Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[Ender]

And yes I have no problem with “disposing” of their lives.

You have that in common with the worst despots of the 20th century.

But you haven’t addressed my challenge when I asked they would have a higher quality of life when I “disposed” of their lives or not.

No, they would not have a higher quality of life; essentially they would have no real life at all. We may be right in thinking that the tabby in our living room has a higher quality of life than the feral cat in the woods but you assume that what is true of pets is true of people.

The point of my proposal is to insulate them from poverty and humilitation, and you haven’t shown how my proposal is antithetical to those aims.

You call yourself a utilitarian yet you do not accept the demands of your own “faith.” What utilitarian benefit is there in maintaining hoards of people in an unproductive state of alternate reality? They provide nothing at all; they are pure consumers. The humans kept alive in The Matrix at least provided energy; the humans in your solution don’t even provide that. Why isn’t the best utilitarian solution the extermination of the unproductive? You have no problem disposing of people’s lives … well, dispose of them.

Tell me how being a hikikomori is worse than living in the bottom rungs of a highly unequal society.

First, in our society, movement between economic quintiles is common, rapid, and bi-directional. Most people start out at the bottom; few stay there their entire lives and most who do probably learned dependence on government support at an early age. Second, hikikomori is a psychological pathology, not a social panacea.

"there is little difference between hikikomori and more formal clinical definition of people suffering from acute social withdrawal due to depression." (Wikipedia)

Ender

 

[Pondero]

I vote Conservative in Canada too, which is equivalent to voting for the Republican Party and I still give to charity. Our Lord, said, that “The poor you shall always have with you.”

The question is one of balance, balancing between giving too much and too little, between helping the poor stand on their own two feet, or in supporting laziness. And sometimes the poor just can’t help it, they are too old, or too sick to support themselves.

And then there is the case of how much should the state give to support welfare recipients. In Canada heaven help you if you have to rely on the government for a monthly cheque. You may starve to death first.

 

[ribozyme]

I vote Conservative in Canada too, which is equivalent to voting for the Republican Party and I still give to charity. Our Lord, said, that “The poor you shall always have with you.”

The question is one of balance, balancing between giving too much and too little, between helping the poor stand on their own two feet, or in supporting laziness. And sometimes the poor just can’t help it, they are too old, or too sick to support themselves.

And then there is the case of how much should the state give to support welfare recipients. In Canada heaven help you if you have to rely on the government for a monthly cheque. You may starve to death first.

I want private charity to have the least possible role as possible. The notion that people have to go to a private charity in a OCED country is quite pathetic for me.

 

[ribozyme]

You call yourself a utilitarian yet you do not accept the demands of your own “faith.” What utilitarian benefit is there in maintaining hoards of people in an unproductive state of alternate reality? They provide nothing at all; they are pure consumers. The humans kept alive in The Matrix at least provided energy; the humans in your solution don’t even provide that. Why isn’t the best utilitarian solution the extermination of the unproductive? You have no problem disposing of people’s lives … well, dispose of them.

The utilitarian benefit is that those people are insulated from poverty just like people who live in gated communities. And I didn’t use the word “disposing,” you did. I prefer to say those people are insulated from the high possibility of living in poverty instead of being “disposed.” I’ll ask again: isn’t a major facet social justice about protecting people from the adverse effects of poverty?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I want private charity to have the least possible role as possible. The notion that people have to go to a private charity in a OCED country is quite pathetic for me.

How is that so much worse than going to the welfare office? At least the people in the private charity usually care, and don’t make you take a number.

 

[Ender]

The utilitarian benefit is that those people are insulated from poverty just like people who live in gated communities.

Poverty is a relative term that is determined by the national average income. Given that definition, poverty can literally never be erased. Beyond that, how will you convince people that they ought to work and sustain themselves against the trials of life while taking money from them to warehouse individuals who live a carefree existence without producing anything in return? Why would I work so that you don’t have to?

I’ll ask again: isn’t a major facet social justice about protecting people from the adverse effects of poverty?

No.

I don’t think you have a clue as to what makes people happy as there are any number of poor people who are happy and fulfilled and rich people who are neither. A major problem among retirees is depression caused by being unproductive and unnecessary, precisely the conditions you would gratuitously impose on your “hikikomori.”

Ender

 

[ribozyme]

Poverty is a relative term that is determined by the national average income. Given that definition, poverty can literally never be erased. Beyond that, how will you convince people that they ought to work and sustain themselves against the trials of life while taking money from them to warehouse individuals who live a carefree existence without producing anything in return? Why would I work so that you don’t have to?
No.

I don’t think you have a clue as to what makes people happy as there are any number of poor people who are happy and fulfilled and rich people who are neither. A major problem among retirees is depression caused by being unproductive and unnecessary, precisely the conditions you would gratuitously impose on your “hikikomori.”

Ender

Aren’t those warehoused people protected from material privation and adversity? That is the only thing that I really care about; I only care about their physical welfare and protecting them from the humiliation by occupying the lowest rungs in a highly unequal society.

Could you show me how your scheme does a better job from protecting people from poverty than yours? Or should the unfortunate simply rely on whatever scraps come to them through charity?

 

[ribozyme]

And utilitarianism doesn’t call for the extermination of “unproductive people.” That is just your misconception of utilitarianism. There is a difference killing mature people who already have preferences and the capacity to suffer and killing an inchoate embryo who doesn’t have those capacities.

And Denmark is the happiest place on Earth and it has more people who are “unproductive;” i.e. on “sick leave,” in “labor market political activities,” and early retirees.

As for unemployment, the seemingly low numbers in Denmark reflect in fact the same kind of manipulation of statistics that the Swedish government have been using. While official unemployment in Denmark was only 133,500 or 4.8% in March 2006, there were in the fourth quarter (latest available number in Denmark’s statistical data bank )some 117,600 people or 4.2% in so-called “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger(=“labor market political activities”, what in Sweden is refered to as “AMS-åtgärder”)”. This means that Denmark have even more hidden unemployment in that respect than even Sweden, where “only” 3.2% (144,000) were put away in “labor market political activities” . And while the total level of hidden unemployment is still lower than in Sweden as Denmark have less people in early retirement and on “sick leave”, hidden unemployment is still a lot higher than in most other OECD countries

stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2006/05/denmarks-overrated-flexicurity.html

I suppose the humiliation working in a low wage job in Denmark is eliminated by the low income inequality.