CheeseDick said:
Your rhetoric is laughable, friend. Thomas Jefferson's "The earth belongs to the living" was about dead people, not old people. The people that we are discussing here are still alive.
The point is still that no man, whether living or dead has the power to obligate others to his care or to his demands. Forcing a man to provide for the elderly or future generations (as demanded by environmentalists) is by definition enslavement. I am obligated to do that which I would not normally do.
Each man does not come into this world in the best scenario. There are those born into the bondage of drug dependences, mental disabilites, and crippling financial woes. He is not free. He is chained by forces that he has no control over.
I made no mention of the forms that man comes into this world, only that he is free. That a man has no education or drug dependance does not imply that he is bound to this state, as your deterministic belief argues, only that this is his current state. As long as he is not forced to maintain such an existence, then he is free to choose his future. I'm sure you fall into the catagory of mush-headed liberals who believe that not handing a man money is "forcing" him to maintain his current state, but force presupposes action, not lack of action. You, like all socialists, designate all men (save yourselves, for some reason) to that of lower animals, totally dependant on the fruits of nature, incapable of self-sufficiency, eternally thankful for any crumbs which may fall from the table of the state.
And in the context of social security, you bind these poor examples into servitude to the rich and priviledged. Since all workers pay into Social Security, that means that many lower class workers are paying into the system that a rich man may take from. Why should a poor man pay to care for one wealthy enough not to need it?
"Living Wages" is a no brainer. Don't play around like you have absolutely no clue what these are.
Oh, I understand the concept. It is the carrot placed in front of the ass. You can never reach it. Define a "living wage", place it in monetary units? It is no different than the idea of "fair". It is a subjective term that differs from person to person. Not to mention that implementing this arbitrary creation is poor logic. Those who push this idea think that companies print money and hold these unlimited reserves in their vaults, and that simply passing such laws will make them share all of this hidden wealth. They live in the Disney land version of economics. Companies only have so much money. Forcing a company to pay its workers more, decreases the amount the company has to re-invest, to save in times of hardship, to hire more workers, etc. Less money to re-invest decreases improvements which increase productivity, which often times requires more workers. So for every higher wage, there is one less man that will be hired.
Of course, I am totally wrong. I should know by now that all companies are sitting on top of gold bricks, hoarding it away from the poor unfortunate masses.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
