Hippiekinkster
Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007 From: Liechtenstein Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: subtee ~FR The issue for me is obvious as well. Do we want to be a country and a people that will allow some of us--in this case an elderly man--to die in order that the relatively few who would otherwise take advantage aren't able to? We don't know his situation, we have to make assumptions. Either he could pay and didn't, or he couldn't pay. What do you choose to assume? If he couldn't pay (for whatever reason, for example, he simply didn't have the money or he was challenged with senility), should he have been cut off? If he could pay and didn't, does that justify his death? (Again, we have to assume: he was a miser, he hated the utility company, he loved to scam...) If he could pay and didn't, how is society benefitted by cutting off his power--not letting him get away with it? Since we have to make assumptions or else contact every citizen personally when they fall behind, which way should our assumptions fall? I say let them die. He was probably a commie hippie anyway. Fuck him. Capitalism rules. (Man, this new right-wing ideology I've adopted is so exhilarating! It really SIMPLIFIES everything. No shades of gray, nuamces gone away, it is all so clear now...) /sarcasm
_____________________________
"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin “Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne
|