5 comments

[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 23.2 ms ] thread
For whatever it's worth: this is an editorial in a conservative Canadian newspaper.
A purely unproductive and lazy man is not a man. He is a boy. A man has an obligation to provide for himself, and his family if he has one. Only a boy lives off of their parents. Only a monster fails to provide for his family if he is able-bodied. Shovel shit if you must. It is better than being a perpetual boy.
If this is followed by a payoff of "Congratulations, you privileged patriarch. Now eat what you shoveled," then I see why some men are opting out.
> But a bigger problem is that Americans who don’t want to work can’t go on welfare — they “go on disability” instead.

> large numbers of idle working-age men are a known recipe for social trouble

Except we haven't seen that. Crime is at historical lows. Maybe an alternative hypothesis is that more people are on disability because more people actually aren't healthy.

"And all the time — such is the tragi-comedy of our situation — we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more 'drive', or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or 'creativity'. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

--CS Lewis (The Abolition of Man)