"As I said before, no one has the right to sit in judgement. "
But sitting in judgement is what govenments HAVE to do! They have to make decisions about what to do about 'problems' (whatever those are in a society) and what money to spend on solving them.
The government is the 'proxy' of the 'will of the people' (in elected countries)(OK, not an ideal proxy, but there you go!) (only direct voting on every law by every citizen would be a 'true' democracy I guess!) and so yes, 'we the people' DO....and indeed MUST .... 'sit in judgement'.
In the end it boils down to the very tricky question of 'how much should the state spend on those who do not have sufficient money of their own to pay for themselves'? And that, of course, is the question at the heart of political and economic philosophy.
In your case, what would you have liked to have been available to you/ What would actually hve helped you that the state could have provided?
But sitting in judgement is what govenments HAVE to do! They have to make decisions about what to do about 'problems' (whatever those are in a society) and what money to spend on solving them.
The government is the 'proxy' of the 'will of the people' (in elected countries)(OK, not an ideal proxy, but there you go!) (only direct voting on every law by every citizen would be a 'true' democracy I guess!) and so yes, 'we the people' DO....and indeed MUST .... 'sit in judgement'.
In the end it boils down to the very tricky question of 'how much should the state spend on those who do not have sufficient money of their own to pay for themselves'? And that, of course, is the question at the heart of political and economic philosophy.
In your case, what would you have liked to have been available to you/ What would actually hve helped you that the state could have provided?