The idea that life has value simply because it's a life is a worthless value in itself and has no basis in reality.
If an old person does not have the resources to care for themselves, then the end result is that they should die. Under no circumstance should young people be obligated out of anything other than their own sense of charity to aid old people. Forcing young people to care for the old by using the government's monopoly on power only helps to degenerate a society.
I assume Japan has a universal healthcare system which is a problem. What they should do is privatize the healthcare system and if old people can't afford healthcare, then so be it, they die. The less "socialized" anything Japan has, the better the outcome will be for everyone.
Taking care of the elderly might not be directly beneficial, but it's important for society's morale. Nobody wants to see someone benefit society for 40-50 years and then get tossed aside like garbage the second they're infirm. Why would anyone want to spend their best years working if that was the case?
It also shows a respect for elders and a willingness to learn from them, which is good for preserving a society's values. It's something which western society is sorely lacking right now.
Then make the care entirely voluntary. If it is such a moral prerogative then surely the people will do so on their own without the government holding a gun to their head and forcing them to, right?
Charity should be entirely voluntary, yes, but that doesn't mean I agree that old people should just die if they don't have resources. Maybe if the government didn't rob us of our income, tax us for our land, burden us with endless fees, devalue what we have left through inflation and otherwise meddle and make everything worse, private aged care would be affordable without handouts.
This is a real argument and I would agree with you. Given that the government fucked things up, they owe it to old people to correct for their mistakes but I do think there's some give-and-take required. How many of those old Japanese people supported the very governments that fucked things up and were against the opposing parties that tried to fix things? If Japan can use this crisis to overall improve its society but old people might need to sacrifice a little for the betterment of the future generation, I think that's something reasonable for the old people to accept. Unfortunately, anything that deals with the government is going to be unfair to someone in the end. The entire existence of government is to redistribute fairness away from what would be fair naturally without a government.
No, they probably won't because they, you know, have to work their jobs. This is just the ugly side of liberalism rearing its head, and no one can defend it except by pointing out how much "freedom" and "individual rights" everyone has.
And that is precisely why I would be willing to take a gun to you as well. Just be thankful the balance of power leans in your direction for now because that won't always be the case and people like me are not as merciful. Ironically, the more you disrupt society by putting a huge strain on the young to take care of the old, the more men like myself gain power because you're sabotaging the strength of the society with your false sense of moral righteousness. People will only accept so much slavery in adherence to your moral values before they start to turn into psychopaths.
Because as we know, when you tell people they will have no support or help waiting for them, they continue to put in their best effort throughout their most productive years to keep the economy and civilization going. It certainly doesn't promote reckless blaze of glory lifestyles meant to end young, where the only other option is to stunt children's options to be anything but their parent's caretakers.
But I'm sure you put no further thought into the ramifications of these changes and why almost all societies evolved similar places for the elderly other than "lul just kill the weak, Sparta!!" hiding behind economic logic without a single understanding of either.
And you think modern societies are ideal? That's a laugh. I have most definitely thought of the outcomes of what I've suggested and I believe that is optimal.
You see how you needed to pull the word "modern" out of your ass to attach to my argument because that's the only loophole you could find? That's the real laugh. Despite the preservation of the elderly being noted for nearly all civilizations throughout all recorded history, and likely long before it.
Honestly, I disagree with the other guy on you being a liberal. You think more like a nigger, short term immediate profits only.
Core tenets of liberalism are satanic levels of freedom and a refusal to acknowledge non-consensual bonds exist.
Total freedom is not correct or desirable. Every person who will ever exist is under inescapable obligations to God and their own blood, meaning their parents and future children.
It's cute that someone like RCC could call themselves "national" anything and not make this critique of liberalism their jumping off point.
If you want to call what I am liberal, then I'm all for it. I usually want most liberals I encounter who call themselves liberal to die though. If people who call themselves liberal are usually in complete opposition to myself and only you call me a liberal, then maybe liberal isn't the right term for me?
I use National Capitalism as the closest ideology that has a label to myself because if you read the description, it tends to follow what I believe fairly closely. If you want to call them liberal, then go ahead. I would caution though that pretty much no one besides you would be able to use the term liberal to describe me and even come close to understanding any of what I believe.
Basically, take National Socialism, as in the Nazis under Hitler except change Socialism to Capitalism and you come pretty darn close overall.
Ah yes, the classic counter-position. Your views actually serve your masters and you're really a slave. I won't explain how because that's pointless, you're mind is already too far gone. I know best though and I will speak from a position of superiority, without adding any content of my own. I've never heard this position before oh mighty pseudo-intellectual.
It's not mandatory because the old people who secured for themselves strong families and resources in their lifetime will still live out their life happily. It's just the dregs on society who will die sooner.
If 99% of people can't afford it then 99% of people shouldn't get it. They are going to die, why waste resources on them to delay an inevitability by a length of time that really means nothing in the end.
The idea that life has value simply because it's a life is a worthless value in itself and has no basis in reality.
If an old person does not have the resources to care for themselves, then the end result is that they should die. Under no circumstance should young people be obligated out of anything other than their own sense of charity to aid old people. Forcing young people to care for the old by using the government's monopoly on power only helps to degenerate a society.
I assume Japan has a universal healthcare system which is a problem. What they should do is privatize the healthcare system and if old people can't afford healthcare, then so be it, they die. The less "socialized" anything Japan has, the better the outcome will be for everyone.
Taking care of the elderly might not be directly beneficial, but it's important for society's morale. Nobody wants to see someone benefit society for 40-50 years and then get tossed aside like garbage the second they're infirm. Why would anyone want to spend their best years working if that was the case?
It also shows a respect for elders and a willingness to learn from them, which is good for preserving a society's values. It's something which western society is sorely lacking right now.
Then make the care entirely voluntary. If it is such a moral prerogative then surely the people will do so on their own without the government holding a gun to their head and forcing them to, right?
Charity should be entirely voluntary, yes, but that doesn't mean I agree that old people should just die if they don't have resources. Maybe if the government didn't rob us of our income, tax us for our land, burden us with endless fees, devalue what we have left through inflation and otherwise meddle and make everything worse, private aged care would be affordable without handouts.
This is a real argument and I would agree with you. Given that the government fucked things up, they owe it to old people to correct for their mistakes but I do think there's some give-and-take required. How many of those old Japanese people supported the very governments that fucked things up and were against the opposing parties that tried to fix things? If Japan can use this crisis to overall improve its society but old people might need to sacrifice a little for the betterment of the future generation, I think that's something reasonable for the old people to accept. Unfortunately, anything that deals with the government is going to be unfair to someone in the end. The entire existence of government is to redistribute fairness away from what would be fair naturally without a government.
No, they probably won't because they, you know, have to work their jobs. This is just the ugly side of liberalism rearing its head, and no one can defend it except by pointing out how much "freedom" and "individual rights" everyone has.
Sometimes psychopaths have to be socialized at a gunpoint.
And that is precisely why I would be willing to take a gun to you as well. Just be thankful the balance of power leans in your direction for now because that won't always be the case and people like me are not as merciful. Ironically, the more you disrupt society by putting a huge strain on the young to take care of the old, the more men like myself gain power because you're sabotaging the strength of the society with your false sense of moral righteousness. People will only accept so much slavery in adherence to your moral values before they start to turn into psychopaths.
Because as we know, when you tell people they will have no support or help waiting for them, they continue to put in their best effort throughout their most productive years to keep the economy and civilization going. It certainly doesn't promote reckless blaze of glory lifestyles meant to end young, where the only other option is to stunt children's options to be anything but their parent's caretakers.
But I'm sure you put no further thought into the ramifications of these changes and why almost all societies evolved similar places for the elderly other than "lul just kill the weak, Sparta!!" hiding behind economic logic without a single understanding of either.
And you think modern societies are ideal? That's a laugh. I have most definitely thought of the outcomes of what I've suggested and I believe that is optimal.
You see how you needed to pull the word "modern" out of your ass to attach to my argument because that's the only loophole you could find? That's the real laugh. Despite the preservation of the elderly being noted for nearly all civilizations throughout all recorded history, and likely long before it.
Honestly, I disagree with the other guy on you being a liberal. You think more like a nigger, short term immediate profits only.
Let's be honest, globohomo isn't doing what you suggested
Exactly how I know what I suggested is good.
You are correct.
Core tenets of liberalism are satanic levels of freedom and a refusal to acknowledge non-consensual bonds exist.
Total freedom is not correct or desirable. Every person who will ever exist is under inescapable obligations to God and their own blood, meaning their parents and future children.
It's cute that someone like RCC could call themselves "national" anything and not make this critique of liberalism their jumping off point.
If you want to call what I am liberal, then I'm all for it. I usually want most liberals I encounter who call themselves liberal to die though. If people who call themselves liberal are usually in complete opposition to myself and only you call me a liberal, then maybe liberal isn't the right term for me?
I use National Capitalism as the closest ideology that has a label to myself because if you read the description, it tends to follow what I believe fairly closely. If you want to call them liberal, then go ahead. I would caution though that pretty much no one besides you would be able to use the term liberal to describe me and even come close to understanding any of what I believe.
Basically, take National Socialism, as in the Nazis under Hitler except change Socialism to Capitalism and you come pretty darn close overall.
Ah yes, the classic counter-position. Your views actually serve your masters and you're really a slave. I won't explain how because that's pointless, you're mind is already too far gone. I know best though and I will speak from a position of superiority, without adding any content of my own. I've never heard this position before oh mighty pseudo-intellectual.
So, "mandatory euthanasia" with extra steps?
It's not mandatory because the old people who secured for themselves strong families and resources in their lifetime will still live out their life happily. It's just the dregs on society who will die sooner.
Probably 99% of their population couldn't afford it. End of life care is insanely expensive.
If 99% of people can't afford it then 99% of people shouldn't get it. They are going to die, why waste resources on them to delay an inevitability by a length of time that really means nothing in the end.