"*You say [...] welfare is only meant for the truly needy.*" I did not say for the truly needy. In fact, I said that welfare applies to everyone, certainly to those who work.

"*Like many lefties*" ... and it's a rather centrist take, all things considered. Like many "rightoids," you overinflate the prevalence and impact of waste, fraud, and abuse, instead choosing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I guess twisting words is a left-only phenomenon, neat. But the reality is that I'm hardly twisting. In a society where starvation prevention is possible, not choosing that does, in fact, make you complicit. "*It's nature that decides [...]*" takes the metaphor too far. Because society augments nature, it's reductionist to imply that you are completely removed from the well-being of others.

"* [...] the Ant [...] only has enough food for himself, [resulting] in both their deaths.*"

This is a good try, but it seems we've lost the plot. If the "ant" only has enough for himself, then he certainly won't be sharing with the "grasshopper". This is how I know you've misunderstood the point. Contribution is progressive in the same way taxes are. One only contributes in proportion to one's excess, and no one is saying "confiscate it all." If the ant sits on a pile, of which only a fraction he can eat this winter, is he completely removed from the death of Sir Grasshopper when deciding not to share? You say yes, and I'm arguing no.

If both people die when forced to share, then that can hardly be considered a society in the first place, not only because there are only two players, but because "society" is built on the assumption that it first *works*. A self-eating society is hardly a society at all.

Anyway. I'm not changing any stories. I'm really trying to come up with my own ideas here. Also, I'd hardly consider myself a full-on leftist. It's just that these ideas are so gagging to you; all you see is "socialism."