Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Life and Society » Which creates more positive social change: restrictive laws or support and opportunities?

Which creates more positive social change: restrictive laws or support and opportunities?

Posted - May 16, 2019

Responses


  • 46117
    We always have to have law.  It is the foundation of the house  But a restrictive foundation allows for no growth and little improvement in a house.  

    Same with law.

    Abstract concepts evade most of society, it seems.  When the topic of immigration arises, we get the non-educated answer:  'OH, we don't need more people in OUR COUNTRY because we don't have enough jobs.'  These are the people who are shaping  America.  Trumpers.

    In spite of the fact that most of them have grandparents and even parents who were immigrants, they just dismiss the idea that other people can create the same opportunities for us that their parents did.  Their parents had the wherewithal to move here from another land.  They are doers.  They are movers and shakers, many of them.  They are not fat, lazy products of nothing more than having the distinction of being born here .  Trump's base think they deserve what they have.  Many of them do.  BUT, this is no guarantee that a change may come anytime.  Fires, floods, and death.  YOU DO NOT GET TO COMMAND WHAT CHANGES MAY ARRIVE.  You do not get to dictate how other people react to these changes.  LIFE IS A SOCIETY. And we adapt and help one another. Just like the Americans who helped YOUR parents, Trump base people.   

      Well, with that kind of mentality, the idea that I deserve this much and you do not deserve any chance that threatens my idea of my way of life,  no one wins.  This kind of person, the one that wants to keep foreigners out, should be kicked out.  Who needs a  lazy useless,  ungrateful schlump, when you can have someone who has crossed hundreds of miles on foot just to have an opportunity at any job?   This is the real fear of the lazy.  Competition for their imagined cushy lives. This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at May 17, 2019 10:16 AM MDT
      May 16, 2019 10:22 AM MDT
    1

  • Letting the  people just sort it out on their own.  I don't think it is really government's job or place to enact social.change.
    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at May 17, 2019 10:16 AM MDT
      May 16, 2019 10:57 AM MDT
    2

  • 7919
    What's the purpose of the government? Isn't it to enact the will of the people? 
      May 17, 2019 10:17 AM MDT
    0

  • To defend against aggression, enforce that rights are observed, and maintain infrastructure.

    I don't thin the government should have will or be in ok ed in social engineering .  If the will of the people and society is  really there,  the people and society  will change themselves.  Without law and without meddling.



      May 17, 2019 6:12 PM MDT
    0

  • 17398
    It depends on the state of things at the starting point.  Both options could be the correct answer depending on this.
      May 16, 2019 5:19 PM MDT
    1

  • 3523
    One argument for supportive programs is this:  Henry Ford's contribution to business wasn't just that he improved manufacturing techniques for automobiles.  He also, because of his earlier success with the Model A, was able to offer the Model T at a price his workers could afford.  It was an immediate boost to worker morale and productivity, not to mention the benefit to all the lower income people who could buy the Model T.  But the point is, such benefits and support can be good for the whole system, not just the recipients. 
      May 16, 2019 10:05 PM MDT
    1

  • 22891
    the 2nd one
      May 18, 2019 5:59 PM MDT
    0