Tuppence wrote:
Strange then that said people survived relatively well before societal changes meant that the Poor Laws and such were passed. Moreover, it seems that charity did quite well to alleviate needs in e.g. 13th century Europe, and additionally founded hospitals and universities, ran schools, etc. But today you need a state to run your life? What has changed, other than the owners of the Animal Farm?
Admittedly, ever since Wilson/FDR the USA has effectively mandated that people become (heavily as you say) dependent on government programs and Ponzi schemes, but that's no excuse for not turning off the spigot. Treating people like pawns in geopolitical games of grievance group theater was common during the Greek/Roman demises, and it looks like many elites want to repeat it. They likely won't be around anyway to try to rebuild after the looming collapse.
What has changed since the 13th century? Is that what you're asking?
The average lifespan in the 13th century was like 30. A very tiny number of people made it to the age that would qualify them for Medicare today. There were not millions of elderly people unable to work and with limited safety nets to care for. The child mortality and malnutrition rates must have been at least 25 times higher than they are today. The economy was almost entirely agrarian. There was essentially no economic mobility and most people were still operating under a feudal system with hardly any of the civil rights we now take for granted.
The idea that we are less free and generally worse off today under a democratically-elected government that levies some modest taxes to provide services that benefit vulnerable populations and society in general is, again, insane. (Where oh where would our job creators be without, say, an educated workforce, functioning systems of mass transit and infrastructure, or laws that (mostly) ensure our economic system doesn't fall apart?).
Furthermore, the idea that we should ignore the benefit of technological advances in this conversation is nonsense. These things were not merely inevitable. Whether its the microchip, the internet, or cures for myriad diseases, the U.S. government has either been directly responsible for or helped provide the conditions that gave way to many of the most significant technological innovations over the last century.
You can rant about ponzi schemes and "mandating dependency" all you want. When you boil your argument down, you would rather our country completely neglect millions of people who are either elderly, disabled, impoverished and hungry, poorly educated, or sick rather than provide services for them that will inevitably be taken advantage of by a much, much smaller number of freeloaders. This is not just immoral policy, it is economically disastrous policy.