to think this is what everyone is thinking...

[whatdoyouthink101]

But not saying because it's not "PC".

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."

• Dr. Adrian Rogers

You don't mean Anton Chekhov, do you?

I've watched him at Glastonbury for years, he did a really lovely poem (or 2) about his mum and step-dad. Never miss him.

Ffs PeneloPeePitstop, that stank!

They died for the casue? Still, presumably they thought it was a casue worth dying for.

I've been saving that up for just this kind of thread.

YABU

OP, if you know 5 people who are illegally claiming benefits, why haven't you reported them?

Of course, its not MY Daily Mail, I do not read the newspapers.

PeneloPeePitstop I am stuffing Maltesers down my throat, nowt makes me trump like they do. We can compete, winner gets ...

I've eaten Maccys. You'll never beat me.

WTF
is the op on drugs, it makes no fucking sense. at all.
if you are going to benefit bash at least make sense ffs

I'm on a diet, can't even have the cunting licorice allsorts :(

don't they make you go though? then you lose weight?

Well Senna tastes licorice-y, imo. Doesn't make me go though

To quote the famous Eccles:

"I like liquorice. My mum says it gives you a good run for your money."

No, Chekov the flight officer on the Star Ship Enterprise

Oh don't you be so sure Penelopee, last time I ate Maltesers my dc packed their bags ...

frid from much earlier ^ there, the free standing statement I posted was not IMO, it's one way I thought the op's quote could be interpreted.

In evo.utionary terms survival of the fittest can be applied to economic fitness when examine Darin no potential and income derived from that. The application of which would indicate that some acquire more wealth than others, therefore relates to op quote about an enequal distribution of wealth.

However it's not completely left to free forces as government in terbention in the form of progressive taxes ( that I pay so I don't leave others to struggle) and a benefits system broadly ensures economic survival in society.

Economic altruism has developed in the form of charities and voluntary sector, so yes in evolutionary terms the survival of the fittest principle has evolved in an economic sense.vthe economic system we are part of that, is the means by which we acquire income to survive and cover our basic needs, food etc so persons who adapt to operate more efficiently in such a system tend to fair better if you are talking about measurable income and wealth. Those who fair less well are still provided for in a basic way with housing/benefits, though i know there are shortages, gaps and inconsistencies of provision across different groups

Or frid did you think I was a tax exile and saying folk dont deserve help? Because I don't know how you could have gleaned that from such a short statement. I never said I was struggling or not or whether I expect or recieve help so no need assume and attack.

Sorry for typos it's late on iPad.

I actually don't read newspapers anymore and haven't for years as they're full of pumped up BS and propaganda. I came across the quote on the internet.

Oh dear, where to start?

Your use of the internet as a resource is interesting. However you have overlooked one crucial fact: THE INTERNET IS FULL OF COBBLERS!

Well rock me Amadeus

Are you suggesting that there are no poor people in Hong Kong? I was under the impression that there are about 1.7 million out of 7 m residents below the poverty line. I daresay I read that in the newspaper though, so I expect you can disprove this using your advanced internet research skills.

In that case, Bigeyes, I do apologise for my misinterpretation of your statement. The brevity of it, did lead me towards a certain conclusion, but also offered me the opportunity to wax lyrical about what I believe our societal goals should be.

IMO, Honk Kong would be the direct opposite of the state of affairs we should be working towards.

IMO, Hong Kong would be the direct opposite of the state of affairs we should be working towards.

1. Why on earth would you think this is what everyone is thinking, when it's an extreme rightwing point of view, and there are vast swathes of left-wingers in this world? I, personally, am absolutely delighted to pay taxes in order to ensure those less fortunate are taken care of.

1. The day I start taking economic advice from someone who thinks half the population are on benefits and the other half (50:50) are not, is the day I stick two pencils up my nostrils, put a pair of underpants on my head and say, 'wibble'.

All I can say is my hypothesis that "all libertarians are wankers" is in no danger of being disproven by you, OP.