4 ms·

Does "support disabled people" count as a problem shared by you if you (and your family) are not disabled? Or is that social engineering/extortion?

FredPret 5y ago
That’s a form of insurance that covers me
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Wouldn’t a global fund for any disaster in the world also be a form of insurance that covers me? I would be happy that there’s a global fund for me if my country goes down the shitter.
  - nradov 5y ago
    By the time your country goes down the shitter the corrupt unaccountable bureaucrats who manage that global fund would have embezzled all the money.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      Wouldn’t that apply to any kind of disaster or disablement fund? I don’t get it.
      - FredPret 5y ago
        Smaller scale is better. It’s closer to the non-politician voters. The UN is many layers removed from me and I have no actual control over what they do or who works there, whereas I can write to and vote for the person who runs my neighbourhood, city, etc.
        MauranKilom 5y ago
        That's a reasonable take, but a far cry from "extortion".
donw 5y ago
That depends on many factors. What do you mean by "disabled"? Unable to work? As declared by whom? Merely needing reasonable accommodation? Is that a universal? A chunk of familial diaspora is "disabled", but only on paper. Speaking frankly, they're just lazy and worked the system so that they could focus on their real passion: porn and drugs. A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense, because a lawyer was running around and filing suit against any business that didn't adhere completely to ADA requirements. It's... a climbing gym. If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when? Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line. Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma. Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma. At least in the latter case, your family and friends can pull together to put more money into grandma.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  > A chunk of familial diaspora is "disabled", but only on paper. ...what does "some might game the system" have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people? > A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense [...] ...what does any of that have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people? > If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when? Ever since people were moved by hardships of those around them. Beggars have existed for all of recorded history I believe? And they don't beg for fun. > Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line. Could you spell out what you are implying here? "Resources are finite" only contributes to the "taxation is extortion" argument if you insist that any non-zero amount spent improving the lives of non-contributors is better spent maximizing economical gain. Following that logic quickly leads to "kill retirees immediately". > Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma. Not to a significant degree, no. If they get cancer, they'll more or less have the same treatment options available to them. Also, why shouldn't the prime minister get more encompassing treatment? Society also pays for bodyguards for them, but not for grandma. Why is that? > Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma. Again, how is that relevant to "should society support disabled people"? You've tried really hard to come up with scenarios where society is (under certain narrow criteria) worse off chipping in. That... does exactly nothing to answer the question whether there are cases where society should chip in. And whether taxation to accomplish that goal is therefore extortion or not.

FredPret 5y ago

That’s a form of insurance that covers me

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
Wouldn’t a global fund for any disaster in the world also be a form of insurance that covers me? I would be happy that there’s a global fund for me if my country goes down the shitter.
- nradov 5y ago
  By the time your country goes down the shitter the corrupt unaccountable bureaucrats who manage that global fund would have embezzled all the money.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Wouldn’t that apply to any kind of disaster or disablement fund? I don’t get it.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Smaller scale is better. It’s closer to the non-politician voters. The UN is many layers removed from me and I have no actual control over what they do or who works there, whereas I can write to and vote for the person who runs my neighbourhood, city, etc.
      - MauranKilom 5y ago
        That's a reasonable take, but a far cry from "extortion".

donw 5y ago

That depends on many factors. What do you mean by "disabled"? Unable to work? As declared by whom? Merely needing reasonable accommodation? Is that a universal? A chunk of familial diaspora is "disabled", but only on paper. Speaking frankly, they're just lazy and worked the system so that they could focus on their real passion: porn and drugs. A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense, because a lawyer was running around and filing suit against any business that didn't adhere completely to ADA requirements. It's... a climbing gym. If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when? Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line. Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma. Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma. At least in the latter case, your family and friends can pull together to put more money into grandma.

MauranKilom 5y ago
> A chunk of familial diaspora is "disabled", but only on paper. ...what does "some might game the system" have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people? > A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense [...] ...what does any of that have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people? > If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when? Ever since people were moved by hardships of those around them. Beggars have existed for all of recorded history I believe? And they don't beg for fun. > Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line. Could you spell out what you are implying here? "Resources are finite" only contributes to the "taxation is extortion" argument if you insist that any non-zero amount spent improving the lives of non-contributors is better spent maximizing economical gain. Following that logic quickly leads to "kill retirees immediately". > Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma. Not to a significant degree, no. If they get cancer, they'll more or less have the same treatment options available to them. Also, why shouldn't the prime minister get more encompassing treatment? Society also pays for bodyguards for them, but not for grandma. Why is that? > Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma. Again, how is that relevant to "should society support disabled people"? You've tried really hard to come up with scenarios where society is (under certain narrow criteria) worse off chipping in. That... does exactly nothing to answer the question whether there are cases where society should chip in. And whether taxation to accomplish that goal is therefore extortion or not.