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.
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?
I don't know as much about Japan, but I know in the west propaganda has a huge role in this. The ruling class always do everything they can to establish the idea of their legitimacy and competence. These are everyday people, without a mind for politics and economics, that have been promised if they support society, society will support them. It's a contract of sorts and they've fulfilled their part of it, which is part of what makes it hard to change even if competent people were in charge.
Sadly, anyone foolish enough to give the responsibility of their care onto the state, deserves any ill fate they get. It's the Japanese men who were against this but who were forced to pay significant taxes toward the state that I have sympathy for.
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.
The balance of power will always lean to my side because the opposite position of just letting your family die will always come from a motherless knave.
There is no false sense of moral righteousness when it comes to taking care of the eldery. For every sad individual who had narc parents and went no-contact past 18 years old there are 10 more who had happy, wholesome childhood where their family ties stay strong all the way to adulthood.
Why do you think its the other way around? Because you're on the internet, likely congregating with other like minded individuals thus warping your perception of reality.
All you need to do is take your post and read it out loud in your nearest town square and you'll quickly find out just how few of your kind are gaining power.
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.
I don't know as much about Japan, but I know in the west propaganda has a huge role in this. The ruling class always do everything they can to establish the idea of their legitimacy and competence. These are everyday people, without a mind for politics and economics, that have been promised if they support society, society will support them. It's a contract of sorts and they've fulfilled their part of it, which is part of what makes it hard to change even if competent people were in charge.
Sadly, anyone foolish enough to give the responsibility of their care onto the state, deserves any ill fate they get. It's the Japanese men who were against this but who were forced to pay significant taxes toward the state that I have sympathy for.
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.
The balance of power will always lean to my side because the opposite position of just letting your family die will always come from a motherless knave.
There is no false sense of moral righteousness when it comes to taking care of the eldery. For every sad individual who had narc parents and went no-contact past 18 years old there are 10 more who had happy, wholesome childhood where their family ties stay strong all the way to adulthood.
Why do you think its the other way around? Because you're on the internet, likely congregating with other like minded individuals thus warping your perception of reality.
All you need to do is take your post and read it out loud in your nearest town square and you'll quickly find out just how few of your kind are gaining power.