Sergey Belanovsky: "If a decent pension is impossible, then a worthy euthanasia is needed..."

The well-known Russian sociologist Sergei Belanovsky substantiated in his publication why the Russian authorities are obliged by law to provide citizens of the country with the right to euthanasia:

“There is a liberal (libertarian) view of pensions. The bottom line is that state pensions are unnecessary and even harmful. Here's a quote:

“The pension system does not bring anything good to mankind now. It undermines incentives to work, to accumulate, and reduces the horizons of a full-fledged human life. Therefore, the pension system will be replaced by voluntary savings and investments in human capital”.

And you know what? By and large, I agree. I will not discuss the details. I will only mention the main thing.

1. I don’t know about other countries, but there are no savings in Russia. Firstly, inflation, and secondly, there is nowhere to invest money. This is what the NPF told me in plain text (unofficially, of course), and there were enough publications on this topic. Intuitively, we know this and so. Personally, I will not give a penny (or rather, in fact, I didn’t give it) to any pension fund, because I don’t believe. Someone like, but I have not forgotten 1998. But what about those who could not or did not want (due to mistrust) to donate money to the pension fund, especially if state pensions are canceled? That's right, the answer is obvious.
2. Any system of views should be logically complete. Today, an economic subject, even if he is concerned about his future pension, cannot be sure that he will receive it (and if he does, then in an acceptable amount). What follows from this? That you need to introduce the right to euthanasia. If modern monetary systems do not provide an opportunity to make savings, i.e. force a person to live in the present, it remains to waste everything he earned, and then worthily die. I recall a phrase from some fantastic story: the inhabitants of a certain planet did not live long, although no one denied that they lived their lives merrily. Or here: "... and a lot of poison in the end, so that death is pleasant." (this is Nietzsche).

At my suggestion, VTsIOM conducted a survey on euthanasia two years ago. There were three options: 1) to allow everyone after 18 years old, 2) after 60 years, 3) everyone who wants to, suffering from severe incurable diseases. Result: on the first two points, the overwhelming majority is not allowed, on the third, about 80% should be allowed. It seems that this data is on the VTsIOM website.

By the way, the radical libertarian doctrine recognizes a person's right to voluntary withdrawal from life, since the body and "soul" are recognized as the private property of the subject, with which he has the right to do as he wants, including its destruction ("I destroy myself with my will and desire"). However, supporters of Russia's radical liberal reforms prefer to keep quiet about this. However, after the aforementioned poll by VTsIOM, someone from the government (maybe Golikov? I'm not sure, but someone spoke out on this topic - that's for sure) used the word "euthanasia", albeit in a rather vague, but not negative context.

From a government point of view, widespread euthanasia will reduce the financial burden on pension and social funds and reduce social tensions, i.e. should be recognized as a useful measure. However, this partly happens by itself, since Russia is the leader in the specific indicator of suicide among men.

What's the conclusion? Switzerland has an organization that legally provides euthanasia services. If I was asked whether the creation of such an organization should be allowed in Russia, I would answer in the affirmative. Reasons: the lack of opportunities to make savings and the disregard of the authorities and the health care system to the pain and suffering of people. Does everyone remember the story of the suicide of Admiral Apanasenko?"