Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Of course all individuals aren't equally beneficial to society, but one of the core principles of our social contract is that we aren't going to kill you or let you die simply because you are injured, weak, or otherwise helpless*
*Ideally
To do otherwise would be anarchy.
|
Could you elaborate on the bolded piece a bit? I don't see how the former can only occur in anarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
To do otherwise would be anarchy. Our constitution and the political philosophy that underpins it guarantees the same rights to the weak as it does the strong. It's reasonable to take care of the weak because even strong people often experience a period of weakness or vulnerability when they must rely on others, and not letting them die is a net positive for society.
|
Why/how is caring for productive people during temporary periods of lessened/no productivity equivalent to caring for people who are indefinitely unproductive?
That is akin to saying that because employers may choose to pay employees for missed work days when they are sick, employers should pay anyone who is sick whether they work or not. And no, that is not the same as a pension because pensions are paid to employees who have worked and they are paid as incentives to attract the best employees (though they are not offered much at all anymore). Governments do not have the luxury of being so selective with its citizenry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
For example, when we enacted Medicare and Social Security in the 1930's, the US decided we would rather not be left to die if we find ourselves elderly and low on resources, sometimes through no fault of our own (A market implosion for example, Great Depression). We figured it was reasonable that we should protect the old, and expect the same protection when we are old. It's still an extremely popular (if mismanaged and poorly executed) idea, and neither party can touch medicare or social security without sinking their career.
|
Of course we would rather not be left to die. That is self interest. It's why we exist. How does our continued existence subsidized by others benefit humanity though? How is it a productive use of society's resources?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't know if you thought this was a thought provoking question or something, but it's just a ridiculous, simplistic way to try and frame the issue of socialized medicine.
|
Dismiss it if you like. As I said to Fash though, I'm looking for answers and be it ridiculous or simplistic, it's an honest question. I am not sure what I think the answer is, though I am inclined to believe both are equally selfish.