but i'm not completely heartless - i don't want ppl to starve.

@wotmaniac this is under the assumption that there is going to be some form of redistribution one way or another

if beggers weren't directly begging and they offered a service, like playing their guitar for people, im fine with that

@SuperHeroDeluxe "work shall let you eat" i see where your going with this hehe

if u show up to the local public-benefits office, u begging.

@wotmaniac so under the assumption that there is going to be some form of redistribution, we mine as well not restrict the freedom of those individuals, unless you could careless about their freedom

in which case sure, go ahead and restrict them

but if you dont care about their freedom, why dont we just force them to work?

I can't figure this guy's angle whatsoever

im fine with churches holding food distribution days for people, i wouldn't say it's really begging when people show up for those

i'd rather have that than government doing it

well, it is, just to a source that welcomes it

yep @Jokerfaic

unless its one of those tithe-obsessed hovels

offering free stuff at stores for shoppers if they spend X amount of money would fall under BEGGING if the definition is that extreme

*rosary in hand* you saying bad stuff about Catholics ? @Jokerfaic

*brandishes hammer and parchment* try me cunt

again, this isn't about "restricting freedom". u don't (or shouldn't) have the "freedom" to pick my pocket just cuz u can't get ur life together. that isn't "freedom".
"muh freedom" isn't even in conversation. we're talking about charity recipients -- you aren't "restricting freedom", you're helping a nibba out. trying to introduce "muh freedom" into the discussion is looking a gift horse in the mouth.

just gimme a few hours to find a camel and sewing needle

@wotmaniac so instead of giving them the money for free, why dont we force them to work then hmmmm? give them govt jobs, make them clean up the roads/highways

@SuperHeroDeluxe yes, i'm using a fairly reductionist definition of "begging" -- but it is with purpose. it's about contrasting it with "earning"

our local catholic churches are redistributing food that would be thrown away otherwise, it's getting dropped off by businesses that don't want to completely waste it,. i feel that people coming in to take it away aren't beggers as much as they're doing a service for our ecosystem

yeah US catholic orgs tend to know better

right @wotmaniac

watch out for evangelicals though

"*holds rosary tighter*"

and a few baptists

@wotmaniac so instead of giving them the money for free, why dont we force them to work then hmmmm? give them govt jobs, make them clean up the roads/highways

before there were laws protecting businesses that donate food, i had to intentionally destroy any food that was to be thrown away at businesses i worked at

@Brue forced labor? "public works projects"?

wait -- do u want to *give* them work, or *force them to work*?

@wotmaniac did you want to force them to choose from the list of govt approved goods once they started to beg?

again, i completely reject your framing; and i've detailed the explanation twice.
i'm not getting drug down an infinite loop of concern trolling

i've said my peace.

i'm moving on now.

@wotmaniac that is not trolling, the start of forcing people to choose what foods they eat leaves open the ability to force them to work, to do other things, a slippery slop we do not want do go down on.

for everyone else reading this, understand ideally we would like to have no welfare or any redistribution, but given that it is going on, it is not okay to force individuals to do what the govt approves them to do, they should still have the freedom to choose

im okay to move on as well

@Brue *last word*

😉

i feel all welfare can be done the way it used to be done, by religious institutions. get the government out of it

@SuperHeroDeluxe how would you go about getting this achomplished