Government Obligation: a squatter spinoff thread BTYB Squee

[squee]

This is just a thought I had so please don't expect any higher thinking or analysis on my part just yet. Here goes:

Lady Sianna brought up a point along the lines of "Why should society provide for those who are unwilling to contribute to society?"

My question is: What if there are some people who cannot contribute to society? The insane, the mentally handicapped, the terminally ill, the elderly: In many countries, they are seen as burdens--as if it is unfair to require us to take care of them. There is a growing trend, stemming from what seems to me to be a very specific disrespect for human life, in which these people are killed "for their own good and for the good of society." This was the American Eugenics movement, which was endorsed by the Nazis. Some of you probably knew that--but you may not know that this movement is alive and strong among the cultural elites of our time. Know your enemy: those who preach gene therapy and euthanasia do not really have your best interests in mind.

Due to my moral and religious beliefs, I maintain that there is a certain fundamental value to the life of all human beings, regardless of status or past actions. If you're an American, pay close attention to this, because it's one of the fundamental ideals upon which our nation was founded.

I believe that simply because people cannot "contribute to society"--whether that means paying taxes or voting or flipping burgers or what have you--is not justification for society forgetting them. Obviously there are those who would make themselves enemies of society--not just violent criminals, but those who would use the populace as mere consumer-units for their own gain. Even they have some kind of intrinsic worth, but what concerns me most is the logic that will allow us to spend thousands of dollars each year housing convicted felons while those who made the mistake of developing schizophrenia or getting their legs blown off in a war have to sleep on the streets.

This brings me to my next thought. I've read that something close to 3/4 of the money invested in public services goes to overhead. This means that for every dollar the government spends on the homeless problem, $0.75 of it goes to pay the salaries of the people who are supposed to be helping solve this problem. This is unacceptable to me--especially since most of these jobs are given out as handouts by government officials to win votes--but if we eliminate the pork we're going to create a lot of unemployed people. Something like 40% of the workforce nowadays are employees of the fed--bureaucracy on a massive scale that the taxpayers have to shoulder. Again, a tangent for another topic.

I am disturbed by recent events in various EU countries involving government-mandated sterilizations, abortions, and euthanasia. This has been going on in Communist China for over 80 years, but you don't see the pro-"choice" lobbies saying anything about this gross violation of human, civil, and personal rights. Something's fishy. What is the government's obligation to those who cannot contribute? To educate and rehabilitate those who are willing to cooperate, to care for those who cannot care for themselves, or to simply kill them and be done with it? What do you think?

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Ever read John Rawls' "A theory of Justice" - fascinating, you might like it.

In a nutshell he believes that certain peolple are born with a wealth more natural talent than others (like the genius compared to the retard). He calls this the human lottery - its pure luck. For that reason we should have a minimum standard of acceptable living standards, as it is not fair to see those undeserving of hardship suffer. He also distinguishes these people from those who merely suffer from lazy bastard syndrome. They deserve what they get. He has often been accused of being an equalitarian because of his distribution principles, however, that is a mistake. He believe the only reasonable way to maintain a minimum acceptable standard of living is to tax those who have more 'luck' (in the sense that they were born with the natural talents to succeed) - to provide for those who are less fortunate. Minimum taxation to maintain a 'safety net' for those undeserving of hardship.

[squee]

When did he write, Muffster? Sounds like a post-Enlightenment thinker of some sort. They spent a lot of time trying to rationalize pre-Enlightenment theories about social justice, positive obligations to those less fortunate, etc. without bringing any religion into it--and they seem to have had as hard a time as I'm having. I don't like his justification for taxing those more fortunate. Some of us are smarter than others; some of us are better looking. So in what sense have we all got the same potentiality that would render us, in the eyes of the Law and of Jefferson's "Natural God" equal?

In other words, what characteristic or variable is the same for all people, that we can use it as a basis for treating everyone the same on some level (specifically, everyone gets some help from society regardless of status)?

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Heh. He actually wrote in the 1970's. ;)

Here's some background. (http://www.stfx.ca/people/wsweet/Rawls-mag-article.htm)

Well, its not so much a question of what characteristics are variable - as it is what people threatened with being unlucky in the human lottery would agree to in a 'veil of ignorance' - read the article.

[squee]

Whoa.

It's no suprise to me that the Left has ignored Rawls since he wrote Justice. Today he would probably be considered a radical conservative throwback: the Modern Left, to me, seems to be about making people dependent on an enormous State--more about control and power than social justice. I am going to go find this book today, Muff, thanks! :D

[Mr. Snrub]

I have a younger brother. He has severe cerebral palsy. It would have been better if he had never lived. He has no quality of life. And you'll forgive me if I say no more because it's the most personal thing there is for me.

[Cruise Director]

I'm glad you peeps clarified your stance on the issue of "contributing to society." I was getting pissed for a second. My best friend has a brother-in-law that has been couch bound for over 3 years now. He just can't seem to find a job that will pay him enough to work.

He needs to be dragged behind a truck.

[squee]

Originally posted by Mr. Snrub
I have a younger brother. He has severe cerebral palsy. It would have been better if he had never lived. He has no quality of life. And you'll forgive me if I say no more because it's the most personal thing there is for me.

Snrub, I don't want to open up any wounds, so don't feel as if you need to answer this, but...do you love your brother?

[Mr. Snrub]

Originally posted by squee


Snrub, I don't want to open up any wounds, so don't feel as if you need to answer this, but...do you love your brother?

Thruthfully? No, I don;t think I do. It wasn't a nice thing to realise, either. I should mention he doesn't just have cerebral palsy, he had severe mental retardation as well because he was born 6 weeks too soon. My parents told the doctors not to bother saving him if he would have no chance to enjoy life, but they did anyway. And it almost destroyed my family. The worst part is, it's not his fault. But oh well, it certainly made me very mature very early.

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

That must have been so hard for your parents Snrub, and for you kids. I think it must be one of the hardest decisions you could ever be faced with - whether to keep a child born with brain damage and/or severe disability.

I know that when I was pregnant, James (Tarryn's father) and I discussed it, we both decided that we would not want to keep a child as 'disadvantaged' as what your brother is... its hard to say where I would draw the line though.

It sounds like an awful thing, but it would just break my heart to have a child that would never be able to experience life to what I would call a reasonable standard ... but then, you never know, maybe they are happy in their own wee worlds? Do you think your brother is happy?

[morgana]

<font color="lime">i think a major problem with society as a whole is our unwillingness to take care of our elderly. we're just not as family-oriented as we used to be. entire families used to live in one house only 50 years ago. and if someone in the family had a mental or physical condition that prevented them from working, the entire family chipped in to take care of them.

i could go on and on about how the deterioration of family values has ruined society, but i'm hungry and don't want to spend 20 minutes on a reply.</font>

[Mr. Snrub]

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer
That must have been so hard for your parents Snrub, and for you kids. I think it must be one of the hardest decisions you could ever be faced with - whether to keep a child born with brain damage and/or severe disability.

I know that when I was pregnant, James (Tarryn's father) and I discussed it, we both decided that we would not want to keep a child as 'disadvantaged' as what your brother is... its hard to say where I would draw the line though.

It sounds like an awful thing, but it would just break my heart to have a child that would never be able to experience life to what I would call a reasonable standard ... but then, you never know, maybe they are happy in their own wee worlds? Do you think your brother is happy?

I haven't seen him in about 3 years, but there were a couple of times I looked in his eyes and I could see he really wasn't.

[Billyman]

Mentally insane-

If there is no possible way they can recover, If there is no way they can ever contribute to society, then they should not they should not consume any more of my tax dollars and be should be destroyed. (Unless the familiy wants to foot the bill). I would feel the same way if it were my own mother. I would eventually grow to hate her because of the constant thorn in my side.

Mentally Handicapped-

See above. And retardation? If it is detected early while still in the womb. Destroy it.

Terminally ill-

They are going to die eventually anyway, their expenses are their families responsibility. Not mine. Let them go in peace.

Elderly-

Another family problem. Their responsibility. Leave me and my money out of it. That's what retirement and nursing homes are for.

Making the mistake of developing shizo?-

It'a a mental disease, not a development like girls getting boobs in puberty. And they are completely capable of contributing to society.

Vets with the legs blown off and living in the streets?-

Their problem. There are too many paraplegics and physically handicapped people making a decent or good living doing something productive. These vets want to be treated like the victim and want a hand out. Fuck 'em.

Homeless-

I have worked in a homeless soup kitchen. My heart goes out to some of those people who were put on the streets by means they had no control over. Seeing families in that situation is heartbreaking and I contribute when ever possible. And Yes, a lot of the money goes to the "employees/volunteers". Have you actually ever seen what it takes to feed 1000 hungry people?
Most homeless people choose that lifestyle. They don't want to work, they only want a hand out too. Fuck them! Get a job.

Pro-choice-

Damn near dead on. As long as it isn't used as a form of "birth control". It's a womans body. They should have control over it to an extent.

[TotalAnarchy]

The fact that those veterans, in a dozen conflicts over the world, kept you safe, were wounded and taken out in the prime of your life so you could live the life you do, means nothing at all? That the country owes them nothing for their sacrifice which they made? Nothing? Fuck that. Whenever I see a veteran down on his luck I always give them money, because I dont forget what they did for me and every other damn person in this country.

Perhaps you dont, Billyman. If you just dont give a fuck about what they did, well, fuck, then you should think about your priorities.

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Originally posted by Billyman


Making the mistake of developing shizo?-


How does one accidentally develop schizophrenia? Its not like you trip over and gain a chemical imbalance. :rolleyes:

[rage]

Billyman - sort of a mean POV towards most but the perfect huh? Heil Billyman? (ok, I'm not serious about that, so dont get all pissy, but if I remember correctly, Hitler - and again, not saying you are ANYTHING like hitler, and not comparing you with him, just mearly stating a point - but Hitler shared some of the same ideas on how to deal w/ the mentally handicap/insane/elderly as you do...like I said, I think so, not 100% sure on that)

mentally insane - while I personally wouldn't want to foot the bill, and I believe the family should have the responsibility, I definitely dont think we should just 'kill em all." What about families who CAN'T support them, but dont want them to die? You make it sound like the person that is crazy is personally responsible for that, and should work to support themselves, when in some cases anything but is possible. And you feel sorry for the homeless who were put on the street by something that they can't control? Your ideas seem to be a bit skewered at this point. As far as the mentally insane who commit criminal acts..well...depending on the act, and whether they are truley mentally insane, or just using that as a cover, I dont feel any sympathy for them, and do not see them any different than regular criminals, and their acts should definitely NOT be excused because they have some sort of (usually bullshit) mental problem.

mentally handicap - I hate your reasoning for this with every bone in my fucking body. What makes you think that they have less value to society because they can't work a normal 9-5 job? What gives you the right to say "destroy it." You say you agree w/ pro choice, but here you lean towards killing those that you see as "lacking." I have an uncle with down syndrome. He currently is living w/ his parents still (my grandparents), and even though they are elderly, they still take care of him when he needs it. He contributes greatly and helps them out in different chores around the house, so while he may be "exasperating" to them from time to time, he is also a big help to them, and a large blessing to them. He is in his 30's, which is much older than doctors thought he would ever live, and if he out lives my grandparents, he will come and stay w/ my parents. The amount of joy he has brought into my family's life (including uncles/grandparents/my parents/cousins) and others that he has met, is unmeasurable. Not all mentally handicap sit around and drool all day.

Terminally Ill - I agree w/ you for the most part, though you have forgotten that it is also insurances responsibility to pay for some of that...that is why you pay into them so much every month, is it not?

Elderly - I think that while it is the family's responsibility to take care of them, I dont mind chipping in my share if they or their family does not have the funds to take care of them. Will explain later.

Vets - dont understand your reasoning behind this. Maybe if you have dealt w/ the depression that comes w/ having no legs, and not only that, but losing them in a war that many people hated you for fighting in, you can say something valid about this. Granted, many vets have been able to recover from that, but there are many who have not. I like what total anarchy had to say about this matter.

Homeless - I am amazed that you feel a need to contribute to the homeless, many of home, while being the victim of something unfortunate, have not chosen to try and work out of it. What is the difference between them and vets, that you would so willingly contribute time for the homeless, but not vets who may be missing a pair of legs?

I believe that in our society, those that are blessed with more money, should help those that CANNOT contribute, but those who choose NOT to contribute, can go fuck themselves. Squatters, specifically the anarchist squatters, like mentioned in the previous thread, seem to have some fucked up views. Mainly that they are "going against the system" by not working. In smaller communities, like the Omish, they have definitely "bucked the system," but also, they work harder than most others. Smaller communities like theirs rely more on EVERY able body person contributing what they can, like farming, building, ect.

Omish come across as "bucking the system," and squatters, well, they just come across as being a bunch of lazy fucks who dont want to work, other than walking around a neighborhood, and trying to keep their asses from being kicked out of a building they are illegally staying in.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong....

[rage]

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer

How does one accidentally develop schizophrenia? Its not like you trip over and gain a chemical imbalance. :rolleyes:
heh..that was funny.

[squee]

Originally posted by Mr. Snrub
Thruthfully? No, I don;t think I do. It wasn't a nice thing to realise, either. I should mention he doesn't just have cerebral palsy, he had severe mental retardation as well because he was born 6 weeks too soon. My parents told the doctors not to bother saving him if he would have no chance to enjoy life, but they did anyway. And it almost destroyed my family. The worst part is, it's not his fault. But oh well, it certainly made me very mature very early. I'm sorry.
But that all makes me very sad :(

Billy Sez:
Pro-choice-

Damn near dead on. As long as it isn't used as a form of "birth control". It's a womans body. They should have control over it to an extent.

But...Billyman...you are in fact advocating using abortion to control certain population factors (what you could call survival traits in a civilized society). Therefore it is in fact "birth control," just not in the same way as contraception.

Have you ever read any of the nonpolitical justifications for abortion? By which I mean, those outside the "It's my body and I'll do what I want with it" type magazines? All the cognoscenti among the educated elites who advocate abortion use the exact same logic the Nazis used to justify the Holocaust: It all begins with redefining a human being as "nonhuman" due to the condition of a certain variable...

Age, whether too young or too old.
Low mental potential / retardation.
Stupid.
Birth defects.
Ugly face.
Black.
Gay.
Jewish.
Poor.
Infirm.
Foreigner.

Them.

It's a bit of a slippery slope, my friend...and historically we have always fallen down it despite starting off with the best of intentions...why not believe that the simple fact that someone is alive, and therefore posessing nearly limitless potential for good in the world, and therefore merits your help?

[gone away]

we claim shock horror at the actions of other, less peaceful and humanitarian countries.

we start things like the united nations to make sure that the world is a safe and equal place to live, or as close as possible (don't wanna argue about the function of the united nations ;) )

we believe that we are truly evolved, as a group of countries (developed ones)

and i think that if we want that to be true, we cannot euthanize people because they're in the way. there's more than enough resources to deal with all of us, if we're greedy and want more, that's our problem, not the people who are unaware and deformed (likely due to some damage we've done to the world and the people)

natural selection isn't a factor anymore, we eliminated it, and thus we reap what we sow... these people don't deserve to die.

[Mr. Snrub]

Originally posted by rage
Billyman - sort of a mean POV towards most but the perfect huh? Heil Billyman? (ok, I'm not serious about that, so dont get all pissy, but if I remember correctly, Hitler - and again, not saying you are ANYTHING like hitler, and not comparing you with him, just mearly stating a point - but Hitler shared some of the same ideas on how to deal w/ the mentally handicap/insane/elderly as you do...like I said, I think so, not 100% sure on that)



You are correct, Hitler did advocate the murder of the handicapped and insane, however he only started on this policy after he received a letter from the parents of one boy asking if he could be killed. Hitler agreed, and it all started.

[Billyman]

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer

How does one accidentally develop schizophrenia? Its not like you trip over and gain a chemical imbalance. :rolleyes:

That was my point exactly dear.

The quote was from squee himself. Go read his post again.

[Billyman]

Mentally insane-

I mean if a person is fucking crazy and cannot keep what has caused their condition under control either with medication or some sort of therapy, and it is best for them and everyone else for them to be locked up in an asylum somewhere due to the danger of themselves or others and has no family willing to put forth the funding to house them, then what happens is my tax money goes to support their life. Someone that I don’t know, someone that I care nothing about and will never meet costs me money. No, it isn’t their fault, but why should I have to pay for their well-being? Which is what it boils down too. I am speaking of course of the people who must be kept in a locked room and drugged 24/7 for the safety of themselves and the others around them. Is this any quality of life? I don’t think so. As bad as it sounds, as wrong as it sounds, I stand firm, they’re better off dead.

Mentally handicapped-

This is where my way of thinking is kinda fucked up and I admit that. I wont change my answer just to make myself look good. When I was married, and my wife and I had contemplated having children, I gave her a “what if” without giving any indication of my beliefs or feelings. The “what if” was about detecting retardation early enough. She had very similar thoughts as I without my initial influence. If she was to get pregnant and we found out early enough that it would be mentally handicapped, then we would have it terminated. This discussion has also taken place with my current g/f and she too agrees. The bad thing about that is: It could have say, Down syndrome, and if a light enough case is present, then it could live a productive life. But I really wouldn’t want to put he/she through what he/she would have to endure on a day-to-day basis. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for it’s anguish. If a sever case is present, then just what is the quality of life? I don’t think there is one. I don’t think there is quality in that life, not for me, for the mother, or for the rest of the family who would carry the burden, and certainly not to him/her.

Terminally ill-

Rage, no I haven’t forgotten about the insurance, but that falls back on the family’s responsibility right? Family’s responsibility, not mine, is all I was saying.

Elderly-

There are too many gov’t-funding programs (inevitably coming from my tax money) to help families with this situation for me to worry about everyone else’s grandmother so to speak. When it comes time to help my grandmother with this, it’s my family’s problem. Not yours, not my neighbors.

Vets-

Not all of them, not at all. I worked in a soup kitchen in Atlanta GA. for a week years ago. There were disabled, homeless vets there. I heard stories from some of them talk about how chances were good that they might be getting a job here or there. Talk of someone trying to help them if they were interested in making an honest living and get off the streets. I support these guys whole-heartedly. I respect these guys through and through. They were trying to overcome their catastrophe and make something of themselves in spite of it. Then there were some vets that were fucking worthless. They were in no worse shape than any of those other guys. They all where missing limbs (sometimes multiples) or paralyzed. But these pathetic guys made me mad, they made me sick. They thought because they went to war and got beyond just hurt for my country, their country, that I should have to “carry” them for the rest of their life. These guys didn’t want to work, didn’t want to even try, even when the opportunity was right there to better themselves and get off the streets. Most of which wouldn’t even accept gov’t-funding or housing. All they wanted was a goddamn handout and was too stupid to take it. Most just wanted my pity. And pitiful they were. I say it again: Fuck em.

Homeless-

Similar to above. Some of those contributions went to some of those vets as well. And I’m glad it did.

Abortion issue-

It’s a woman’s body period; I nor anyone else has the right to say whether she must carry an unwanted baby to term. Though it could cause many problems in a relationship, say if she didn’t want it but he did. There are many issues that are brought up. Marriages have been torn apart over similar instances but that’s for that couple to work through. Ultimately, it’s her body.