Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
Yes, it's a provocative question. There's surely a much better title for this, but I can't think of one at the moment, so let me explain my question - this is getting the the heart of the social contact, welfare, healthcare, etc. Society. The big difference between what should be, and what is, nanny state versus libertarianism. For example...
A teenage boy and girl have sex without protection, the girl gets knocked up, and the boy disappears. The girl has no means of supporting this ***** on her own. Most of the time this scenerio pops up, a common response is: "They should've been responsible and used protection!" And this is totally right. But what should be often ain't. So, putting that aside:
Should society care for that ***** and via extension the ****** (via welfare, subsidized housing, etc)? Let's say ****** is for whatever reason not an option - parents are dead or estranged or whatever.
Another example: a man crossing the road gets hit by a ***** driver. The man has no health insurance (for whatever reason) and cannot pay the hospital costs. Should society absorb the cost, or let the man die (this is a rather commonplace scenario in the US, and it's worth mentioning that the law already says that folks must be treated regardless - but this is a question of 'should')? Again, there's an element of irresponsibility - the man should've had health insurance. But he doesn't.
Last example: an elderly fellow grows too old to work and never saved anything for retirement. Worked odd jobs, no pension, nothing in the way of assets one can use to pay for retirement, etc. Without something like social security, he'd basically be homeless on the street. Should society have an obligation to try and prevent that (i.e., with social security) or can society leave him to the consequences of his poor planning?
When I say 'society', I'm basically referring to government and taxes. Each of these (and one can play these sorts of thought-games endlessly) has an actor that acted in some fashion irresponsibly and will be in the end destitute for it. The first has an actor that bore no responsibility (and along with ******** one can include those with disabilities/impedements/etc).
The second example - with social security - is one I've thought about a lot. I'd personally rather keep all my money and organize my own retirement, because I trust myself a lot more than I trust government. But - what about the people who simply aren't capable of managing that? And if not them themselves, what's the best way of stopping government being equally terrible at managing that?
Should government allow people to die on the streets (through fault of their own - or not through fault of their own), or should it (via taxes/welfare/etc) try to prevent that?
A teenage boy and girl have sex without protection, the girl gets knocked up, and the boy disappears. The girl has no means of supporting this ***** on her own. Most of the time this scenerio pops up, a common response is: "They should've been responsible and used protection!" And this is totally right. But what should be often ain't. So, putting that aside:
Should society care for that ***** and via extension the ****** (via welfare, subsidized housing, etc)? Let's say ****** is for whatever reason not an option - parents are dead or estranged or whatever.
Another example: a man crossing the road gets hit by a ***** driver. The man has no health insurance (for whatever reason) and cannot pay the hospital costs. Should society absorb the cost, or let the man die (this is a rather commonplace scenario in the US, and it's worth mentioning that the law already says that folks must be treated regardless - but this is a question of 'should')? Again, there's an element of irresponsibility - the man should've had health insurance. But he doesn't.
Last example: an elderly fellow grows too old to work and never saved anything for retirement. Worked odd jobs, no pension, nothing in the way of assets one can use to pay for retirement, etc. Without something like social security, he'd basically be homeless on the street. Should society have an obligation to try and prevent that (i.e., with social security) or can society leave him to the consequences of his poor planning?
When I say 'society', I'm basically referring to government and taxes. Each of these (and one can play these sorts of thought-games endlessly) has an actor that acted in some fashion irresponsibly and will be in the end destitute for it. The first has an actor that bore no responsibility (and along with ******** one can include those with disabilities/impedements/etc).
The second example - with social security - is one I've thought about a lot. I'd personally rather keep all my money and organize my own retirement, because I trust myself a lot more than I trust government. But - what about the people who simply aren't capable of managing that? And if not them themselves, what's the best way of stopping government being equally terrible at managing that?
Should government allow people to die on the streets (through fault of their own - or not through fault of their own), or should it (via taxes/welfare/etc) try to prevent that?
