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.
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.