Also, you keep arguing that people who don't contribute to the community are better off dead. CAre to elaborate? Just how would they be killed?
Rocks or other hard/sharp objects which may be found in junkyards and also it could be done by the public for the public.
people who don't manage in life don't quietly go and die in some corner, they typically survive (albeit barely) and end up causing a lot of trouble for everyone, and costing a lot of money. So even crassly economically speaking, a society which is generous in terms of benefits and fundings gets it back in the long run.
Well crassly economically speaking, if we just killed those persons we'd save even more money.
Let me ask you about this: What about the people who don't manage their life but are capable of doing so? In other words, people who are completely capable of solving their own problems but instead choose to be a drain on everybody else? Shouldn't they have as much encouragement to uh solve their own problems in life much as possible so that at least THEY won't be sucking down the government cheese?
If we continue to provide people with everything they need and very little encouragement to improve themselves, then these persons who have little motivation already be self-sufficient will have even less of a motivation and may never stop relying on the government. Thus, crassly economically speaking, in the long run it may be more beneficial to not solve everyone's problems for them because it may discourage persons from becoming self-sufficient, creating more of a debt than otherwise.
Plus what encouragement will people have to work in general, not just those with little motivation -- especially considering that some persons can have a higher or equal quality of life by not working ;/
what value does this place on abortion, and what value will it gain in society if it is basically available free to anybody who "needs"/wants it.