think everything remains the same and should remain the same.
Education in ethics is what some people are doing with the Internet.
Countless hours of debate clarify things for everyone.
Spreading memes and whatnot.
Another millisecond in human evolution.
NOW...
The golfer doctor example, I disagree completely! (IF you meant "forced" as in force coming from other individuals and not his own personal initiative).
If a doctor who is the ONLY one who can do something(which is kinda unreal nowadays) plays golf instead of saving a life, his service would never ever be requested from anyone as a doctor who does such a thing is not worthy of trust!
So for his own professional good he has to put limits to his leisure, this is common sense, no force needed here.
I'm not saying lazy parents can ONLY produce lazy children, you kinda generalized it for me.
But the probabilities are higher for them.
Nevertheless, that's not my main point, my main point is that these groups of poor people are manufactured via State Welfare.
Why? Obvious! The State needs people to support them in the future to legitimize their redistribution of wealth.
You recognize the lack of necessity to exert oneself can lead to laziness the moment you made the comment about the sons of rich parents.
