2/24    General question for anti-gov't-program types: Do you think it's ok
        to just abandon those that are unable to properly care for themselves?
        For example: retards, invalids, elderly, children of incompetents,
        incompetents, etc.? How would you propose dealing with them?
        \_ I'm one of the most conservative people on the motd.  I propose that
           society takes care of those who truly can not take care of
           themselves.  Our society moves too fast, is too dispersed and no
           longer fit to deal with charity cases with charity.  However, I do
           not believe "the elderly" belong on your list of those unable to
           care for themselves.  There is nothing about simply being 'elderly'
           that puts a person in the same category as the mentally disabled or
           those truly physically unable to care for themselves.  They fall
           into the welfare-state socialism-is-a-failure i-hate-big-government-
           waste category.  Social security was never intended to be the sole
           support for old people.  It is/was a socialist policy designed to
           supplement an old person's other income.  That "other income" is
           the old person's responsibility.  They had an entire lifetime to get
           their act together.  I don't feel responsible for people being
           wasteful or stupid with their lives.  I would make ilyas pay a tiny
           amount of his income (less than 1%) to support the truly needy but
           wouldn't take a penny from him for "the elderly".
           \_ Well I put them there more as "incompetents". Or people who for
              whatever reason aren't smart enough or are unfortunate enough so
              wind up being economically unviable. We don't have a full-
              unemployment economy like Kucinich wants. So bottom line, do you
              just let them wander around homeless, spreading disease, and die?
              Who decides whether someone "truly can not take care of
              themselves"? That could be faked right? Or self-induced... I've
              been around mentally ill people. Sometimes they could sort of
              function, but not enough to compete. Or they might be stuck with
              the mind of a 10 year old, which is enough to appear coherent but
              not enough to really survive. If nothing else they could put
              themselves in jail. Isn't it perverse? At least with socialism,
              people who have some normal human ambition will strive to achieve
              while the rest are provided some simple support. (I'd also favor
              a more limited immigration policy. And I don't believe in giving
              "asylum".)
           \_ You are a conservative, but when the rubber hits the road you are
              a pragmatic first, a conservative second.  The problem is, I can
              always make a case that more people need to be included in the
              entitlement you are creating (what about old people who
              immigrated from North Korea, who had no chance to improve their
              lot, etc. etc.)  The real issue here is whether property rights
              trump 'right to not die.'  I believe so (I also believe there is
              no such right as 'right to not die').  Once you are willing to
              redistribute money from specific people to other specific people
              (as opposed to servicing certain kinds of 'global goods') using
              force, it's all a matter of sliding down a gentle slope from your
              position to orthodox socialism. -- ilyas
        \_ I propose to rely on charity and culture of compassion (or if you are
           more cynical, peer pressure of compassion), rather than on forcing
           people to be compassionate.  If confronted with a scenario where I
           have to choose between letting someone die and forcing someone to
           take care of them, I would choose the former.  -- ilyas
        \_ in WW2 Japan, the old people were deemed
           useless because they took away precious resources (rice, time,
           etc) that could otherwised be used for expanding their
           empire. So, they killed many of them for the greater good.
                \_ nippon bansai!!! nippon ichiban!!!!
        \_ There is a difference between a safety net and socialized
           retirement / medical care.  Do you want to inculcate
           government dependency (as if we haven't already)?
           \_ so... if there's a safety net then how do you prevent people
              from treating it the same as socialized blah? once most of these
              people fall in they probably can't get out anyway.
              \_ fuck em.  let em die.