The author lays most of this at the feet of capitalism, and I agree that the system has excesses that have contributed to the atomization of society, which can cause people to slip through the cracks, but...has any other system been obviously _better_ at supporting those with disabilities? Did feudalism or communism do this better?

(I think about the "worst system, except for all the other systems" quote often)

▲

paulryanrogers 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Democratic socialism. The US has quite a few such experiments like the New Deal. And they've been quite a bit better than the grinding, unbridled industrialism that consumed and spat out young and old alike.

▲

ghusto 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Read up on "democratic socialism" because it was a term I wasn't familar with. I have to say people should be mindful of words and ideas meaning different things in different places.

"Capatalism" means something different in the USA than it does in say France. In the USA, any attempt to keep check of or reign in capatalism is seen as socialism, and governemnt overreach. In France it's seen as common sense, though they would still say they practice "capatalism". Similarly, taking care of people that can't take care of themselves is obvious in France, but seen as nearing socialism in the USA.

It's important to note, because when people go for things like "democratic socialism", they may not be against what they think they're against.

	▲	Brendinooo 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How does Portugal compare to the US and France? (I actually don't know, though a quick search indicates it's more like France than the US.) The author of this post apparently lives in Porto.

▲

inigyou 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even just capitalism with more regulation and safety nets (the ones most countries implement don't work very well) would suffice here.

▲

Brendinooo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>the ones most countries implement don't work very well

I guess this is the basis of my critique: the author seems to be writing as though capitalism is robbing him of some ideal that would otherwise exist: invoking the so-called "Protestant work ethic" to describe a system that took over the world and made us all worse off.

That doesn't feel right to me because I don't think previous economic systems did better at protecting the vulnerable. (But I'm not sure, that's why I framed my comment the way I did!)

Most replies to me are framed more as either "do what Europe does" (but the author lives in Europe!) or "we haven't gotten there yet" - which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.

▲

inigyou 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Why limit the discussion to the current system and past ones? That's like saying memory safety is bad because before C++ there was assembly code and that was even less safe.

▲

Brendinooo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.

▲

inigyou 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's literally the exact same argument.

	▲	Brendinooo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Restoring something that was lost is very, very different than creating something that hasn't been done before.

▲

pharrington 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's no way in hell that humans have tried all possible forms of governance and economic systems.

▲

xbmcuser 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think most people conflate the 2 things the current problems are not just because of capitalism but rather the capture of the government by capitalism.

▲

smallmancontrov 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If you don't discipline capitalism with a firm hand, double insulation guarantees that it takes over the government.

	▲	xbmcuser an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with you. I don't believe pure capitalism or pure socialism works; we need something in between. China is somewhat like that, but because of the type of government it has, it is viewed with a jaundiced eye. Countries exist for their citizens, so things like healthcare, housing, and most infrastructure should be provided or subsidized by the government.