You're trying to make an argument you can't win. By asking me whether I would give a phone to a homeless person or give free wifi to someone, you're implying that since I, as an individual would not do it, then no one else would do it, whether it is a company or a government.
It's a failed argument because in many countries of the world, including the U.S., the government is setup in what's called a welfare state in which the things they consider essential are provided to those who cannot afford it (They do not have to be homeless). However imperfect, the welfare state systems exist, whether in countries leaning strongly toward a capitalist market or socialist style governments like in Scandinavian countries.
You may hear the people who contribute the most money to these programs (the "rich") complain the most, but you don't see them protest or wall themselves out and keep the technology to themselves.
In the U.S. In particular, since the film takes place in futuristic LA, you do have access to medical services. Children in families below poverty line get free medical care in almost every state, if not in every state. Adults above age of 18, in some states 21, once they go off the free insurance can still get essential treatment and comprehensive care if their life is in danger. If they do not have money they apply for more state programs and at worst owe the money back to the state and are obligated to make monthly payments.
Note: personally I don't think any state or a country owes free services or medical care to the poor. It is a privilege we are able to enjoy while the government has any money at all. "Rich" people don't owe the poor people anything. They should owe something to their own conscience. Thankfully many rich people are philanthropists.
How I know this is because I had a cancer myself at age 25. I am ok now, but as before as now I don't have the money to afford any of the cancer treatments I received. This is in California.
Basically everything we have today is unlike what future of Elysium. Elysium also makes a bad moral argument. The movie fails to establish at all how it is that the rich people at the space station owe something to poor people below. There is even no claim made that somehow they have robbed the poor. One space station, however large could not fit all poor people of the earth, so why should the residents of future LA have the privilege of sneaking up there to steal the hardware to send it down?
The people in Elysium also could not have just stolen all the available technology from below since the earth is so huge. It would be safer and faster for anybody below to infiltrate and steal things somewhere on earth than to risk lives to float people up. Instead they just fly up, take advantage of the havoc created by the corrupt officials above and the crazy soldiers and steal whatever they need.
reply
share
comedyfish
9 years ago
I'm going to be honest and say I didn't 100% read your very lengthy reply. Mainly because of your patronising tone (you come across as quite young to me, intelligent adults don't put their points across like that)
(Yes I'm aware I'm doing the same now, that was on purpose. If I had to guess I would suggest you are a younger brother, you sound like one and I think this would have wound my little brother up so I'm doing it for effect because I found you rude)
Anyway I'm from England you don't need to tell me what about welfare states.
I wasn't singling you out with the iPhone thing. I doubt many people would do that (I wouldn't). That was my point.
As for using what is happening nowadays to back up your argument for what is happening in the established rules of the film. That's just silly. They didn't share in the film. That is the whole point of the film. Is that possible? I think the point of the film is it's taken a situation that is being seen now (the rich poor divide) and exaggerated it.
-------------
fin
reply
share