Originally Posted by Lune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
A survival-of-the-fittest paradigm, or killing the weak actively or through neglect, is the antithesis of the values of Western civilization. It is the state of nature opposed to Locke's social contract (the foundation of our political system)
I didn't state they were equivalent, I just assumed you weren't focusing only on the "indefinitely unproductive" because you wanted a reasonable and good faith discussion of socialized medicine. Why focus on the indefinitely unproductive? Of course some people are going to be unworthy of society's investment in them; does that invalidate the entire notion of a safety net, in spite of all the good it does saving productive people who are vulnerable? (more on this below)
It benefits humanity because it improves the quality and pleasure of our lives being able to live past the age of 60 and enjoy some period of retirement. Even then, is it necessary for it to be a productive use of resources? Sure, it would probably be more productive to just kill people as soon as they reach the age of 65 or whenever they stop being productive. But the thing about humans is that we have ethics and morals and we know when to sublimate productivity and the cruelty of nature for pleasure and quality of life. It's the same reason we don't kill everyone below an IQ of 80 or people who wasted years playing an emulated MMO from 1999. It's a compromise humans make-- the state of nature is the ultimate form of efficiency, and it's why capitalism is such a powerful and efficient force. However, it is also brutally disgusting, as both Hobbes and Locke concluded, and humans should aspire for more. It's almost like humans trying to create ordered systems in defiance of free market forces is entropically unfavorable. It's difficult, it takes work, but working against entropy is what makes life possible, and I'd argue, in the case of civilization, makes life worthwhile.
With socialized medicine you aren't taking something for nothing. You paid taxes that acted as a form of public insurance, fulfilling the same role as other civic responsibilities; ie, you pay for police and firefighters even though there's a chance you'll never personally need them.
Again, if you get fixated on those few people who never work, and live completely parasitic lives, and think that small minority invalidates the entire notion of socialized medicine, you're thinking simplistically. We've found, at least in Western cultures, that kind of lifestyle really isn't human nature. Once a society reaches a certain level of human development, people generally aren't content to be parasites, and those who are are too small a population to matter-- and furthermore, the opportunity provided by more collectivist safety net societies are more conducive to preventing the formation of an inherited, multi-generational, low-achieving underclass like we have in the US.
Thus, my conclusion is this: It takes a sufficiently productive and sophisticated culture to support socialist institutions. When I argue in favor of universal healthcare, it's more that I'm arguing for the cultural attributes that support it, ie coming a little further toward a sense of collective responsibility and selflessness, rather than selfishness, pettiness, and individualism. As it currently stands, Americans as a whole simply don't deserve these nice institutions; we're too fucking stupid and amoral.
|