Like most of what the government tries to do, the goal is never what you see on the surface. The patina is meant to suggest compassion, but at the end of the day, the government’s role has become a question of how it survives on a dwindling resource (you or your labor). It robs you to feed itself, and the longer it does that, the less there is to steal -in part because it always kills the golden goose and, in response, tries to reduce costs [a polite way of saying it has to get rid of the dead weight].
If that sounds Hitlerian/master-race-ish, it is. Adolf was inspired (by all accounts) by American eugenicists in the early progressive era who felt confident that this is what Nature (thanks to Darwin) needed them to do. From castration to birth control to wage law, they tried to use policy to weed out the undesirable masses. These days, they abort babies, shout social justice to castrate kids and push assisted suicide as health care or a right.
The goals of the progressive depopulationist agenda never changed, just the names of the paths leading to it.
And there are always enough certified psychopaths pretending to play at compassion and willing to take lives (and some revenue to do it) for the state.
Assisted Suicide
Assisted suicide is being sold as end-of-life care. It is cruel to refuse people the option if they suffer from chronic disease or constant pain. That may be true, but almost anyone willing can take their life if they’ve had enough of it, and stopping them has become (ironically?) a significant investment in the people’s treasure. Suicide prevention has created an explosion in health care and insurance costs that are, I’ve long argued, excessive if the government refrains from doing things it shouldn’t.
Creating problems it then grows to solve which creates more problems, it then grows to solve, and so on.
In the name of compassion for the bureaucracy created to manage it, killing people – something the government has always been better at than anyone – is a role certain legislators insist a state must adopt officially. We can’t just let people go around ending their lives even though “Government” manifests that behavior through policy almost daily. Or, we must protect the doctors asked to be angels of mercy (see, also, death).
It is an appealing notion to some, but it is easily dismissed if you can accept that the government is nothing more than force stealing what it needs, including life, if it serves the Government’s interest.
Canada, still recognized as a Western Democracy, has been at the forefront of allowing psychopaths in lab coats to kill people for its benefit. Euthanasia laws have advanced rapidly there to meet the needs created by government intervention, mismanagement, and sheer incompetence. Rising health care costs, joblessness, economic insecurity, physical disability, depression, substance abuse, PTSD, homelessness, mental health, body image or obesity, even gender surgery gone wrong. Whatever it is, Canada has an expert hinting that these people should have the privilege of relieving the government of their burden on society (my words are not theirs, but that’s what they mean).
The headline refers to a homeless man euthanized in Canada because it’s cruel to make him go on living, and it’s appropriate for obvious reasons. First, “housing crisis” is a popular buzzword this election season. Solving it (or at least the idea that government has a role there) has sucked up a lot of oxygen. Second, the idea that a government might see that as a reason to kill someone seems absurd (outlandish, crazy), but Canada did it.
His lack of housing or the likelihood there was any in his immediate future was leveraged to get his consent to be euthanized—another check box on the growing list two paragraphs above.
What’s next, and is there an end that doesn’t include political opponents?
Less Government, Not More
The story about the homeless guy in Canada is true, so the answer to the question of using assisted suicide to address the housing crisis is not some clickbait canard. Odds are good. The system has convinced thousands of people looking for hope that they are better off dead, and now they are. The notion that a State would never do such a thing is a lie – it is happening, and it could happen here, and it will – the people pushing this are the ideological descendants of those who inspired Hitler.
Since they must deny this – no one wants to admit they engage in social and cultural cleansing via a ‘compassionate’ death policy or that their gender project is nothing more than a reboot of legalized castration, so how about this?
Instead of long-worded bills in search of a middle ground allowing state-managed suicide, why not work with life insurance companies to protect the interests of beneficiaries who might not otherwise receive the death benefit if a loved one self-terminates? Put in protection to ensure that Health insurance companies can’t encourage assisted suicide when their costs appear to exceed a life benefit should the afflicted wish to keep living.
I think the government needs to stay out of it, but I figured I’d throw some stuff at the wall because allowing the trend to continue ends with people up against the wall or under the boot of a system like the one that has evolved in Canada. Experts are pushing desperate people into killing themselves because it will always be cheaper than treatment, and pretending our “people” aren’t like theirs or that it would never get that way here is delusional.
