So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen?

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:09
VIEWED: 12173
PAGE 7 of 15

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?

Like every time he makes that claim - nowhere. That won't for a second stop him from claiming he did, over and over.

And every time I have an example, y'all bitch out of the discussion and pretend it didn't happen.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ideally??

Drawn from real people, this is what I've seen, where it worked, where it fell short, and where it would need to be filled in:

Ideally, there would be family members nearby. Children, younger siblings, nieces and nephews. The family members who take on caring for an elder or disabled relative are carrying a TREMENDOUS burden, financial, physical and emotional. The fewer people who are involved, the worse it is. At my age and situation, I speak both from experience (daughter, MIL) and observation (mom, parents of people that I work with). But in today's society, when families split up by thousands of miles just to find work and there are fewer and fewer children, it's not always possible. Family is NOT the answer now, it won't be the answer in the future. (And it won't be the answer in YOUR envisioned future either... unless your envisioned future has families living in self-sustaining enclaves where the whole family doesn't have to hive off to find work.)

Okay, so do you have to have a one-size-fits-all solution? Just because families can't always be there, that's not an acceptable part of the plan for you?

Families do work for the care of the elderly or infirm in a lot of situations. I was able to provide care, through financial support, of my mother from 600 miles away. That takes some of the burden off other solutions.

Quote:
Some elderly people like to continue to live at home.

For the alone-and-mainly-functional elderly, how about minimally-intrusive help to start? Meals on Wheels, for example, is excellent minimally-intrusive assistance- they bring meals, sit and chat, do a subtle "welfare check" when they visit. It was a Meals on Wheels person who detected a gas leak in our mom's house (being elderly, her sense of smell wasn't good).

Interesting that your first example of a program that works is one that is mostly either supported by voluntary organizations or local (City and County) governments. Even the government supported units rely heavily on volunteers to provide their services. The voluntary organizations are funded largely by contributions through the United Way and other charitable organizations.

Are you suggesting that such organizations be co-opted by larger governments (State/national) and stop soliciting for volunteers and donations?

Sticking to the volunteer theme...

Quote:
Drivers to help take people around.

Also plenty of voluntary organizations that do just this.

Quote:
Visiting nurses (part of the universal single-payer healthcare in my ideal society)

http://vnaa.org/

Quote:
even visiting GPs. (They do that in France, and pay less per person for healthcare. Why cant' we do that here?)

I can go on line and find doctors who make house calls pretty much anywhere in the country. As to cost, convince doctors to earn less money, and we could pay less.

Quote:
When live-in help is required, pay family members to do it.

So family IS the answer now.

Quote:
Add as necessary government-paid household assistants (housecleaners, people to help with personal care) for people who could be maintained in their own homes.

What if the family is able to pay for it?

Quote:
When living at home is not longer possible ... government-run assisted living.

Why government run? Many families who can pay or folks who can afford it on their own could, and do, use private facilities quite well.

Quote:
The fact that you could find a decent facility tells me that it's possible to staff one.

With, as I noted, pretty high staff turnover.

Quote:
There are programs in NYS that allow the development of small group homes or assisted-living facilities in the familiar community- in this case, they're private but they receive real-estate tax credits. Being nearby, where family members can visit often, p

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

The essential right- in fact, the ONLY right- of people in your society is the right to own property and the right to enter into contracts and to have them enforced. Even your relationship to YOURSELF is one of ownership... And somehow, amidst this profound emphasis on property, ownership, and contractual obligation (enforced by private courts), people are supposed to have a deep familial loyalty, respect for the individual, AND a compassion for the unpropertied.

And, as usual, you pick one aspect of something and ignore the others.

You always in these arguments ignore the Zero Aggression Principle and the societal principles that would derive from it.

You should understand what the ZAP is since I've mentioned it several times, but since you tend to forget it, here it is again:

It is wrong to initiate force against anyone.

Seems pretty simple.

But from that rule, you can derive others:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.
Get the idea?

For people who believe it's wrong to do any of these things, it seems apparent that they would believe that people have the right to be secure in their persons and property.

So consider what type of person would feel morally obliged to respect these rights. Seems to me that it would be a person who has quite a bit of consideration for other people - who is concerned about their welfare - since if they weren't concerned they wouldn't care if others were assaulted or swindled or robbed.

And if they're that concerned about the welfare of their fellows, would they not be willing to assist them in time of need?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:30 PM

Geezer's penchant for engaging in masterbatory tete-a-tetes with the libtard psychos is something that needs to be studied at the clinical level in Vienna.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.

So basically you hate our governments past & present?

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.
So basically you hate our governments past & present?

So do you have an opinion on the subject, Chris, or just the usual sad try at a bon mot?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So consider what type of person would feel morally obliged to respect these rights. Seems to me that it would be a person who has quite a bit of consideration for other people - who is concerned about their welfare - since if they weren't concerned they wouldn't care if others were assaulted or swindled or robbed.

And if they're that concerned about the welfare of their fellows, would they not be willing to assist them in time of need?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Most people don't steal or hurt others, most people also don't go out of their way to offer others help. Watch how many cars drive by a broken down car on the road sometime.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So do you have an opinion on the subject

Those standards are laughable. No government or corporation could exist much less function well sticking to every one of them.
They happen to be part of my own personal philosophy though.

STORYMARK

Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?

Like every time he makes that claim - nowhere. That won't for a second stop him from claiming he did, over and over.

And every time I have an example, y'all bitch out of the discussion and pretend it didn't happen.

Ah, more fantasy. Rappy's only "evidence."

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Ah, more fantasy. Rappy's only "evidence."

Ah, more delusion. Storybook's claims blown totally out of the water.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE