You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Isn't the "social contract" a little bit overdue? And who agreed to it in the first place?
The problem is that a significant portion of the population generally requires the state to increase its size rather than reduce it, which occurs when people believe that health, housing or education are a right. That is, we can demand that the State reduce its size only if we are willing to give up the false rights that have been acquired.
I can't argue against that. And the longer we keep going at that, the more disservice we are doing to people. The longer we keep, and the bigger we grow the nanny state, the shittier most people will be at preserving their own lives. SOME people though will thrive. Those who take advantage of others, those who hoard wealth and those who are smarter. For them it will be easier with the rest of the population sedated. So the 1% is almost inevitable. It's not their fault that more and more people are walking around in life as cared for zombies, or maybe more like cows.
Take away those rights (health, housing and education) people would take much more responsibility - and MORE people would lead great lives.
Thanks for the great comment @vieira