Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Pretend we are starting welfare from scratch, with no existing programs.

    What do we owe the able-bodied lazy person who is unwilling to work? I'm talking about a reasonably healthy adult man of average intelligence with a high school education, who could take a paying janitorial job, but refuses to work. He has no food or shelter, and only the clothes he is wearing. He is not mentally ill or otherwise impaired.

    What should government provide to a man able but unwilling to provide for himself?

    My opinion is that government (read taxpayers) owes the man nothing, and should provide nothing, because giving to the lazy encourages laziness. However, I am not against private charitable organizations providing whatever assistance they choose to offer.

    Where do you stand, and why?
    Last edited by evensaul; August 24th, 2014 at 05:31 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    I think you're putting forward a bit of a strawman argument at worse or an incomplete one at best. It's not just the healthy male that is being provided for but also his family - wife and kids. Or what about single-mothers? Or think about just the kids - should they also be made to suffer because of their parent(s)' laziness?

    Also, how many janitorial or trivial jobs are there already? And do you also support raising the minimum wage so that these jobs could support the 'man' and his family? If not, how many hours is he suppose to work?

    If there are no programs such as WIC that supplies food to children, where are single mothers meant to supplement their income? Do you support legalizing prostitution perhaps if it comes to that?

    What about disaster relief? That's another benefit for this supposedly strong intelligent man - he surely should have been smart enough to save money from his minimum wage job in order to buy insurance in case he loses his house? Or maybe he should have been smart enough to move or not have been born in an area with natural disasters!

    What about health insurance? Should people now be allowed to die such that we won't have to foot the bill to keep them alive because of what's left after their minimum wages and home insurance, there'd be little left for health insurance.

    And Veterans? Surely since they're already to have been shown as being strong and fit, why should the government subsidize their education or health care? Maybe they should have been more careful in doing their job?

    Disabled? Since we can't pay them money, should we euthanize or abort them before they become a burden on us?

    Social Security? Everyone for himself now right? There'd be old people all over the streets because they aren't strong enough to work any more. Or they can't retire because they need the money - hence less jobs for the young people.

    And are you now willing to live in the kind of society that does this? Such as India, with beggars and thieves on the streets?

    That's just for starters - there's probably a few dozen more benefits that people do not 'deserve' because they are intelligent and fit to work but otherwise not be able to. Have you even looked at these programs or their history? Your reduction of it to the 'young fit male' is a rather unrealistic reason to start a clean slate.

    The basic question you have to answer are:

    1. Are you willing to see people die on the streets?
    2. Are you willing to see an increase in crime because desperate people do desperate things?
    3. Are you willing to see children harmed or killed?

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    JJ, please argue with some focus on the topic of the op. There are tens of thousands of able-bodied single men who choose not to get paying jobs to support themselves. They are on the streets panhandling or in homeless shelters, or moving from relative or friend to relative or friend, sleeping on the couch or the floor, and eating their host's food. I know one. I mentioned janitorial jobs, but there are many other low-skill jobs available these men could take, such as shelf-stocker at a grocery or retailer, construction worker or general labor, etc. They choose not to. For the most part, those men do not have wives and children to feed. It is able-bodied single men that this thread is about. Please address the question of what government owes that segment of the population, without offering red herrings.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Fair enough but then what exactly did you mean by 'starting welfare from scratch with no existing programs'?

    Are you proposing that able bodied men should be discriminated against based solely on their gender?

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Fair enough but then what exactly did you mean by 'starting welfare from scratch with no existing programs'?
    1) don't suggest putting them on some existing welfare program, just because it is there.
    2) don't appeal to tradition.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Are you proposing that able bodied men should be discriminated against based solely on their gender?
    No, JJ, I'm suggesting that there is no excuse for them to not support themselves. And I'm asking if they are owed anything by the government.

    Is this simple op really that difficult for you to understand and respond to intelligently?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    1) don't suggest putting them on some existing welfare program, just because it is there.

    2) don't appeal to tradition.
    Sounds like you'd rather ignore the lessons of history to understand why men are not excluded.



    No, JJ, I'm suggesting that there is no excuse for them to not support themselves. And I'm asking if they are owed anything by the government.
    There is no 'the government'. There are are only Americans who made things this way. As a society. Via a democratic process of electing said government. Please at least do everyone a favor and learn about what you're saying before writing OPs like this. It's completely full of holes even in the narrow way you want to discuss it.

    For example, you ignored what I said about veterans - they are abled to work and indeed are but many of their families back home are also receiving food stamps. So should those be cut?

    Should soldiers lose other government benefits when they are discharged from service? Such as free higher education? They can obviously work so why should we pay for them to learn when they can take a job to pay for their own education?

    Is this simple op really that difficult for you to understand and respond to intelligently?
    It's not really a simple OP if you're considering removing everything and arguing to put things back. You maybe should think about adding exclusion clauses into existing programs. Wait, that would be too much like doing work and finding out what the existing programs are. Right?

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Sounds like you'd rather ignore the lessons of history to understand why men are not excluded.



    There is no 'the government'. There are are only Americans who made things this way. As a society. Via a democratic process of electing said government. Please at least do everyone a favor and learn about what you're saying before writing OPs like this. It's completely full of holes even in the narrow way you want to discuss it.

    For example, you ignored what I said about veterans - they are abled to work and indeed are but many of their families back home are also receiving food stamps. So should those be cut?

    Should soldiers lose other government benefits when they are discharged from service? Such as free higher education? They can obviously work so why should we pay for them to learn when they can take a job to pay for their own education?



    It's not really a simple OP if you're considering removing everything and arguing to put things back. You maybe should think about adding exclusion clauses into existing programs. Wait, that would be too much like doing work and finding out what the existing programs are. Right?
    Unless you can address the specifics of the op, I'm done with you here.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Unless you can address the specifics of the op, I'm done with you here.
    I did - see veterans examples. Your OP is too broad.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    A big problem with the "No support for lazy bums" position is that the "bums" don't just disappear because they are refused assistance. If they are living on the street because they can't afford to have a home, we, as a society, are still dealing with them for homeless people are not just a problem for those who are homeless. Nor do they cease to be a drain on taxpayer money.

    So while there may be a personal satisfaction with cutting them off or a moral reason to do so, it's not necessarily the best policy for quality of life in the US nor even the most economically sound decision for the homeless may cost us more in dollars than providing them with homes. In fact, Utah decided to give the homeless homes based on, at least in part, economic concerns.

    "How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes. In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker"

    http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-e...mes-1390056183

    Now, I do admit that what's above does not entirely address your scenario for you are referring to people who are capable of employment and many homeless people are not capable and those who do end up costing the most in jail/ER visits are more likely the less employable amongst the homeless population (mentally ill or addicts) and not the able-bodied "bums" that you are referring to.

    But then the ER visits lead to a very pertinent point in the whole issue. If some person who can't afford medical treatment suffers a life-threatening medical emergency, that person is still entitled to medical treatment under law. In other words, there is a principle that society has an obligation to save someone's life if it can and the person's resources is not a criteria in determining whether their life is worth saving. So apparently under our current societal laws, everyone does have some right to be kept alive regardless of who they are. We don't say "F**k 'em. Let them die."

    So likewise if a bum is hit by a car and rushed to the hospital, the hospital will attempt to save his life regardless of his ability or desire to earn enough money to pay for his treatment so his "worth" is not inherently tied to his labor or finances.

    And I recognize that you are talking about welfare and not medical care but the principle is pretty much the same for if a bum receives no shelter or food he is going to become ill and then we have to step in and keep him alive via the medical establishment unless we truly say "F**k him" and therefore deny that one has an inherent right to life or that we as a society have no obligation to save lives and therefore should radically alter the basis on which we give medical care to those who need it to immediately save their lives.

    So unless we are going to say "F**k him" we do have to recognize that there is a societal principle of actively helping to keep people alive. So I don't think we can ever truly say to someone "You deserve nothing from us" since that contradicts the principle that people have the right to life (which is why we don't say "F**k him" when a poor person ends up in the ER).

  10. Likes evensaul liked this post
  11. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    While I "liked" the effort, I don't think this is a solid rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    A big problem with the "No support for lazy bums" position is that the "bums" don't just disappear because they are refused assistance. If they are living on the street because they can't afford to have a home, we, as a society, are still dealing with them for homeless people are not just a problem for those who are homeless. Nor do they cease to be a drain on taxpayer money.

    So while there may be a personal satisfaction with cutting them off or a moral reason to do so, it's not necessarily the best policy for quality of life in the US nor even the most economically sound decision for the homeless may cost us more in dollars than providing them with homes. In fact, Utah decided to give the homeless homes based on, at least in part, economic concerns.

    "How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes. In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker"

    http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-e...mes-1390056183

    Now, I do admit that what's above does not entirely address your scenario for you are referring to people who are capable of employment and many homeless people are not capable and those who do end up costing the most in jail/ER visits are more likely the less employable amongst the homeless population (mentally ill or addicts) and not the able-bodied "bums" that you are referring to.
    The above is all a giant red herring. The op does not take a stand on what is fiscally prudent. I'm asking what the government owes the lazy. What is government's obligation or duty to those who refuse to provide for themselves?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then the ER visits lead to a very pertinent point in the whole issue. If some person who can't afford medical treatment suffers a life-threatening medical emergency, that person is still entitled to medical treatment under law.
    I said start from scratch. Don't appeal to our medical traditions or other entitlements already in place, just because we now have them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In other words, there is a principle that society has an obligation to save someone's life if it can and the person's resources is not a criteria in determining whether their life is worth saving. So apparently under our current societal laws, everyone does have some right to be kept alive regardless of who they are. We don't say "F**k 'em. Let them die."

    So likewise if a bum is hit by a car and rushed to the hospital, the hospital will attempt to save his life regardless of his ability or desire to earn enough money to pay for his treatment so his "worth" is not inherently tied to his labor or finances.

    And I recognize that you are talking about welfare and not medical care but the principle is pretty much the same for if a bum receives no shelter or food he is going to become ill and then we have to step in and keep him alive via the medical establishment unless we truly say "F**k him" and therefore deny that one has an inherent right to life or that we as a society have no obligation to save lives and therefore should radically alter the basis on which we give medical care to those who need it to immediately save their lives.

    So unless we are going to say "F**k him" we do have to recognize that there is a societal principle of actively helping to keep people alive. So I don't think we can ever truly say to someone "You deserve nothing from us" since that contradicts the principle that people have the right to life (which is why we don't say "F**k him" when a poor person ends up in the ER).
    Why can't these services be supplied by charitable organizations that subscribe to your "societal principle"? Why must they be supplied by government and paid for by taxpayers?

    Also, support the claim that they all come from a recognized right to life, and not just a liberal view that government should help poor people.

    Finally, if the lazy are entitled to free food, shelter, clothing and healthcare, why shouldn't all of those working get the same for free? Why shouldn't those working get the same free benefits given to the lazy?
    Last edited by evensaul; August 25th, 2014 at 12:33 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    We don't owe them anything.

    That however means very little in terms of welfare policy.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. Thanks evensaul thanked for this post
  14. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    We don't owe them anything. That however means very little in terms of welfare policy.
    Shouldn't it mean a lot?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Shouldn't it mean a lot?
    I don't think so. Some policies are based on principles while others are based on practicality.

    When it comes to financial destitution your public policy options tend to be threefold in principle
    1. Pay to make up the financial destitution
    2. Pay to mitigate damages from their destitution
    3. Pay to incarcerate the destitute

    It often turns out that #1 is cheapest (at least in the urban US) and most effective for those who are strictly lazy or for some reason unable.
    #3 tends to be the most expensive
    #2 depends greatly on the nature of the damage caused by the destitute and generally the higher overall standard of living the higher this cost is

    If public policy is to be about minimizing cost and maximizing value then often simply providing free housing and food to someone is cheaper than cleaning up the mess from them improvising those things and definitely much cheaper than housing and feeding them in jail.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. Likes mican333 liked this post
  17. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If public policy is to be about minimizing cost and maximizing value then often simply providing free housing and food to someone...
    Again, I ask why the government must take this role instead of private charitable organizations. Soup kitchens and food banks run by volunteers have been successful at feeding the poor. Charity hospitals have done the same with medical care. Habitat for Humanity builds houses for the poor. If government did not heavily tax and spend on welfare, private citizens would have more money to donate to such charitable organizations.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Again, I ask why the government must take this role instead of private charitable organizations. Soup kitchens and food banks run by volunteers have been successful at feeding the poor. Charity hospitals have done the same with medical care. Habitat for Humanity builds houses for the poor. If government did not heavily tax and spend on welfare, private citizens would have more money to donate to such charitable organizations.
    It isn't a case of instead, its both. The state wants to take action and some private groups also do. The state has a much bigger portion of money to spend because giving is mandatory. Most people who donate money donate a pretty tiny fraction of their income. What kind of tax rate you pay doesn't really figure into that so much. People may have more money if you lowered taxes but less of that would go to the poor than if the state were distributing it.

    Interestingly the poor donate a larger share of their income than the wealthy and they poor tend to donate to social services like food banks while the rich tend to donate to universities, libraries and other public institutions. Even the largest givers (in percentage) are chucking in a mere 3% or so. Compared to what we pay in taxes its peanuts.

    So currently the poor benefit from both public and private donations and if you eliminated public you would eliminate the lions share of it. Go ask the head of any charity that works with the poor and see if they think its would be wise to cut off all government assistance to them. I'd wager nearly all of them would tell you that is a terrible idea.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    The irony of someone complaining about 'lazy' people getting freebies and expecting 'charities' (presumably not himself) to pick up the slack is mind-boggling. That suddenly all the people with this new found wealth are going to contribute it all to the poor and needy is naive, and all the while ignoring his own excuses not to also ironically explains why his 'system' doesn't work.

    It ignores one of the principles of society: that being in one, we sometimes lose the right make decisions about our money and instead defer it to an organization that can better handle it.

    Sigh. Libertarians.

  20. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The above is all a giant red herring. The op does not take a stand on what is fiscally prudent.
    No, but my argument does. I argue that we do an obligation to keep people alive based on their right to life and if one accepts that, then the next question is what is the best way to go about it which then raises the issue of whether welfare is a good method of doing that. So if welfare is a more fiscally prudent method than letting people be homeless and then having to pay more money to jail/hospitalize them later, then welfare is preferable to letting people be homeless.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I said start from scratch. Don't appeal to our medical traditions or other entitlements already in place, just because we now have them.
    I'm not doing that. I'm using it as an example of an applied principle - a principle that I hold that we should still provide when we start from scratch. The principle is the recognition of one's right to life and likewise the moral societal obligation to save a person's life when possible.

    So when someone shows up at the Hospital with a life-threatening emergency but there's no indication that they will ever be able to pay for the treatment, we should (and do) say "We must save his life" not "Screw him".

    So that IS what we owe someone in that situation. He has a right to life and we WE owe it to him to try to preserve it when possible in recognition of this right. And that can apply, although not as directly, to the prospect of giving someone what he needs to stay healthy (food and shelter) whether the means are just providing those essentials (public housing and food stamps) free or providing money so he/she can buy those things (welfare).

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Why can't these services be supplied by charitable organizations that subscribe to your "societal principle"? Why must they be supplied by government and paid for by taxpayers?
    Probably because charities don't raise enough money to take care of everyone who needs that kind of help.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Also, support the claim that they all come from a recognized right to life, and not just a liberal view that government should help poor people.
    That's kind of irrelevant. Again, we are talking about what should be, not what is. So even if the hospital is not saving lives out an obligation to preserve the right to life (although what else could it be?) I argue that that should be the principle that they use to determine whether to save the life of someone who can't afford to pay his medical bills and likewise a principle that our society should (does) abide by.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Finally, if the lazy are entitled to free food, shelter, clothing and healthcare, why shouldn't all of those working get the same for free? Why shouldn't those working get the same free benefits given to the lazy?
    I didn't say they shouldn't. I think if you work hard you SHOULD get more than the lazy. That's why you drive around in a nice car and they have to walk or take the bus. That's why you take the family on nice vacations every year and they don't. That's why your house is big and well-furnished and their house is just good enough to qualify as shelter.

    One way to both give everyone the basics and ensure fairness is that everyone, hard-working and lazy alike, gets housing and food vouchers. If you use just the vouchers for food and shelter, you get the minimum you need to survive. And if you want better than the minimum (like a nice big house) you use the vouchers to help pay for your house but since they alone will not get you that nice house you will also need to earn some money if you want to live better than a lazy person. I think vouchers are better than money for those on welfare because vouchers can only be used for the essentials while money can be spent on non-essentials and if one has an addiction, money probably will be spent on non-essentials.
    Last edited by mican333; August 26th, 2014 at 08:30 AM.

  21. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    One way to both give everyone the basics and ensure fairness is that everyone, hard-working and lazy alike, gets housing and food vouchers.
    If everyone receives vouchers for housing, food and medical care, many who are working at low wages will just quit and take the subsistence level welfare. I'd consider doing that, myself. It is human nature. What will you do if the lazy come to far outnumber those willing to work?

    If the lazy man will not take his voucher to the grocery store, will you have the food delivered?

    If he says he is too tired and lazy to prepare the food, will you send a chef?

    If he is says he is too lazy to bring the food to his mouth, will you hand feed him?

    If he is too lazy to chew, will you spoon-feed him some Gerber's?

    If he gets a severe stomach ache and won't go to the doctor, will you provide house calls?

    If the doctor says he has appendicitis, but the man is too lazy to go to the hospital, will you transport him for surgery?

    After you transport him home post-surgery, will you pay someone to wipe his ass and hands, and flush the toilet, to avoid dangerous bacterial infections?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  22. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If everyone receives vouchers for housing, food and medical care, many who are working at low wages will just quit and take the subsistence level welfare. I'd consider doing that, myself. It is human nature. What will you do if the lazy come to far outnumber those willing to work?
    That only becomes a problem if so many people opt not to work that society cannot function. So first off, that problem may not arise and therefore it's not a problem if you decide to join the ranks of the non-working and are satisfied living in a crappy little house instead of earning enough money to live well. There may be enough people who want to afford a nice house and a car so they will work and then society can function.

    And if it so happens that society cannot function well enough to provide everyone the basics of survival without basically forcing people to work, then we will have to force people to work via the method of withholding the essentials for survival unless they work (so no vouchers unless one contributes a certain amount of work). But that is the only a POTENTIAL flaw in my system and likewise can be remedied with some compromise to the principle (for the right to live does not mean much if we don't have a society that can give everyone the means to survive). But even then, that's an issue of the functionality of living up to the ideal of everyone deserving the basics of survival and does not rebut the principle that people deserve the basics.

    But I assume we are talking about "starting from scratch" with the society we have now and I believe we do have enough for everyone to survive even with our current unemployment rate. There is no good reason to have homeless people for there are more houses without people than there are people without houses.

    "There are more than five times as many vacant homes in the U.S. as there are homeless people, according to Amnesty International USA."

    http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...in_us_20111231


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If the lazy man will not take his voucher to the grocery store, will you have the food delivered?
    A person who will not take effort to obtain food when it not difficult to obtain (such traveling a few miles to buy groceries) is either physically incapable (and in that case, having food delivered is acceptable), has some kind of severe mental issues (and therefore should be receiving treatment and therefore be cared for and then just giving him food is acceptable) or is suicidal (intentionally trying to die by starvation and therefore should either be treated or if one believes that a person should be able to choose to die then we can let him die).

    I think that principle applies to the rest of your questions so I won't respond to them.

    In short, either the person has a uniques problem which justifies special treatment or they are choosing to die and therefore should be treated or allowed to die.
    Last edited by mican333; August 26th, 2014 at 09:57 AM.

  23. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What Do We Owe The Lazy?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If everyone receives vouchers for housing, food and medical care, many who are working at low wages will just quit and take the subsistence level welfare. I'd consider doing that, myself. It is human nature. What will you do if the lazy come to far outnumber those willing to work?

    If the lazy man will not take his voucher to the grocery store, will you have the food delivered?

    If he says he is too tired and lazy to prepare the food, will you send a chef?

    If he is says he is too lazy to bring the food to his mouth, will you hand feed him?

    If he is too lazy to chew, will you spoon-feed him some Gerber's?

    If he gets a severe stomach ache and won't go to the doctor, will you provide house calls?

    If the doctor says he has appendicitis, but the man is too lazy to go to the hospital, will you transport him for surgery?

    After you transport him home post-surgery, will you pay someone to wipe his ass and hands, and flush the toilet, to avoid dangerous bacterial infections?
    You asked a very simple question. What do owe the lazy. The answer, as Sig pointed out, is nothing. We, the presumably non-lazy (or less lazy), owe other adults (lazy and non-lazy) absolutely zero. Frankly, is the adjective, lazy, even needed here? I would argue, no. On the other hand, as a matter of social policy, does that mean we should ignore the lazy or those generally in want? Perhaps, this is really how we should separate this discussion. Need v. want. Someone who refuses to work to gain something has a want while those who suffer despite their best efforts have a need. Should someone's want result in suffering then we can presume either that person will attempt to fulfill his need or that person will perish. If the person would choose to perish, then we can properly label that person insane or incompetent.

    So, does a society have an obligation to fulfill anyone's wants? The answer is still no. We know this is the correct answer as it applies equally to all humans. We have no obligation to provide a child with a video game, but we are certainly obligated to make sure that child is clothed, fed, and sheltered. We place very different expectations regarding ability on a child than we would a fully functioning adult. So, we now have a proper definition which defines the appropriate societal response based on what society is obligated to do.

    With that being said, does this limit society's responses? Should society only do the bare minimum of what it is obligated to do? Furthermore, is forcing society to meet this bare minimum and nothing more beneficial to entirety of society. If you have a group of homeless individuals in your neighborhood, would you rather provide them with some undeserved assistance or would you prefer to stick to an ideological argument and allow them to remain sleeping on your street? After all, whether an individual has a want or need, they will sleep somewhere. They will urinate somewhere. They will find food somewhere. So, as a society, we often make choices to provide services to those we believe are not deserving. In such cases, we are not attempting to act nobly or altruistically. Rather, we provide aid in these cases so as not to diminish our own quality of life. In other words do not cut off your nose to spite your face.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  24. Likes evensaul liked this post
 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Religion is for lazy minds.
    By kuijias in forum Religion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: February 4th, 2010, 01:33 PM
  2. "Lazy Sunday" (a.k.a. "The Chronic-WHAT?-cles of Narnia")
    By nanderson in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 17th, 2006, 06:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •