You are a fish unable to see water.

Yes, you need food. Guess what, we have plenty of food. But the system for allocating food says this guy doesn't get any because he's disabled.

▲

seanclayton 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We could make virtually infinite food as well, but that isn't profitable enough.

▲

senordevnyc 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Guess what, we have plenty of food

We have plenty of food because of capitalism (particularly the fact that we have plenty of incredibly cheap food grown by a tiny fraction of our population).

▲

AllegedAlec 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're missing my point. Shortage and conflict is the default. It's not a fault unique to capitalism, and to say that it's its fault is missing the mark.

I'm not saying it's an ought situation or even an is situation; it's that I disagree with his diagnosis of what causes it.

▲

inigyou 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Well right now there isn't a food shortage so what should we do while there isn't a food shortage? Should we perhaps say, that we only jettison the disabled people once we're actually running out of food and are forced to make a tough decision about who to keep alive, instead of doing it 20 years in advance just because there might be a shortage one day?

	▲	senordevnyc 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Whether we as a society support those who cannot productively contribute is orthogonal to capitalism. Capitalism itself has nothing to say about what we do with the increases in productivity. You can see this in many developed countries, which have wealth and surplus thanks to their capitalistic markets, but they also have high taxes and a strong safety net.