Sunday, June 5, 2011 3:32:15 PM
Wait a second - I have a tinfoil hat on for establishing a connection between state sponsored programs and how the legal system comes to persecute those people who try to sidestep the public service with a private one? And all you provided was a vague link between people in general being intimidated by the homeless and that being the justification for the government to crack down on those who do not fall into this category? Are you saying if you feed the homeless, they will multiply or something?
Do you want another example of the interests of the welfare state coming into conflict with the interest of the people's welfare? During the OCTA bus strikes a couple years ago, private citizens were prohibited from conducting their own bus lines in competition with the county one. That`s right, anyone who did not approve of the widespread disruption of service could be fined or even arrested for stepping up to the plate and taking proactive measures to remedy the situation.
Sunday, June 5, 2011 10:57:27 AM
@suicism: Dude....your tinfoil hatis on waaay too tight. It boils down to the simple fact that there were citizens who didn't want to see a group of homeless people being fed while they`re there with their kids eating their lobster sandwich picnics. People are intimidated by the homeless. How many times have you seen people avert their eyes and walk a wide path around a homeless guy? It happens, and that`s the real reason why they are trying to stop FNB from providing food for these people.
Sunday, June 5, 2011 6:03:08 AM
Being without the means to acquire a dwelling of title does NOT make you a criminal - feeding those who are without such means makes you a saint.
You know why the government's upset? Because these private citizens are usurping their monopoly on `charity.` That`s right, it`s the unintended consequences of instituting such social welfare programs as food stamps and cash aid. Once the government is delegated the responsibility of caring for our less fortunate, not only do those less fortunate individuals` level of care suffer all the inefficiencies of any other service provided by gov`t, but this monopoly becomes entrenched in the legal system.
And there we have it - the inevitable legacy of state-sponsored samaritanism.