What about the needy?

[musashi]

I am reading M Scott Peck’s book Further Along The Road Less Traveled. He’s a clinical psychologist that uses his experience and perspective to interpret life. I’ve enjoyed several of his topics, particularly his taxonomy on the stages of spiritual development.

He got me thinking more deeply about Objectivism last night. In his book he related how much he enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and how passionate he felt about Objectivism when he read Atlas. Peck wrote that in time he realized something; there were no children in the story. The story does not address the portions of society in need.

A quick and simplistic answer for me would be, Rand remained focused on her thesis. But what happens to the young, the old, the infirm, and in impaired in an objectivist society?

If you lack the capacity to earn your daily bread, do you starve?

[Uhlan]

A U.S. President Kenndy once said: "Ask not what this country can do for you but ask what can you do for this country."

The country needs a focus. The government needs to lead the country in that direction. The leaders of the government need to focus on a leading the country in the direction of their choice.

Rand speaks to business in the same way. A business needs a focus. The business needs to be lead in a direction.

The government is in the business of allocating scarce resources. Or perhaps re-allocating.

Individuals, business, community and government are responsible to each other.

The individuals who are unable to care for themselves are part of this community. They have a need and should be cared for. No, they should not starve to death.

But, it is important that those unable to care for themselves NOT become the focus of a government.

[alaphforce]

I think there are different levels to this discussion.

1)MY children: they will always come first and while they are young I will always provide for them. I will do my best to insure that they are raised with a good work ethic and an appreciation of what one can accomplish of ones own accord.

2) MY family: again I do not wish to see them starve but I will not let kindness be abused (my wife has this problem, she allows others to abuse her kindness)

3)Those in society I relate to. Let's be very honest with our selves, there are certain prejuduces that we each hold, wether they are racial, educational, based on philosophy, based on socioeconomic status, whatever. Those with whom we relate and/or pity we help to some small degree, those that we despise we do not help. For example I pledge a small sum to NPR each month, I also give gratuity to food service workers. I do not give change to pan handlers nor do I give money to any organization that promotes one race over another.

4)Everyone else. let em fend for themselves.

Those are the actions I believe I have an obligation to, the government, I believe has a different set of obligations.

1) No matter what kind of rainbow drenched hippy love basket you believe in the fact remains that there will always be a distinction between the haves and the have nots. There is no avoiding this. The key is to sort through the have nots and find those with bad luck verse those who are lazy coniving bastards.
Every american should have basic needs met and when I say basic I mean BASIC. Basic housing in Gehtos. Basic food needs, bread milk peanutbutter. Health care, no one should be denied healthcare IMHO, not cosmetic surgery mind you but basaic health care. They should never recieve CASH or a check for CASH. But fuck it if they don't want to work or provide for society then give them enough to barley eak by. HOWEVER they should have the ability to go to career counslers who will help them find a job sweeping, cleaning toliets, selling candy, whatever.

2) Disabled veterans. Ok so I'm military but come on these are people who said "My country and its values are worth the potential loss of my life"
If they are injured in such a way as to retire them from the military they should recieve the benefits of 20yrs of service. Will there be abuses, yes thats unavoidable but again in a perfect world it would be minimized. It also may not be fair but what in life is.

3) Other disabled or mentally handicap persons. I think the government should help care for them. Not realy sure to what extent though.

I do not think that Rand address properly the complexity of the nuclear family and can not be used as a model for treating your 3 yr old. But then I'm not a dogmatic Objectavist.

Our society is very compasionate but history is ripe with societies that let the weak and disabled literaly die in the street. Other societies accepted infanticide for retarded babies (and twins but that is another story).
So it depends on how we set the criteria for being cruel, that in essence is what it is all about.....are we able to sleep at night knowing (poor people exist)(the poor are given very little)(the poor are civen nothing)(the poor are used in medical and military experiments). You choose the level at which you can't sleep at night.

[musashi]

The government is in the business of allocating scarce resources. Or perhaps re-allocating.

Certainly in an entitlement state, governments engage in wealth transference. In effect telling the populace that the government knows best what to do with their wealth.

The individuals who are unable to care for themselves are part of this community. They have a need and should be cared for. No, they should not starve to death.

But, it is important that those unable to care for themselves NOT become the focus of a government.

Interesting in that I live in the US, and over 3 / 4 of our federal budget is spent on some form of entitlement or subsidy. The biggie of course being social security payments. At what point does the entitlement become a focus?

[musashi]

Maybe some vignettes might add some flesh to these bones.

Andy is born with Downs Syndrome and Autism. As a young adult his parents die, and he has no other siblings or grand parents. Does Andy get the dole?

Wendy is a 22-year-old unwed, unemployed mother of five. Wendy has been a part of Aid For Dependant Children since the birth of her first child. By the regular deliveries of new children, it appears that Wendy is breeding for personal gain. How do you cut Wendy off without punishing her children?

Lance is a free-style skater. During one of his skateboard stunts he shatters his C1 vertebrae. The end result is permanent quadriplegia. His family becomes bankrupted paying for his care and medical bills. Is it right for the government to provide Lance a lifetime of support, even though the government and society as a whole did get the benefit of seeing Lance do his Triple Ollie off of his neighbor’s second story roof?

[alaphforce]

Andy is born with Downs Syndrome and Autism. As a young adult his parents die, and he has no other siblings or grand parents. Does Andy get the dole?

Yes he should receive some sort of state assisstance.

Wendy is a 22-year-old unwed, unemployed mother of five. Wendy has been a part of Aid For Dependant Children since the birth of her first child. By the regular deliveries of new children, it appears that Wendy is breeding for personal gain. How do you cut Wendy off without punishing her children?

Her children go into foster homes and she is cut off. Again this goes back to the question of how cruel we allow our selves to be.

Lance is a free-style skater. During one of his skateboard stunts he shatters his C1 vertebrae. The end result is permanent quadriplegia. His family becomes bankrupted paying for his care and medical bills. Is it right for the government to provide Lance a lifetime of support, even though the government and society as a whole did get the benefit of seeing Lance do his Triple Ollie off of his neighbor’s second story roof?

He should get the same dole as the first example. If he can live at home fine. If the dole is not enough then he better hope that some softie group is willing to donate to sustain his previous quality of life, but the states only concern should be basic medical care.

Ah so that brings up a good point. The minimal burden should be on the government, after that people should look to nonfederal releif groups.
This is ofc just one system and I am taking pains to make it harsh without being draconian in the spirit of debate.

[Uhlan]

Wow.

I guess we have moved away from the original premiss quickly.

YOU MUST MAKE A CHOICE IN LIFE.

I am a victim. Can someone please take care of me so that I can continue to live this miserable life the way I chose.
or
I am a survivor. I can and will chose to do something with my life. I have real limitations. I will over come those limitations and find ways to enjoy my life.

Everyone has limitations. Some, more than others to be sure.

All governmets allocate resources. Dictators and Sheiks keep much of the wealth unto themselves. Other forms of governments find other ways to disperse/waste/abuse these same scarce resources.

There are people unable to care for themselves in every country that I have ever visited.

Some even chose life styles that I myself would not chose for them.

The reason there are no children in Rands stories is that they are not the focus of a business. (Unless you are in the child care business.) To lead you must focus on a direction. You must make choices. Your choices have consequences beyond your business, that is true. But, that was not the focus of Rands books.

Since you like examples.

Breathing is very important. I cannot function without breathing. But, right now I am typing a response to a thought. If I can't focus on this reply and simply focus on breathing because it is important, than I wouldn't have been able to type a reply.

My point is that it is easy to distract people who are DOING things. It is difficult to stay focussed to complete an activity that has value to a business, a government or a society. It does not mean that what I am doing is the only important thing that needs to be done.

The political discussions about people who are needy are simply a political ploy to distract people away from the debate about what we want(wherever we live) or what direction we want in our next leadership for our government. The reality is that no matter how much we spend or how many people we help, there will be a new somebody tomarrow.

This does not imply that we do nothing. But, it must be a measured response. We can only allow debate for so long before we must make a decision. He gets 5 isk and she gets 10 isk. He and she may want more but we as a society have other needs to fulfill.

Yes, I appreciate that you agree that the U.S. government has problems with its spending. All governments have problems with spending. It's that scarce resource issue. But, that is too narrow. All governments have to manage the care of their citizens. If they are unhappy they will vote the current leaders out and put new ones in their place. Of course if you live under a dictatorship or sheik, then you can only dream about the day that you can even talk about these ideas. You would know that such talk could put you in prison and in there you have much more to worry about.

[musashi]

In the immortal words of Chuck Berry, “I’m so glad I’m livin’ in the USA, where a hamburger sizzles on a open grill night and day”. Agreed things aren’t as bad here as other places. Places like say Pakistan, where the courts rule that a sister must be raped by 10 men, as punishment for hypothetical crimes committed by her 10 year old brother.

Uhlan, I like your point about victim/ non-victim perspective. I believe entitlements nurture and spawn the victim mentality.

…There are people unable to care for themselves in every country that I have ever visited…

…All governments have to manage the care of their citizens…

See this is where I think our global experiences as a corp can provide great insight. You’ve seen different countries than I have, and our sharing broadens the experience.

Clearly there are people with need in every society. Some get help, some don’t. Governments decide who is supported and who will be disenfranchised. I would propose that in any society there are disenfranchised people in need.

Two more vignettes for you

Clem is a 50 year unreformed alcoholic/drug addict. He is homeless and pan handles to survive. Does society have a responsibility to feed and shelter Clem, and to provide him with recovery services?

Angela purchased her home on the bank of a river, in a 10-year flood plain. Eight years later the river took her home down stream. Should the government provide her assistance?

[musashi]

I’d like to dig up this thread. I’ve been reading lately that as the full bolus of Baby Boomers retire that US Medicare will be swamped and sunk by their ever increasing demand for medically necessary treatment.

I am already seeing plenty of signs of health care rationing. This rationing is inflicted upon people that are purchasing insurance service. And sadly I am also seeing the effects on the people in our society that can’t afford insurance all.

What role does Government have?

I hear excellent stories of universal care from citizens of Canada, the UK, Sweden. And many of these folks pay similar taxes to what I am paying, why do they receive the benefit of universal health care and I do not?

Are my expectations unreasonable?

[Emizzon]

I hear excellent stories of universal care from citizens of Canada, the UK, Sweden. And many of these folks pay similar taxes to what I am paying, why do they receive the benefit of universal health care and I do not?

Are my expectations unreasonable?

When's the last time you heard Canada went to war?

[Trilori]

You know I don't know of any wars Canada has had, they weren't even in WWII or I? What about Australia? I don't recall them being in WWI or WWII or ever going to war with any major country... though I do recall hearing Australia did go to war with whom I can't remember...

just about the whole world has gone to war except a few places.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

You have to take this topic to its basic root: What moral right do the needy, that you are talking about, have to my earned value.

When you take it to this easily answerable question, it is: none.

People can have personal reasons for charity and such, but that is according to their life and experiences. There are plenty of reason to give charity that are within the confines of reason and logic. In fact, Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have mentioned plenty on this.

If your charity is selfless, it is wrong. If your charity is selfish, it is right. It is not a matter of what we owe to the needy. Provided we have done no wrong, we owe them nothing. Allow me to quote Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

"Economic rights" in this context means a man's right simply by virtue of existing, to man-made goods and services, such as food, clothing, a home, a job, education, day care, medical care, pension. All such claims involve a contradiction: if my right to life entails a right to your labor or its product, you cannot have a right, regardless of your choice -- then your right to life is violated; you become a rightness creature, who functions by my or society's permission. Free milk for part of the population, as one political theorist puts the point, means slave labor for the rest. The "right to enslave," Ayn Rand observes, is a contradiction in terms; it means the right no infringe rights.

So, as reasonable human beings, as man, we should not owe the needy anything unless we have some connection with them. My brother works hard and earns his money. For this I am proud of him and respect him. If he looses his legs and can no longer earn money being a car mechanic, then I would help him out, until he can find something he could do. And my brother would find something, and would give up my supporting him when he could -- it is that reason that I would help him.

If some guy I do not know had to depend on charity to live cause he had some strange disease; I would not give money to that charity, sense I have no connect to the persons in need.

So by nature, without any connection like I described above, the producers owe the needy nothing. No food, no water, no basic needs, nothing.

Plus, if we did supply that (like the government does) people would depend on it (like they do here in America).

In conclusion. What do we morally owe the needy? Nothing.

PS: Kindred Spirits do not count.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I hear excellent stories of universal care from citizens of Canada, the UK, Sweden. And many of these folks pay similar taxes to what I am paying, why do they receive the benefit of universal health care and I do not?

Are my expectations unreasonable?

You heard wrong. There health care is poop. Most their doctors are Indian who are under payed. There waits are horrible. Statics have shown that many more people die waiting for health care in Canada than in US.

Its about quality. USA has more expensive health establishments and rightly so. So even if 30% of America is using Medicare or Medicaid, that 30% is still higher than the cost off 100% in Canada. In Canada, you don't become a doctor to make a living, you don't become a doctor because you love the field (because of money constraints); you just don't became a doctor, you outsource it and get horrible quality.

There is an article on this by Peikoff: Medicine: The Death of a Profession

Unfortunately I already turned it back into the public library I got it from. I need to buy these damn books so I can keep quoting them damn it.

[musashi]

You heard wrong. Their health care is poop. Most their doctors are Indian who are under paid. Their waits are horrible. Statistics have shown that many more people die waiting for health care in Canada than in US.

There is pressure everywhere for cost control. I certainly see this “in-sourcing” spirit riddled through the medical group in the HMO that denies errr… treats me. There are many substandard providers regardless of their national origin. The sad truth is that you have to be your own doctor in the capitation world. My doctor makes a profit when he does not treat me, and somehow I should think that is good?

I will do some more research on these statistics, but the dozens of stories I’ve heard from the people that have lived in these countries have been completely positive. And I can identify some reasons why this may be so.

A situation exists in US care akin to musical chairs. A relatively large fraction of the population changes jobs / insurance on a regular basis. If a person has some health conditions that can be treated early at a minimal cost, and insurance company has a cost control opportunity to withhold early treatment. The presumption that the higher cost long-term ramifications will fall to a competing insurance company.

Where in a single payer system timely treatment is the name of the cost control game. A stitch in time saves nine.

Obviously there are many other medical care scenarios from urgent care to elective procedures. But I have just had too many friends with serious medical conditions sans health insurance that received little or no healthcare. And it is not like these guys were on the dole, they pay similar taxes to their counter parts in the UK. In fact one of my buddies was driven to the dole by health care costs, (a blue collar type guy) his young son contracted type 1 diabetes. The routine costs of treating this condition have had a crushing effect on the entire family.

All that aside, returning to the pure Objectivist perspective
Reading up the thread, we have that character Andy. Incapable with no family, what is to be done with, to or for Andy? Ignore him? Look past his plight, and evict him from our monkey sphere?

In hunting and fishing we have the mercy-kill rule. If you hook a fish in the gills or deep in the bally, and know that the fish will die from the injury, you just put it out of its misery. Even if your fishing habit happens to be “catch and release”. If the fish is not legal you chum it up and send it over the side. We do this because we consider it more merciful than allowing that fish to suffer until it dies. This approach also reduces the possibility for disease within the healthy stock of fish.

Isn’t the look the “other way” approach unmerciful? Should we create a mercy rule for these desperate situations? See when we get down to individual cases, I am not sure how Objectivism applies? And how it can be superior to other philosophical approaches?

[Tolthar Lockbar]

First, the need question interest me more...

Just because someone needs something, does not mean it has to be provided. If the person has no family, he must depend on voluntary, non-sacrificial charity. He could depend of charity that was a sacrifice to someone but that would be a morally wrong decision to give charity by that giver.

I do not see the reason you think this person should get your money. Is it just because you feel sorry? Pity? Does pity make things different? Is pity even good? No. I used to be saddened by seeing a cat suffer from hunger -- but now I know that it is not my responsibility (and it is not human). If you gave your money to anyone that "touched your heart" then you would be poor.

If the government gave money to anyone that, "touched anyone's heart", then they would be in dept...

The moment you give that person your money for no reason other than pity, is when you do something unreasonable. Objectivism is the only reasonable philosophy. I think it would be best to really do some introspection on your feelings for this case. Figure out why you are thinking this way.

I personally would not even care if the guy died. I do not know him. I do know that I should NOT be responsible for his well-being.
-------------------------------

HMOs.... the government's pet. Did you know that the main reason HMOs are even popular is because of government subsidies and influence. "Hey, looks, there is something private AND something kinda like our Medicare and Medicaid." The problem with Medicare and Medicaid is quality. Let me explain why.

Medicare (and Medicaid) used to be a system that payed for every expense. The doctor would effectively bill the government for all expenses for a certain person. The government could not afford this at all. Eventually the government gave out a list of illnesses and the amount of money it should take to get it fixed. So now doctors are given a budget. A budget on someone's life.

Lets say you are a fat old man musashi, and you eat WAY too much sushi. Then you do not exercise for a year. You start having chest pains, so you go to the doctor. The government says, "this type of illness is $5000". So the doctor thinks you need to be tested. The testing cost 2500. After that, the doctor thinks that it is not enough and wants some other test for another 1000 dollars but he knows that you are gonna probably need surgery which will cost 3000 dollars. But the 1000 dollar test is important. He now hows to judge, can it be afforded, will I get fired if I keep loosing money, is this a matter of my survival? This is the problem with government health care in America.

Now for HMOs. They have the exact some problem. Its a one time low cost for all medical expenses. They have that same budget per a patient. I guarantee that it will have a drop in quality. HMOs are a bane on doctors, they are destroying the profession, and they only exist because of government intervention. They have the highest rate of "outside" doctors in the field. ("outside" as in doctors from poorer countries that will work for less).

Just read that article I mentioned above. It is in a book called, The Voice of Reason, and the article is called, The Death of a Profession.

In conclusion, government health care, or government-ish health care will always blow chunks. Pay for what you have done. Then earn the money to pay for it.[/i]

[musashi]

I think it would be best to really do some introspection on your feelings for this case. Figure out why you are thinking this way.

I personally would not even care if the guy died. I do not know him. I do know that I should NOT be responsible for his well-being.

You’ve struck upon the literal interpretation of the Objectivist philosophy. For me it feels callous. I guess spending a good part of my life in a third world country, has exposed me to more human suffering than I care to recall. And I’ve seen the wheel come around too many times. One of the things I’ve taken away from the experience is that life is a fragile thing. Each of us is only a few life events away from tragedy. And there are times in every life, regardless of how self-sufficient we strive to be, where we need the kindness of a stranger.

Have you ever been close to tragedy
Or been close to folks who have
Have you ever felt a pain so powerful
So heavy you collapse
I've never had to knock on wood
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if i could
It makes me wonder if
I've never had to knock on wood
And I'm glad I haven't yet
Because I'm sure it isn't good
That's the impression that I get

Lets say you are a fat old man Musashi, and you eat WAY too much sushi. Then you do not exercise for a year.

No fair you’ve been looking at my picture. You speak my truth, but hey I’ve got three-fused vertebra in my neck. In my case, exercise might not be just counter productive, but also fatal.

In conclusion, government health care, or government-ish health care will always blow chunks. Pay for what you have done. Then earn the money to pay for it.[/i]

Doesn’t this approach obviate the premise of all forms of insurance? Can insurance be a legitimate business? It is obviously collectivist, but volantary

[Oleksandr]

Doesn’t this approach obviate the premise of all forms of insurance? Can insurance be a legitimate business? It is obviously collectivist, but volantary

Hang on there.

How is this collectivist but volantary? If it's volantary it's not collectivist by nature. And since it is volantary, it can be a good business.

So, I don't see a problem here.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

You’ve struck upon the literal interpretation of the Objectivist philosophy. For me it feels callous. I guess spending a good part of my life in a third world country, has exposed me to more human suffering than I care to recall. And I’ve seen the wheel come around too many times. One of the things I’ve taken away from the experience is that life is a fragile thing. Each of us is only a few life events away from tragedy. And there are times in every life, regardless of how self-sufficient we strive to be, where we need the kindness of a stranger.

I have not witnessed it personally but if I felt the way that you do after seeing those third world countries, I would be spending much time fixing my subconscious; because it does not make sense. There as to be a logical reason to give my money to them, and pity is not one of them. The only way you can back up what you are saying Musashi is to give up reason and logic. Otherwise it is something that needs to be fixed within yourself; possibly something that you have neglected to work through logically before. Remember, the subconscious is like muscle memory in martial arts, it has to be trained to be logical. Feelings are not always logical by nature, they have to be trained, and watched.

I will not say more than that; I do not wish to psychologize.

No fair you’ve been looking at my picture. You speak my truth, but hey I’ve got three-fused vertebra in my neck. In my case, exercise might not be just counter productive, but also fatal.

How do you perform judo then? Isn't that dangerous?

Doesn’t this approach obviate the premise of all forms of insurance? Can insurance be a legitimate business? It is obviously collectivist, but volantary

Insurance is not collectivist. Government insurance maybe... but private insurance is not. Insurance companies make money. They perform their services for selfish and good reasons.

HMOs and Medi-care/caid are different than insurance. Insurance does not follow some stupid standard for medical expenses that the government came up with. Furthermore, insurance companies does not always say, "you have this much for this operation". But when they do do that, if the expense goes over what the insurance covers, the hospital is not at a loss cause they just bill the rest to the patient. I understand that there are some insurance companies that do do what the HMOs and Medicare does but the only reason they can do this is because of government backing. Again, when government puts their dirty fingers into the issue, the quality goes down.

Also it should be noted that concord's insurance is really crappy and can not POSSIBLY make money. I guess it is just another inflation source in the economy.

[Trilori]

I think it would be best to really do some introspection on your feelings for this case. Figure out why you are thinking this way.

I personally would not even care if the guy died. I do not know him. I do know that I should NOT be responsible for his well-being.

You’ve struck upon the literal interpretation of the Objectivist philosophy. For me it feels callous. I guess spending a good part of my life in a third world country, has exposed me to more human suffering than I care to recall. And I’ve seen the wheel come around too many times. One of the things I’ve taken away from the experience is that life is a fragile thing. Each of us is only a few life events away from tragedy. And there are times in every life, regardless of how self-sufficient we strive to be, where we need the kindness of a stranger.

Have you ever been close to tragedy
Or been close to folks who have
Have you ever felt a pain so powerful
So heavy you collapse
I've never had to knock on wood
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if i could
It makes me wonder if
I've never had to knock on wood
And I'm glad I haven't yet
Because I'm sure it isn't good
That's the impression that I get

Lets say you are a fat old man Musashi, and you eat WAY too much sushi. Then you do not exercise for a year.

No fair you’ve been looking at my picture. You speak my truth, but hey I’ve got three-fused vertebra in my neck. In my case, exercise might not be just counter productive, but also fatal.

In conclusion, government health care, or government-ish health care will always blow chunks. Pay for what you have done. Then earn the money to pay for it.[/i]

Doesn’t this approach obviate the premise of all forms of insurance? Can insurance be a legitimate business? It is obviously collectivist, but volantary

thats your own fault if you let your condition get to the point where exercise would prove fatal. You're supposed to get treatment BEFORE that happens (alas we can reduce medical costs that way), although this isn't always possible because of whether or not you have insurance to cover the needed expenses.

Humans make mistakes of course, there are things humans shouldn't do that they ARE doing that is causing them to need and spend more on medical than they necessarily need to.

[Raaz Satik]

Wow. You are effectively advocating genocide except your Aryan Race is different.

There is a significant difference between somebody being unable to help themselves and somebody being unwilling to help themselves.

Does a civilized society have a responsibility to the unable? Of course. Unfortunately the world we live in is corrupt and people try to take advantage of charity, the unwilling try to claim the benefits of the unable.

We also need to realize that financial success wouldn't neccessarily earn Rand's admiration. Corruption isn't limited to the lazy and unwilling. Many of the leaders of our society, and managers of our major corporations are corrupt. Can you imagine Hank Reardon being guilty of stock option backdating?

One of the biggest problems affecting medical care in the US is money, greed and corruption. When Reardon developed his new steel, his company prospered, and he made a fortune, but society benefited from his invention. When drug companies develop new drugs what is their motivation? Obviously it is to make money but to the benefit of society or to its detriment? Eliminating diseases benefits society, but the continous cases of fabricated results and hidden side effects makes you question their motives. Has William McGuire, CEO of United Healthcare, perfected a new medical procedure that benefits society, justifying his multi-hundred million a year salary? Or is United Healthcare a modern day Pirate, reaping profits from monopolization, extortion and price gouging in the medical insurance industry?

[Oleksandr]

Does a civilized society have a responsibility to the unable? Of course.

Huh? Why? By what right?

[Trilori]

Wow. You are effectively advocating genocide except your Aryan Race is different.

There is a significant difference between somebody being unable to help themselves and somebody being unwilling to help themselves.

Does a civilized society have a responsibility to the unable? Of course. Unfortunately the world we live in is corrupt and people try to take advantage of charity, the unwilling try to claim the benefits of the unable.

We also need to realize that financial success wouldn't neccessarily earn Rand's admiration. Corruption isn't limited to the lazy and unwilling. Many of the leaders of our society, and managers of our major corporations are corrupt. Can you imagine Hank Reardon being guilty of stock option backdating?

One of the biggest problems affecting medical care in the US is money, greed and corruption. When Reardon developed his new steel, his company prospered, and he made a fortune, but society benefited from his invention. When drug companies develop new drugs what is their motivation? Obviously it is to make money but to the benefit of society or to its detriment? Eliminating diseases benefits society, but the continous cases of fabricated results and hidden side effects makes you question their motives. Has William McGuire, CEO of United Healthcare, perfected a new medical procedure that benefits society, justifying his multi-hundred million a year salary? Or is United Healthcare a modern day Pirate, reaping profits from monopolization, extortion and price gouging in the medical insurance industry?

Here, try this one... Red Cross CEOs make big money, when you donate to the Red Cross you are essentially giving the CEOs a free easy off way of being millionaires now how sick is that for a charity organization? People who donate to the Red Cross have the assumption their money goes to the needy... needless to say that isn't always true and if it is a very tiny part of it even goes to the needy.

If their CEOs get 95% of your dollar who gets the other 5%? Is the entire staff except for CEOs all volunteers? If there are paid staff, who do they get paid by if the 5% goes directly to the needy (if they even get it?) if CEOs are getting 95% the 5% can't go to both the needy and pay for wages of lower level employees and pay for its operational logistics its impossible... ok maybe if I scaled back to 75% but I don't think thats the case.

Its not society's fault that I have a disability it just happened and I do not expect society to be ready to help me when/if I need it. However people who have disabilities cannot defend themselves in certain ways (this is where ADA laws come in) and those laws are designed to help people with disabilities in general.

Is society responsible for making laws to protect people with disabilities? To a degree, yes but it should not be a pure burden on society if capable people who have disabilities need to educate others who don't know that they have different needs and given those needs they could function almost just as efficiently or similarly if not efficiently and given that knowledge people will understand and realize that giving them wheelchair ramps will allow them to come into the building and do their job more effectively if they are going to go to work.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

We also need to realize that financial success wouldn't neccessarily earn Rand's admiration. Corruption isn't limited to the lazy and unwilling. Many of the leaders of our society, and managers of our major corporations are corrupt. Can you imagine Hank Reardon being guilty of stock option backdating?

One of the biggest problems affecting medical care in the US is money, greed and corruption. When Reardon developed his new steel, his company prospered, and he made a fortune, but society benefited from his invention. When drug companies develop new drugs what is their motivation? Obviously it is to make money but to the benefit of society or to its detriment? Eliminating diseases benefits society, but the continous cases of fabricated results and hidden side effects makes you question their motives. Has William McGuire, CEO of United Healthcare, perfected a new medical procedure that benefits society, justifying his multi-hundred million a year salary? Or is United Healthcare a modern day Pirate, reaping profits from monopolization, extortion and price gouging in the medical insurance industry?

This is all true. Thats why I shy away from saying that good people are rich people. Instead, I say people who have earned value or money. There are many cases of corruptness, I agree.

Olex already pretty much asked the question I was going to ask.

About the genocide: I guess you could say that the needy are a culture, so I would be advocating the extermination of them, but even that is far from the truth. I did not denounce charity. I merely said that a person should not give charity unless they have a logical reason to. I then gave two examples of "unable" people (not unwilling).

Either way, their lives do not effect mine. If I become unable, I would not expect people to give charity when my life does not effect their's. In fact, I would look down upon them for doing such a thing and probably reject the money.

[Raaz Satik]

Does a civilized society have a responsibility to the unable? Of course.

Huh? Why? By what right?

Because we are civilized.

If I become unable, I would not expect people to give charity when my life does not effect their's. In fact, I would look down upon them for doing such a thing and probably reject the money.

I'm sorry but that is just naive. In ten years time, if you have a family, and your child has a disease that requires a cure that you cannot afford are you really telling us that you would rather watch her painfully die over several years than to accept help from somebody else?

[Trilori]

Does a civilized society have a responsibility to the unable? Of course.

Huh? Why? By what right?

Because we are civilized.

If I become unable, I would not expect people to give charity when my life does not effect their's. In fact, I would look down upon them for doing such a thing and probably reject the money.

I'm sorry but that is just naive. In ten years time, if you have a family, and your child has a disease that requires a cure that you cannot afford are you really telling us that you would rather watch her painfully die over several years than to accept help from somebody else?

I don't think accepting help is an issue here, of course you would accept help because the person you are helping WILL affect your life if they were to pass away.

The REAL issue is, CAN you get help? or WILL you get help? I know for fact that lots of people who are terminally ill aren't as fortunate to get help because they can't get it, not because they are unwilling but because its not possible for whatever unknown reason they will die anyway.