That’s a thoughtful response. But I’m not sure what you mean by “economics of the far left.” And why that is a factor in the “let them die” message.
There is an interesting spin-off to this debate. It seems we live in a society where letting someone die is generally legal. So many people are trying to save people in so many ways — doctors, teachers, social workers, activists.
Perhaps the law’s condoning passive murder (letting people die) is part of our national problem. Or rather is indicative of the predatory society we have become. We should all be legally obligated to save the dying — unless there is a significant threat to our own bodies.
This allowable passivity or do-nothing-ness in the face of someone’s most desperate need is consistent w. the ruthless economic policies of the past. it’s signifies a culture in which indifference to the lives of others is socially permissible.
The law of the land should require us to save others when we can. Save first; ask questions later. At the same time the law should not punish cowards. It’s not so easy to be brave.
SOB may not have thought through all the implications of his position. It would be interesting to see how he feels if his policy became fact. suspicion of bigotry would be sufficient cause for passive murder.
It’s an extreme and not well thought out position; but it received a lot of support. My goal is simply to disillusion SOB and his supporters about the moral basis of that position. It needs to be challenged and denounced.