Solitarian wrote:If the benefits were equal, how could the cost be unequal?
Solitarian wrote:I'm not asking that we be provided for.
Are you considering costs and the act of being provided for only in terms of government handouts?
Everything that society produces has an economic cost. It doesn't have to come directly from the government. Even in an anarchic society there are costs. All the things that we grow and manufacture have a cost. All people in a society are provided for in some way, if not, would they still be part of the society?
Solitarian wrote:The economy benefits from spending, not saving, so singles boost the economy with their rampant consumerism.
This is definitely possible, as two single people living independently may each buy a vacuum cleaner whereas a couple may buy only one vacuum cleaner to share between them. But is the goal to sell more vacuum cleaners? Maybe it is. Or maybe it's to save on the cost of producing vacuum cleaners so that some other widget can be produced with those resources instead?
Then there's future costs and benefits to consider. Couples are more likely to have children than singles. Children are both the future labour force and the future spenders. Babies also drive immediate spending as apparently they need nappies, toys and stuff.
Solitarian wrote:That comes down to how welfare eligibility is handled, why should liberty be trodden on because of a programs inability to assess people's needs?
Implementing and managing welfare systems incurs costs. For the system to be effective, it needs to be relatively cheap to run. I assume that marriage records are easy to cross-reference and are a reasonable indicator of stable cohabitation.
I guess I won't speculate on the spiritual benefits of marriage than either.
Source: http://www.psychforums.com/schizoid-personality/topic100786-10.html
rob roy gaslight justin timberlake michael dyer bachmann bachmann iowa caucus results
No comments:
Post a Comment