🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:12:35 -0000, Disgruntled Customer
<nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote:

>> > Is it better for society as a whole that the children be brought 
>> > up in poverty with lifelong physical and psychological problems 
>> > that rest of society will have to pay for the next seventy years? 
>> > Or is it better for society as a whole that the children 
>> > be brought up as healthy as possible?
>> 
>> 
>> Is it better for society as a whole, when children are brought up 
>> as spoilt brats, who think that a job - any job - should 
>> automatically pay for the standard of living they want?  As 
>> opposed paying an amount commensurate with the dollar value of 
>> work the individual contributes?
>
>All in all, nobody has an answer. They just get angry the question is asked.
>
>When banks through their mistakes find themselves in liquidity crisis, is it better for society as a whole to let them fail, or to loan them cheap money to keep them alive?
>
>Near and dear to California, is whether individual river front lot owners should be responsible for the levee on their property, or should the state pay for it? Are we willing to let some property owner evade his responsibility? If the property owner doesn't, we can stand around moralizing as his home floods. But all the other homes behind the levee also fail, so what good is moralizing going to do them?
>
>Shmucks.

Fallacy.