So as far as I can see, living in the UK, we treat life as a sort of &#x27;survival of the fittest&#x27; game, but with seemingly arbitrary conditions applied.<p>For example - we consider a person with a physical disability to be worthy of support (presumably because we reason that they&#x27;re unable to work).<p>We consider a person of advanced age worthy of support (again, they&#x27;re unable to work, and probably supported society in the past via working).<p>There are a few other categories of human that we think of as being deserving, and income support recognises this.<p>The flaw here as far as I can see is that we basically say that if you don&#x27;t fit into one of the above categories, you must be fit to work, and so if you&#x27;re not working you&#x27;re doing so via choice, and if you choose not to eat that&#x27;s your problem to deal with.<p>To me it&#x27;s just a really basic error of logic and I don&#x27;t know how to even come close to correcting it.<p>People talk often about the fact that they don&#x27;t want to be taxed, or whatever. But why don&#x27;t they care about paying for the disabled?<p>Is it that they don&#x27;t want to pay for people who just aren&#x27;t trying? It seems to me that unless unemployment is at 0% such an argument could never be valid.<p>I think that income support is a great idea, by the way, I just find it an odd situation that we&#x27;re in, almost like a really bad compromise. Surely we should try to help everyone, or help no-one, not unfairly select groups based on them having a &#x27;bad enough handicap&#x27;.