On Society (post 28)

A society is run by its most powerful members.
In our society, power is supposed to come from a mandate of the majority, but, clearly, it can and does also come from wealth.

The most powerful members make decisions that affect our wellbeing and also their ability to retain and build more power.

Much depends on whether and to what extent those goals conflict or coincide - and that, in turn, depends largely on the worldviews, culture, beliefs and values of our society - both of the masses and of the elite.

One particular category of values/beliefs that is of primary importance concerns how a society should respond to or treat its weakest, most vulnerable and most incompetent members.

Typically members of a society with the least amount of power are thought to be children, the elderly and the sick - which should include the mentally ill. I submit that we should also include addicts (especially those who became addicted as children), the uneducated and the unloved.

Though there are myriad ways the leaders of a society can treat such people, these can be lumped into a few basic types.

1. Do not spend resources on them.
2. Spend resources to punish them.
3. Spend resources to attempt to increase their competency.
4. Spend resources to feed, house and placate them.
5. Spend resources to create productive roles for them.

What are the pros and cons of each of these approaches?
What are the ideological considerations? What are the pragmatic considerations?