Responding to your post because I'm bored and you're the last person in the thread.

Quote Originally Posted by Cupcakemonster View Post
I don't think it would infringe on others. I definitely think that physically hurting others or robbing them & things of that nature should always be punished.
By whom?

Roads could be built by private companies, & would probably be built better. I've heard before that they purposefully build roads incorrectly so that they need to be fixed more often, so that the government can make more money off of it.
Roads are generally built by private companies now. The "they" you're referring to is private companies fleecing the government; the government doesn't make money (directly) on spending for roads. The government typically decides where roads will be built, of course, because it's the only entity with the power to acquire land for the roads and thus build them in a sane manner. Roads built under the direction of a private company would have to be built on private property already controlled by the company, or else bought (which would be expensive) or the right to build would need to be negotiated with the owner of the land (which would open its way to further complications -- could owners of segments of the road then divert it, or block it?).

I'm for voluntary help for people, including the poor. What would help people is better opportunity & drive. I think poor people need to be told more often that they can raise up & make a way better life for themselves. Education is a big factor too.
What, voluntary education too?

The problem is that you're trying to change a social or systemic issue via individual action. People aren't islands -- they're conditioned by their surroundings. You believe that poor people are poor because they're lazy; why are they lazy? What makes them lazy? Either there are causes for this laziness, and a more effective strategy would be to tackle these causes, or what you perceive as laziness is the general nature of the human race. In either case, telling people to just be motivated isn't going to work.

Also, is the nature of capitalism really such that everyone can prosper? Its basic structure is exploiting other people's labor. If sufficient numbers of people are so well-off they don't need to sell themselves bit by bit day after day, the entire system of capitalism collapses. *Some* people can get ahead by being smarter and more motivated -- but not everyone can. It's a global game of musical chairs; the fact that there aren't enough chairs for everyone is what makes capitalism capitalism.

Besides, even smart, motivated people often do fail. And even if they didn't, should the majority of people -- who aren't as smart or motivated -- just shut up and accept their conditions? Do we have to win the capitalist game in order to criticize it?

Increasing wages would only cause inflation.
Oh come on now. Think about it! If that's the rule, then the inverse should be true as well: if we work for free, then everything will be available for free. Does that sound remotely right? And besides, if increasing wages only produced inflation in proportion with raised wages, then there'd be no problem with raising them, right?

I don't see a problem with working lots of hours, honestly. I used to work up to 72 hours a week, & was completely fine with it.
Seriously, do you see anything wrong with slavery? Is there that much of a difference between being made to work for others in order to live without being paid a wage, and being made to work for others in order to live a wage you spend to be able to live? Even if you're personally fine with working 72 hours a week, most people would hate that. I love the flavor and smell of anise; I wouldn't advocate for businesses to flood their buildings with its scent.

Granted, I'm single, have no kids, & live with family so that's a factor. Higher wages isn't the answer imo, opportunities for jobs that pay better is the answer.
If we have more opportunities for jobs that pay better, won't that just cause inflation?

True. It always baffles me on why it seems like the people that can least afford children always seem to have them & have more of them. I've heard a theory before that it's because humans have a desire to create, & they see it as one of the only things they'll end up contributing to society. idk why they don't try to work on life goals that could better help them financially instead though? Having kids only makes it harder to save money & takes up more time that could be spent working their way up a company, taking classes, learning trades, etc. It's honestly just a cycle they keep themselves in.
This is just idiotic.

For this reason, I don't always feel bad for poor people. I think a lot of them exhibit bad decision making.
The human condition is to make bad decisions. The CEO of Rio Tinto recently made a decision to blow up an archaeologically significant cave system inhabited by humans 46,000 years ago because it would speed up his company's mining operations. That was a bad decision. Yet I doubt this bad decision will make him any poorer -- in fact, quite the opposite. Why do you think that is? Why are only a certain class of people punished for their bad decisions?