[ SECRET POST #3808 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3808 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[http://sarahcandersen.com/post/96540470653]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 19 secrets from Secret Submission Post #545.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see why that makes a difference in principle. Genuinely! I'm not being sarcastic here. I don't think it makes any difference. I think people assume that there's a difference, but I think the difference is illusory. At the point where you think that the state should take action to prevent people on welfare from doing unhealthy things because of the costs to the taxpayer associated with medical treatment, I think that the same principle should apply generally. I don't see why it should matter whether those risks arise from spending money on food or not. The only difference is how easy it is to means test those things. But to me, I don't think you have the right to control welfare beneficiaries' lives like that. Either people on welfare have the responsibility to diminish the costs to the taxpayer, or they don't.

Re: unpopular opinions

[(Anonymous)]

No. If the government is giving you money. They should be able to decide what you do with it.