Is this intended shallow provocation or is it an earnest attempt at discussion? You seem to have, intentionally or not, taken a discussion about a hypothetical direction for the generic future and plastered the shortcomings of modern America onto it, and took offense for it.

>As if it’s their genetics and not their disenfranchisement from society that makes them want to drop out

Some traits are heritable. We know intelligence certainly is. The "highly intelligent, just not driven" thing is a trope. I've lived and spent considerable time in European countries, particularly the British Isles, where they not only have a working class but also a welfare class made up of multi-generational families on welfare and have no intent on giving it up. It's not a significant amount of welfare recipients, but there are many and it's not something that should be encouraged.

Again, society is give and take. Fostering a sub-society of people who merely want to take and not reciprocate is unfair on the rest of society supporting them.

>And we hardly help men “pick themselves back up”.

I don't disagree with that. I'd argue that instead of enabling them to comfortably check-out, do nothing and live off others that the money would be better spent helping them become productive contributors to the society they've asked to be a part of.

>lol, that’s a good one, I’m sure the Koch brothers would agree.

Finding edge cases to point at does nothing for an argument talking about society (and the economy) in general. What I said holds true for the majority of the people.

Even if you want to self-select for an outlier like the Kochs, they're the beneficiaries of the hard work that came before them and whose lineage has both managed their work-earned money well, and taught their descendants to do the same.

Even then, the Koch's provide employment to roughly 100,000 people, 60,000 in the US alone[0], and give billions towards charity.[1]

Charles Koch's monetary charitable contributions alone top a $1bn, or ~2% of his fiscal net worth. How much of yours are handing over in the name of good?

I'm not even advocating for that kind of wealth, but simply pointing at the outlier you've chosen to show that my point actually does hold true - the Koch's employ and pay 100,000 people, people who use that pay to undoubtedly support countless others, while also giving large sums of effort and indeed cash to good causes. They are reaping the benefits from participating in society in an outlandish manner, but they're also contributing in one, environmental issues aside.

>Plenty of people put in a lot and don’t get much back. Just because life worked out great for you—you put in effort and saw a return—doesn’t mean it works that way for everyone. I personally worked my ass off for 5 years and then got screwed out of my work by people with more money.

What you've said is in support of my points, not against it. As I said, trying is what matters. Yes, some people work harder than others. Some people work smarter than others. Some people work harder and smarter. What's important is that everyone is giving it their best. I'm giving it my best, you've given it your best.

Again, as I said, a just society looks after those who are trying. The US, if you want to bring a single country into this (which I have tried to not, as I'm generalizing about society with hypothetical situations, some of which apply to some countries, some to others) is not a just society. I'm not going to sit here and singly talk about the USA.

The discussion came from a statement that society, en large, should facilitate those who don't want to participate. I see no reason why that should be US-centric.

>Am I getting trolled? You seriously want to associate voting rights with employment? Here I thought we left those sorts of attitudes in the last century.

No. I said that in the hypothetical situation that we create a class of people who want to permanently disengage and no longer contribute what they can to society, in doing so rejecting the responsibilities of being part of society, that they should not be extended the same rights as those participating in the society they're opting out from.

An entity who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always defend on the support of Paul. Conservatives who promise to reduce welfare or taxes in order to return money to those most affected can always depend on the support of those who will benefit. Leftists who promise to increase welfare and taxes to provide more social services can always depend on the support of those who already receive both. Both are fine, in a society where everyone is trying to do a little better one bit at a time.

People who could hypothetically opt-out permanently and rely on a life provided for by those who are not opting out is not someone who should be empowered to weigh in on decisions affecting those whose charity and good grace they're essentially still breathing from.

I hope none of the above is too outrageous to you, and it shouldn't be if you can sway yourself toward the hypothetical brought up and not concentrate on January 2020's America.

[0] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/issues/koch-industries-compan...

[1] https://time.com/5413786/charles-koch-charitable-giving/