|
|
|
|
|
|
by pixl97
801 days ago
|
|
|
> "out of all the things I can do, what should I be doing right now?" I mean aren't you really asking "What should I be doing X years from now"? If you're looking at your feet you're only going to notice you've walked up to the edge of a cliff moments before you get there. I mean, even with re-education you're taking long term training now in hopes it will work out in the future. So, pretty much you've said nothing interesting here other than survival of the fittest, which didn't work out great in the past when the unfit were destitute but still alive to cause problems like crime and vagrancy. Is part of your great plan in making things better just unaliving these people? |
|
|
For a person to answer what they should be doing X years from now, well, they first, need to be able to answer what they should be doing right now, very well.
> Is part of your great plan in making things better just unaliving these people?
That is quite a stretch.
Let us simplify things down a bit: on an individual basis, these subsidies are a few hundred dollars a month - which means that while that's nothing to scoff at, the recepients already have something else going on and making a living already. It might not be a great living but this subsidy isnt going to, for example, take someone destitute and homeless and put them in a position to become financially independent.
What would have stopped destitution and homeless would have been a better education. Now yes, there are well educated people who due to bad luck have become destitute and homeless but those are the exception, not the norm for well educated people to end up in.