Originally Posted by
outgoing
- Ultimately someone is going to have to pay for all this - money ain't growing on the trees - and the question is who and why. I'd actually argue that it's appropriate to reward those that are socially considerate and responsible and "penalize" those that are not, and I use "penalize" in quotations b/c it's really more about requiring the "fair share" from these people. It's simply about externalities which are growing again and becoming untenable due to selfish behaviors of parts of society. I actually think behavior like that is evil due to high transmissibility of the disease.
Privileging or tribalized conditions? There are exigencies where such clauses are allowed for in extremis, in which militarized justice applies within mission as example. Public care units OTOH are not halls of enlisted where force protection is prioritized and noncombatant needs are made external to core parameters.
I doubt most communities are so degraded as to allot basic services according to one's profile on a control list of the more ‘deserving or useful'. If civil society is fallen to a point where weak and ailing members are forsaken at first opportunity, it would no longer be civic or shared above all.