Survival of the fittest.

Post Reply New Topic

So who honestly thinks anyone who cannot be succesful on their own in this society or cannot be sucessful at all should be left to die so to speak? Yes not so easy to defend when I word it that way. I have been on various websites and unfortunatly have seen bits and peices of the news the last couple days.....and it seems there is a opinion that those on the bottom financially are just useless garbage that 'did it to themselves'. Well some of us did not do it to ourselves.......and some of us don't have the skills to jump up and succeed by societies terms and thus sometimes need assistance. Maybe food stamps, maybe medicaid and disability.....maybe something that tax money would go to.

So for people who like social darwanism and survival of the fittest type philosophies would it be better if those on the bottom died off? no one wants to be a burden after all right?

And if you feel that is too extreme...regardless of your political affiliation what would you suggest be done instead?

Extreme A:

Them what can, does, and devil take the hindmost. Divide the bottomfeeders:

1. These to prison or execution.

2. These to the dump or starvation

3. These to the zero care ward or euthanasia

Extreme B:

Assimilate everybody, from each to each as the state sees fit. Divide the misfits:

1. These to reeducation camps

2. These to caring institutions

3. These to euthanasia

--------------

Under A, even the Superman may have an accident, get sick, or be beaten by a competitor. Too bad, Clark, says Lois as she smiles up at Leon the Magnificent.

Under B, even the best socialized may have an uncool impulse or a dissident opinion. We understand, Citizen Q3943-rv. The state knows you will be much happier among your own kind in Camp 13, and surely the training staff will quickly reattune your mind.

----------------

Nature may abhor a vacuum, she more abhors extremes.

Either the extreme of "help no one, everyone for themselves" and the extreme of "Everyone all the help they want" will not, does not and cannot work.

The first because obviously it is dehumanizing and all are vulnerable when ill, young, old or whatever. I really don't think this attitude has ever been embraced by any significant group, nation, tribe or group. Sounds like total anarchy to me.

The second because like any other animal humans, ok some humans? will take the easy way out. If unemployment will pay all of your needs, wants and desires and everyone qualifies for ever then why should anyone work? Obviously this is also a straw man and wouldn't work.

Something in the middle, but who pays, for whom, for how long and how much is where all the argument is. I'm not going to solve it.

That is usually stated explicitly in the Republican Party Platform.

I have no issue with social assistance, but I also believe it should co-exist with a free market. However I don't want more and more money being poured into something just because the Government likes shifting goal posts to compensate for its own inefficiency. This isn't just a problem with the Government, but also with private organizations. There is no cause, ideal, or campaign that can't be run like a business.

Could you point out the clause where that is made explicit? After a preliminary search I can not find the phrase "left to die".

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Secti ... atform.pdf

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index ... z1V1STiTdY

Or is it possible you are continuing your habit of pointless fluffery?

It is funny how the religious right teaches creationism but Charles Darwin is their man when it comes to religious right economic policy.

The concept will be couched in terms such as "trickle down", "Reagonomics", "tax cuts for the rich", or in "getting rid of Obamacare."

Using the phrase "left to die" would make for poor propaganda.

More Thomas Malthus than Charles Darwin.

Religious economic policy?

Come on.

Whatever Right [as opposed to right] economic policy may be and frankly aside from my friend Dick I doubt anybody has a clue on what economic policy ought to be, I know of nothing in the Abrahamic religions that implies any particular economic policy.

So to speak? Literally or figuratively. Those who cannot manage can still receive charitable support and very few people die of hunger in the U.S., even taking into account the homeless. You just will not find too many "Somalian Babies" in the U.S. The local folk will not stand for it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... _countries for a ranking of counties in charitable giving.

The U.S. ranks about 20 in percent of GDP and First in absolute amount of charity given. Before the welfare state emerged the U.S. ranked First in both categories but the government has taken over some of this activities.

ruveyn

If food stamps were eliminated there would be a run on the food banks until the supplies became depleted and then people would starve.

No one (hardly anyone) starved during the Great Depression.

ruveyn

This is false. Plus, even though only a small minority actually starved, many unemployed were malnourished and ill. There was great suffering.

Not the same as starved.

And less likely today. If anything the U.S. has an oversupply of food which is one of the reasons why obesity is a problem. The poor will not starve. The locals will not let that happen. The poor will suffer, but that is a different matter.

It is impossible to starve in America. At the very least one can dive in the dumpsters and eat well.

ruveyn

So? The US may not be a third world country where the poor face the threat of death should a drought kill all their crops, but that doesn't mean there wasn't severe financial insecurity.