Has anyone [in the U.S.] received your stimulus check? How are you going to spend it?

[redpoint5]

Every advancement carries with it a more difficult problem to solve.

Regarding SS, I'm not talking about yanking freabears's stipend, I'm talking about weaning dependence on the state. There are zero people that are around me that will die of need, regardless of compelled "charity".

The state makes weak citizens, and weak citizens make easy Pickens for the strong.

"When the Barbarians are invading, we'll be busy trying to sort out if men are women".

[freebeard]

I'm not talking about yanking freabears's stipend

Thanks for that. freebeer is also acceptable.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Every advancement carries with it a more difficult problem to solve.

Regarding SS, I'm not talking about yanking freabears's stipend, I'm talking about weaning dependence on the state. There are zero people that are around me that will die of need, regardless of compelled "charity".

The state makes weak citizens, and weak citizens make easy Pickens for the strong.

"When the Barbarians are invading, we'll be busy trying to sort out if men are women".

I understand the principle of this, but frankly, there are people around me who would die of need were the checks to stop coming. Maybe that just means that anyone unable to provide for themself *should* just die, be it from age or illness. I think the equation is a little different in a place where winters are cold enough that many who are homeless simply never wake up one day.

What changed my perspective was marrying someone with a chronic illness. An illness that not only did she not ask for, but was caused by criminal acts, before she was old enough to protect herself. She gets no handouts, no checks. There are no programs to help her. Before the ACA, she would not have been able to get health insurance, and she's part of the reason it's so expensive for everyone else now. Even with it, a bad flare now (in her late 20's) could ruin her credit for life.

She has one of the best work ethics of anyone I've ever met. I'll gladly be her safety net for life, should she ever need it.

I understand the argument that nobody should be compelled to take care of another. We live in socially bankrupt times, however. Few can count on safety through social contract, rather than law. But, sometimes the cost of neglecting or abandoning large parts of society can be even greater than the cost of taking care of them. And are we such a poor society that taking care of the few who are ill is unaffordable?

[Piotrsko]

Diabetes was prevelant prior to agriculture, people just died and nobody noticed the cause. It was also harder to display ty 2 symptoms because everyone was on the verge of malnutrition.

All the major philosophies and religions suggest we should take care of the disadvantaged. It is also apparently hardwired into our social awareness. How come everybody doesn't do this automatically, particularly the people espousing this position? How come there are people that go the opposite direction, effectively saying those people are not deserving to live?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Ecky

I understand the principle of this, but frankly, there are people around me who would die of need were the checks to stop coming.

I understand the argument that nobody should be compelled to take care of another. We live in socially bankrupt times, however. Few can count on safety through social contract, rather than law. But, sometimes the cost of neglecting or abandoning large parts of society can be even greater than the cost of taking care of them. And are we such a poor society that taking care of the few who are ill is unaffordable?

Nobody would die if the checks stopped coming. We already have homeless with mental issue and drug addictions living on the streets, and they are overfed and don't die of malnutrition or exposure.

If some sort of UBI is implemented to replace SS, it needs to come from the general fund, not workers today paying for retired people today. The ratio of workers to non-workers is not a constant.

I made no comments regarding healthcare or other assistance to those who have mental or medical conditions that require extra care. I realize SS funds some of those scenarios, but it should be part of the general fund, not the "retirement" fund.

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

All the major philosophies and religions suggest we should take care of the disadvantaged. It is also apparently hardwired into our social awareness. How come everybody doesn't do this automatically, particularly the people espousing this position? How come there are people that go the opposite direction, effectively saying those people are not deserving to live?

The reason people don't tend to those in need is because we expect uncaring government programs to take care of everyone's needs. Rather than take responsibility for the need we see, it's way easier for 3 people to collude to pass a law saying the 4th person should be financially responsible to fulfill the need.

[hayden55]

Originally Posted by Ecky

And are we such a poor society that taking care of the few who are ill is unaffordable?

It seems like in our current capacity yes we are there or are getting there. Broken but money printer go BRRR.

[freebeard]

sounds cold.

Warthogs go b-r-r-r-r-r-t.

[jakobnev]

Diabetes was prevelant prior to agriculture, people just died and nobody noticed the cause. It was also harder to display ty 2 symptoms because everyone was on the verge of malnutrition.

Source? (for both claims)

[Xist]

I don't know, but...

The condition known today as diabetes (usually referring to diabetes mellitus) is thought to have been described in the Ebers Papyrus (c. 1550 BC).

Wikipedia: History of diabetes

[jakobnev]

Agriculture is older. (ca. 11500a)