Voluntary Work 05 31 2015
Lets say that we made work voluntary.
Then what happened next is that we caught a faction of people profiting from corruption in the Stock Market. But not only that, they were also actively preventing American Citizens from working through medical fraud.
So you ended up putting them in a prison camp.
You had every full intention of feeding them all they needed and taking care of their personal needs.
However the Financial crisis that they orchestrated made the food supply very scarce. Are you expected to share your food equally with them? Remember they did not want to work, instead they wanted to steal and prevent Americans from working.
But if work was voluntary and there was only so much food do we share it with those who never volunteered?
Now what if an emergency was declared and they were asked to help but did not. Should you still share food with them when they will never contribute to the supply of food by working?
Now with voluntary work they did not have to work so they didn't. How did they spend that time? Would that influence whether you would share some food with them so that they did not die?
Were they attempting to earn a living? Or were they drinking alcohol and being slothlike? Did they enjoy mocking those who were attempting to earn a living? Did they enjoy obstructing people from earning a living? What would a reasonable person say that their fate would be?
What if their argument was that they could not work because you were thinking and it distracted them? Now lets say that they prevented you from working for that very reason and they had all the food but would not share any with you? Should there not be a mandate that they share their food with you? One would assume that by preventing you from working/thinking that indeed they were creating more than enough food to make up for their crime and share it with you? But what if that was true they made more than enough food for everyone including you. However they still didn't want to share it with you?
Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 05 31 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
An original American Colonist surnamed
Smith stated to some Aristocrats that tagged along to America, if you
want to eat you have to work.
Lets say that we made work voluntary.
Then what happened next is that we caught a faction of people profiting from corruption in the Stock Market. But not only that, they were also actively preventing American Citizens from working through medical fraud.
So you ended up putting them in a prison camp.
You had every full intention of feeding them all they needed and taking care of their personal needs.
However the Financial crisis that they orchestrated made the food supply very scarce. Are you expected to share your food equally with them? Remember they did not want to work, instead they wanted to steal and prevent Americans from working.
But if work was voluntary and there was only so much food do we share it with those who never volunteered?
Now what if an emergency was declared and they were asked to help but did not. Should you still share food with them when they will never contribute to the supply of food by working?
Now lets say that they controlled the
education system so that they taught for profit what would not help
someone earn a living. Should you share food with them? Remember
you paid them money because you thought you could apply the skills
you learned to support a family but what you were taught turned out
to be irrelevant.
Now with voluntary work they did not have to work so they didn't. How did they spend that time? Would that influence whether you would share some food with them so that they did not die?
Were they attempting to earn a living? Or were they drinking alcohol and being slothlike? Did they enjoy mocking those who were attempting to earn a living? Did they enjoy obstructing people from earning a living? What would a reasonable person say that their fate would be?
What if their argument was that they could not work because you were thinking and it distracted them? Now lets say that they prevented you from working for that very reason and they had all the food but would not share any with you? Should there not be a mandate that they share their food with you? One would assume that by preventing you from working/thinking that indeed they were creating more than enough food to make up for their crime and share it with you? But what if that was true they made more than enough food for everyone including you. However they still didn't want to share it with you?
Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 05 31 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment