Does society have the responsibility to care for the elderly, children, and the disabled?

[osgart]

If so then why doesnt our governments and the wealth and powers to be reflect that conviction?

If not, then what do you propose to do with these people, and why?

 

[sun rise]

Yes.

Because corruption and the use of the power of money stops it.

Vote against the worst of them and for the least corrupt.

 

[osgart]

Yes.

Because corruption and the use of the power of money stops it.

Vote against the worst of them and for the least corrupt.

Yeah voting does put a wedge of lesser evil in the plans of our gridlock system that i support.

 

[Sunstone]

It's curious to me that so many people today feel no responsibility for society to take care of the less fortunate. Spinoza, writing in the 1600s, proved that private charity was inadequate to accomplish it, and that, if it was to be done, it would need to be done by the state.

It's also curious how the very people most likely to look down on "savages" are the very people who advocate abandoning the less fortunate -- something those "savages" would never do unless absolutely forced to.

 

[osgart]

It's curious to me that so many people today feel no responsibility for society to take care of the less fortunate. Spinoza, writing in the 1600s, proved that private charity was inadequate to accomplish it, and that, if it was to be done, it would need to be done by the state.

It's also curious how the very people most likely to look down on "savages" are the very people who advocate abandoning the less fortunate -- something those "savages" would never do unless absolutely forced to.

Yeah if you define a states power carefully, they should be able to carry out sufficient social agreements to give the unfortunate people their necessity. Its a balance of freedom and duty; i wouldnt want to diminish rights, in order to preserve the welfare of the people, nor would i desire every aspect of life controlled, but government should do more for its people, enable instead of cripple.

Its money, we should have more say in how we define its values and usage, supply and distribution.

Savages have a code of honor right!

 

[Father Heathen]

Such responsibility is essential to retaining our humanity.

 

[Jumi]

Only societies worth preserving. Societies that only fulfill the desires of the powerful at the cost are of course the dream of many.

 

[Mindmaster]

If so then why doesnt our governments and the wealth and powers to be reflect that conviction?

If not, then what do you propose to do with these people, and why?

No, because that's why you work your *** off when you're younger... to not worry about doing it when you're an ancient old hag or geezer.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, because that's why you work your *** off when you're younger... to not worry about doing it when you're an ancient old hag or geezer.

So...the disabled?

 

[Mindmaster]

So...the disabled?

I think it's your families duty to take care of you in that instance, so much as I think it's their duty to do it when you're too damn old. You can't depend on a government whatever it gives is loaded with the concept of dependency. In some ways, I prefer the Arab culture in regard to this issue... Adults look after children, the children look after the elderly or disabled. I much rather have that than the untrustworthy corporate-funded interests. Look, the only reason they're going to "look after you" is they haven't figured out a way to X you out from the books without no one else noticing. That's a terrible situation to be in for anyone and left to their devices they'd do exactly that. They look at taxes as their money going out the window...

 

[Sunstone]

If so then why doesnt our governments and the wealth and powers to be reflect that conviction?

I think -- no matter how much lipstick you put on it -- the top reasons so many people reject societal responsibility for the less fortunate is because they (1) believe they only have an obligation to people they are emotionally invested in (family, friends, etc), (2) they resent taxation, (3) they perceive the main recipients of social programs to be people they fear and hate, such as Blacks, (4) they don't see how some social problems are systemic and disadvantage certain groups and people, and (5) they don't realize the magnitude of the problem can only be addressed by state action.

 

[sun rise]

I think -- no matter how much lipstick you put on it -- the top reasons so many people reject societal responsibility for the less fortunate is because they (1) believe they only have an obligation to people they are emotionally invested in (family, friends, etc), (2) they resent taxation, (3) they perceive the main recipients of social programs to be people they fear and hate, such as Blacks, (4) they don't see how some social problems are systemic and disadvantage certain groups and people, and (5) they don't realize the magnitude of the problem can only be addressed by state action.

I'm not a Christian but strongly believe that some parts of the Bible are ethical imperatives for myself as an individual and for society. And further the imperative for other religions as well. That specifically includes taking care of those on the bottom rung of society.

 

[osgart]

I think -- no matter how much lipstick you put on it -- the top reasons so many people reject societal responsibility for the less fortunate is because they (1) believe they only have an obligation to people they are emotionally invested in (family, friends, etc), (2) they resent taxation, (3) they perceive the main recipients of social programs to be people they fear and hate, such as Blacks, (4) they don't see how some social problems are systemic and disadvantage certain groups and people, and (5) they don't realize the magnitude of the problem can only be addressed by state action.

Thats just it about taxation. Humans are a creative species. Why cant we come up with a system of charity that avoids taxation? I am particularly interested in the money supply system. The increase and decrease of money supply and where it all goes to created out of thin air. The central bank distributes it to corporations i suppose further tightening their grip on the rest of us, when ordinary citizens should have some sort of ubi.

 

[1213]

Does society have the responsibility to care for the elderly, children, and the disabled?

I think people have responsibility to love others as themselves. And that means people should take care of their neighbors.

 

[JustWondering]

Such responsibility is essential to retaining our humanity.

I think most of our problems come from humanity being human. In any human society there is going to be injustice, and the elite class looking down on, if not abusing those below them in the social hierarchy.

 

[HonestJoe]

First, I’m not convinced society it the kind of thing that can have a responsibility. Society is really just a consequence of what a group of people do rather than a concrete concept. People can have responsibilities, individually and as groups.

If so then why doesnt our governments and the wealth and powers to be reflect that conviction?

They do don’t they? There is government support for retirement, pensions, elderly care including specific healthcare and support for people who support elderly and infirm family members. You could make arguments about the methods, scale and priority of the government in this but I don’t think you can say it doesn’t do anything.

If not, then what do you propose to do with these people, and why?

That’s the million dollar question, one becoming ever harder as we continue to increase life expectancy but not necessarily health or life quality. The classic pattern still applies, where adults work to support the elderly who have done their shift and the young who will do the next but there are all sorts of delicate balances implicit in that system that are ever shifting. I honestly don’t know what the answer it but something will have to give (arguably has already stated to).