Why should a drug addict's babies die? ("Welfare"

Post Reply New Topic

You've got to understand that a drug addict's children are, no surprise, born addicted to drugs, and will likely need lifelong care, care that is beyond this country's capacity to pay for. We are out of money. Therefore, some people will have to suffer and die so that others may live.

It's the law of the jungle, the weak must be eliminated so that the strong may prosper. It is a law that is built into our DNA as animals on earth, and everything eventually goes back to it. We can't afford to pay welfare to those who will use it to feed drug addictions and empower Mexican drug cartels. It is self-defeating as well as not making monetary sense.

The problem with modern society is that the weak survive, and go on to breed more weaklings. Eventually the strong will be seriously threatened. The normal solution is war, but I don't think Americans will like having a war on their soil. Eventually there will be a disease or a famine, and the weak will die.

I think policies that get rid of the weak ASAP are just Darwin in action. Mother Nature does not know compassion, that is where liberalism fails. The world's population has increased by 700% in just sixty years. It is a population bubble, and population bubbles ALWAYS end in a catastrophic collapse to near zero levels. You may not like it, but nature doesn't care, you will die anyway.

You may want to read Ayn Rand, that's where much of the philosophy of the modern Republicans comes from. Reading Atlas Shrugged is only for the masochistic, so you will have to content yourself with Wikipedia summaries. I think that one of the obvious problems with her philosophy is when society purposefully excludes a certain population, then blames them for not getting ahead and then seeks to eliminate them. In a different society, autistics for example would contribute to society, and have for thousands of years, yet the modern USA only cares about social skills, and those without are out of luck. In that case, society, not the person, is to blame. Other than that, Rand is pretty interesting. Her philosophy is basically invert Marxism: the capitalists, not the workers, are the drivers of society, and need to eliminate the workers.

The poor will charge their tax on you, whether through the government or through crime, so don't worry about it.

According to your philosophy autistic people are weak and should be eliminated. Same goes for the mentally ill. If you can't adapt to the majority NT culture you are simply less fit for survival and by definition that is weakness, an unforgivable character flaw in the grand scheme of Social Darwinism. Aspies are weaklings too. It irritates me how right-wing aspies have such an entitlement complex that they think their particular disability is somehow special and that the world should bend to them. Yet an NT with a different kind of inability is simply inferior.

In any case I don't think the world is really a zero sum game where people who can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" need to be sacrificed to the alter of Atlas Shrugged. In a wealthy country like the US there is more than enough resources to go around. We aren't a third world sh** hole that can't afford anything. People simply don't want to pay for a social safety net because they think the people who use it are part of the "other" who are nothing like them.

The poor will charge their tax on you, whether through the government or through crime, so don't worry about it.

It seems that you have the type of brain I'm trying to pick here. How do you feel about the opinion posed in the OP? If you agree with the opinion, could you elaborate as to why?

My position is that the only proper system of human interaction is based upon purely voluntary association. That is the only way to preserve justice and prevent slavery.

I'm tossing this topic in the pit because I'm empty handed for how to deal with people who have opinions that complete escape my capacity to understand. Maybe you can use small words to explain it to me.

There's a law now in Florida that requires poor people to pay for their own drug testing before they and their children can qualify for public assistance (including Food Stamps and Medicaid, etc.). If an individual passes the drug test, they will be refunded the money for the test. If they do not pass, there's no assistance and no refund. It's pretty clear how this works, although I'm not sure how people are going to receive their refunds or in what timeframe. As a sentimental liberal, I disagree with the whole thing and that's not surprising. A few of my acquaintences are conservative and one told me straight out that she thinks it's perfectly alright for a drug addict's babies to suffer and die, that it will "show" the drug addicts for being addicted to drugs, and nobody who has an addiction deserves to be on welfare, even if their children suffer. She even used proper punctuation and spelling so this wasn't a fanatical rant. With a clear conscience, this was her opinion and it just blows me away. These are my tax dollars, too. I want them to help people, especially the children of drug addicts.

I'm at a loss here. Help me understand, please.

(remember how Antonin Scalia said that executing those not guilty is to him no big deal because he says they'll go to Heaven?)

How do you justify the position of Alexander Hamilton, who opposed slavery, defended a man's freedom of speech (who was speaking in favor of things he vehemently opposed), and argued the necessity for a government to tax its citizens?

This very question-are aspies worth saving?-was why Hans Asperger was conducting his research. The aspie holds out an intriguing contradiction to the Darwinist model-he is supremely gifted in some areas but lacking totally in others.

Warren Buffett is one of the greatest financial geniuses who ever lived, yet he can't dress himself in the morning without his wife's help, and can't tolerate a varied diet, eating only hamburger, potato chips, and Coca Cola. Is somebody like that, or somebody like Nikola Tesla who wrote patents that we still can't comprehend yet who had enormous difficulty with everyday tasks, worth saving? Furthermore, is it worth saving a million dysfunctional autistics in the hopes that one may be a Tesla or a Buffett?

There aren't any easy answers to that one. I admit that it throws a monkey wrench into the whole ideal. Another monkey wrench is the "mad genius", somebody like the mathematician in A Beautiful Mind who struggled with schizophrenia yet who was a math genius. Which does society value more, mental health or societal contribution despite difficulty? Do we want a society of perfect NTs, or do we want to maximize each person's societal contribution and deal with difficulties as they arise?

Why should a drug addict's babies die?

Now, can I ask how this applies (not being able to use the money for drugs instead of what it's supposed to be used for) applies to such services as Medicaid and Food Stamps, which are very well designed to prevent misuse?

In my opinion, the more appropriate question is, "Why should drug addicts be allowed to keep their children when they can't even make the right decisions for themselves?" Otherwise, it's the junkies themselves that pass the death sentences upon their kids, not society.

No, I have no sense of "Shared Guilt" for the situation that junkies inflict upon their kids, since those junkies' kids are not mine.

Yes, that is cold-hearted.

How is it cold hearted? There are plenty of people who want to adopt babies, and the babies would be better off too.

There is a black market for food stamps. It is risky, and most people would probably avoid it, but addicts might well risk it.