We produce more than enough for everyone though. If we didn’t, I understand limiting it to those who cooperate, but that’s not the case.
I don’t understand why we should let humans go hungry and/or cold because they enjoy drugs or dislike holding a job. We would rightfully be upset about a dog without a home through the winter, and they don’t contribute to society (except by providing people with joy and companionship, which unemployed drug users also do).
Society can’t support too many people who want to sit around and get high without contributing.
The reason we produce more than enough is because of the people who do contribute. If they start opting out because they see other folks skating by then soon we aren’t producing enough.
If they start opting out because they see other folks skating by then soon we aren’t producing enough.
How many people do you honestly think will look at these tiny homes with the bare necessities and decide that’s better than working? During the pandemic, many people had, for the first time in their lives, financial support and no work. They took up hobbies and started businesses in large numbers, because people don’t generally enjoy being totally unproductive for long stretches of time.
If the number of people who don’t want to work gets to be too high, we cut the funding. I just don’t think it’ll come to that, because most people generally like doing more than subsisting.
Things cost money. If you want things like food and housing, you have to function in society.
Agreed that everyone should get the care they need, and that means universal health care + mental health care + addiction treatment.
But, again, the expectation there is that everyone contributes and everyone benefits.
If society can’t care for the people that can’t care for themselves, what the fuck is even the point?
Welcome to America! Where we can’t have nice things because the wrong (read BROWN) people might get them too!
Example:
https://www.history.com/articles/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits
If you’re being sarcastic or satirical, that’s not coming across in your previous comments.
We produce more than enough for everyone though. If we didn’t, I understand limiting it to those who cooperate, but that’s not the case.
I don’t understand why we should let humans go hungry and/or cold because they enjoy drugs or dislike holding a job. We would rightfully be upset about a dog without a home through the winter, and they don’t contribute to society (except by providing people with joy and companionship, which unemployed drug users also do).
Society can’t support too many people who want to sit around and get high without contributing.
The reason we produce more than enough is because of the people who do contribute. If they start opting out because they see other folks skating by then soon we aren’t producing enough.
How many people do you honestly think will look at these tiny homes with the bare necessities and decide that’s better than working? During the pandemic, many people had, for the first time in their lives, financial support and no work. They took up hobbies and started businesses in large numbers, because people don’t generally enjoy being totally unproductive for long stretches of time.
If the number of people who don’t want to work gets to be too high, we cut the funding. I just don’t think it’ll come to that, because most people generally like doing more than subsisting.