Weena wrote:
A- Change their situation.
They are no more likely to do this than you are to attempt to educate yourself.
The latter is a good bit easier yet you do not do it.
That is not a snarky remark, it is a perfectly valid comparison. You're asking others to do something very comparable but significantly more difficult than something you won't do.
Weena wrote:
B- Rely on charity (charities that will probably at least ask them to change their situation)
People being generous for no good reason contravenes the basic premise of the libertarian ideology which is "enlightened (or not) self-interest".
As I have said before, it is the exact same flawed premise of the Communist argument which is that human nature will magically change to make an unrealistic program work.
Whether it's paying taxes or "charity" or a free lunch, it adds up to the same thing which is that people just aren't going to voluntarily part with their dough for no immediate reward, because that's human nature.
Weena wrote:
C- Fall victim to their actions, ie die. This one being incredibly rare.
It's rare because modern society makes it rare, by way of the programs you oppose.
Weena wrote:
If they start breaking things because we didn't pay them their extortion money, then I guess it does become my problem. But police, court and jails are all parts of legitimate government function.
This doesn't work in practice, for two reasons.
First, it doesn't work because it creates a strong downward spiral. This is the pitfall of many civilizations. It is easier to destroy than to create; without organized effort, the former easily becomes a stronger force in society than the latter.
Go look at ancient Rome. Go look at monarchist France. Go look at czarist Russia. Go look at Weimar Germany. The whole "let the cops handle it" bit never, EVER works. People back then said the same things you're saying, almost word for word. (I know that you're not going to bother going and reading the speeches of Cato the Younger). It didn't work.
The second, more ominous reason that this doesn't work: People do in fact expect their governments and societies to handle their problems for them. Even the problems that are entirely of their own making. Even the problems that can't be solved easily.
So what do people do when the government won't solve, or at least ameliorate, their problems? Inevitably, opportunists will appear, who will harness the mobs of angry, disenfranchised people to build their own base of power.
People like Cleon, Catiline, Caesar, Hitler. All those leaders came to power by offering angry, desperate people protection and relief in exchange for their unequivocal support.
And then those demagogues and their improvised army become YOUR problem.
So let me ask you: What makes you think that trying this "take care of your own problems" bit will work any better for us than it has for anyone else?
Hell - what makes you think life is fairer now today than ever before?
Weena wrote:
The other ave we have at this point in time is continue to add to a debt that is already way too large, and eventually the entire house of cards falls with a thunderous crash.
If stability of society is one's goal, how stable is it going to be when we drown in debt?
Our debt is not driven by social services. It's driven by low taxes on the rich, excessive military spending, and low social investment. Proof being? Other countries have more social services and aren't "drowning in debt". Does that not prove the point?
But all of that back-and-forth is regarding the matter of effective government, something no sensible, educated person can oppose. We were talking about how to deal with the morbidly obese, although, as I said, to my mind, the solution is not to give them healthcare but to change society so as to prevent such behavior.
As for those who partake anyway, honestly, I'm not really sure. Institutionalization, I guess. I think it qualifies as mental illness such that they can't take care of themselves.
