Further than that: one camp believes in collective action and the welfare of an extended population, encompassing the worthy AND the unworthy, and the other con

Further than that: one camp believes in collective action and the welfare of an extended population, encompassing the worthy AND the unworthy, and the other considers that there must be penalties for being unworthy or inferior, and rewards for being worthy or superior. This is a genuine difference of ideology, authentically held. To insist on absolute freedom for the individual, including any penalty or consequence for any lack on any level (and any degree of reward for any superiority no matter how it's arrived at) means you do not care about the unfortunate any more than you'd care about the pile of chips produced whilst making a great sculpture. Not only is the sculpture the point, but it's actively harmful to insist on leaving the superfluous chips stuck on: some waste has to be disposed or you're just poisoning yourself/harming your sculpture. This is a position often held by sculptures and people not often thought of as waste. People who get thought of as waste, frequently would like this assumption re-examined. People who are garbage but occupy categories way beyond their inherent value really REALLY don't want that assumption re-examined…