decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Big Picture... | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Big Picture...
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT
That's one side of the big picture.

The other side is: can the government tell
free loaders not to freeload? Can it decide
to solve a free loader problem that it hurting
others by taxing the free loaders to encourage
them to stop free loading?

And the government does already use taxes to
encourage people to fix their houses so that
they aren't such energy hogs, etc.

This isn't anything new, really.

The big picture is bigger than you see: it's
can a government care what happens to its citizens
and try to protect those who on their own will
die or suffer? Or should it let it be dog eat
dog?

The big dogs want the latter, of course. The little
dogs wouldn't mind a helping hand.

So the big picture question is: does government
have a social role?

If you research it, as I have just done, you'll find
that when Social Security was first proposed, people
used the same arguments now being used against
ACA, that it's anti freedom, etc. But at the time,
more than 50% of older Americans were living in real
poverty in America, thanks to the Depression and the
freedom of the businesses and Wall Street to do
what they keep doing, the ups and downs, which impact
people pretty harshly.

Some say, let it happen. Others say, why not care,
when there is so much wealth available?

That's the real big picture, and it's a moral one.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )