Does the world need humanitarian political parties to promote social justice?

[Robert_Sock]

Humanitarian: “Marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare.”
-Wordweb

Isn’t human welfare really what politics ought to be all about?

 

[Glomung]

In my opinion, we need to get away from the ideas of pervasive government and “political parties” altogether.
What "government there is should be small and local, to serve the people within it’s scope
(and to be completely subservient and accountable to the people within it’s scope).

Our government is accountable to none, and it shows. Our politicians are self aggrandizing elitists who only purpose seems to be the acclimation of wealth and power.
They get richer while the nation rots.

The fault I find with our “political parties” is that they have the bad habit of applying the same partisan solutions to any and every problem, whether it will actually accomplishes anything or not.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Governments and political parties are not established for humanitarian or charitable purposes.

If a government is empowered to be charitable, that government then has the power to take from some …by force…and give to others. That is theft.

Charity and humanitarianism are voluntary, individual attributes. To turn that over to a government takes away the personal virtues of kindness, good will, benevolence and respect for the rights of others.

 

[fastenatingguy]

In my opinion, we need to get away from the ideas of pervasive government and “political parties” altogether.
What "government there is should be small and local, to serve the people within it’s scope
(and to be completely subservient and accountable to the people within it’s scope).

Our government is accountable to none, and it shows. Our politicians are self aggrandizing elitists who only purpose seems to be the acclimation of wealth and power.
They get richer while the nation rots.

The fault I find with our “political parties” is that they have the bad habit of applying the same partisan solutions to any and every problem, whether it will actually accomplishes anything or not.

AMEN

 

[christofirst]

Humanitarian: “Marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare.”
-Wordweb

Isn’t human welfare really what politics ought to be all about?

It would be good if this were so. When humanistic values compete with greed and the desire for power, we get what we have today. Nevertheless, we are social beings and there will always be the need for some form of government. Better that it put the needs of the masses before the privilege of the few.

 

[St_Francis]

I voted no because I believe that what we need is GOD, not a political party. We need a church based on God’s love for us and our love for Him, and the resulting love for others.

If each person were a good and loving Catholic, or even just most people, there would be little need for government involvement in helping the poor. Then the government could focus on what it’s supposed to concentrate on, which is mostly adminstrative.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Did you ever consider that God wants us to promote human welfare by organizing humanitarian governments?

 

[Holly3278]

In one sense I lean toward yes but in the other sense I think that charitable work such as humanitarian work should be the primary work of charities and religious organizations. I think that perhaps if the government were to take on even more of this sort of thing that it would lead to too much debt. So, to be honest, I am not sure about this.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Charitable organizations have existed for a long time, but 3.5 million innocent children are still starving to death each year… it’s not enough! People everywhere need to adapt humanitarian values and surrender their current greedy, materialistic values. Humanitarianism needs to be incorporated into a political force.

 

[Holly3278]

Charitable organizations have existed for a long time, but 3.5 million innocent children are still starving to death each year… it’s not enough! People everywhere need to adapt humanitarian values and surrender their current greedy, materialistic values. Humanitarianism needs to be incorporated into a political force.

I think I agree with you in a sense. But couldn’t it be that charitable organizations could do more? Perhaps those greedy corporations and people in general could donate much more to charities so that way they could do a lot more good work?

 

[JB_Dugan]

Charitable organizations have existed for a long time, but 3.5 million innocent children are still starving to death each year… it’s not enough! People everywhere need to adapt humanitarian values and surrender their current greedy, materialistic values. Humanitarianism needs to be incorporated into a political force.

Not long ago our great Country incorporated humanitarianism into a political force and began a “War on Poverty”.

We have spent $15 trillion “fighting” poverty since 1965 and we are currently spending $ 1 trillion a year. Yet our poverty rate today (16%) is higher than when we started (14%)!

If there has been a War on Poverty, poverty won.

By allowing a government to do God’s work we began subsidizing and enabling a way of life. To put it bluntly, we are paying young women to have children out of wedlock. We are paying people to be unemployed. And we are paying them to remain poor.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

By allowing a government to do God’s work we began subsidizing and enabling a way of life. To put it bluntly, we are paying young women to have children out of wedlock. We are paying people to be unemployed. And we are paying them to remain poor.

If this is so, I would like to know why Christian charity would not also result in paying women to have children out of wedlock, paying people to be unemployed, and paying poor people to remain poor? Do the poor really behave that much differently if their help comes from the Church vs a government program? Or maybe you are against Christian charity providing these things too?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Not long ago our great Country incorporated humanitarianism into a political force and began a “War on Poverty”.

We have spent $15 trillion “fighting” poverty since 1965 and we are currently spending $ 1 trillion a year. Yet our poverty rate today (16%) is higher than when we started (14%)!

If there has been a War on Poverty, poverty won.

By allowing a government to do God’s work we began subsidizing and enabling a way of life. To put it bluntly, we are paying young women to have children out of wedlock. We are paying people to be unemployed. And we are paying them to remain poor.

Maybe their war on poverty was seriously flawed. Like trying to fix poverty while the nation maintained a large income inequality.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Maybe their war on poverty was seriously flawed. Like trying to fix poverty while the nation maintained a large income inequality.

Of course it was flawed…it was a government program.

Maybe instead of wasting billions of $$$ keeping a class of people in a state of poverty… that money could have gone into something productive that would have narrowed that income inequality.

 

[JB_Dugan]

If this is so, I would like to know why Christian charity would not also result in paying women to have children out of wedlock, paying people to be unemployed, and paying poor people to remain poor? Do the poor really behave that much differently if their help comes from the Church vs a government program? Or maybe you are against Christian charity providing these things too?

I am against any charity, government or religious organization subsidizing a way of life that maintains any form of dependency.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am against any charity, government or religious organization subsidizing a way of life that maintains any form of dependency.

So I guess if you want to be charitable toward some poor person, you should make sure your gift is only a small token and does not go too far in meeting their needs, or else you might be leading them to dependancy, right?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Did you ever consider that God wants us to promote human welfare by organizing humanitarian governments?

What if He wants us to promote human welfare by making smaller governments so that the people could be more involved in actually doing humane things instead of being wrapped in bureaucratic red tape, taxed out of existence, and required to perform immoral actions in the name of ‘care’ such as legislating abortion ‘rights’, etc?

What if the way we started out (government of the people, by the people, and for the people) has gone really wrong and much of what is now called ‘humanitarian’ is in fact part of the culture of death?

 

[St_Francis]

Did you ever consider that God wants us to promote human welfare by organizing humanitarian governments?

No.

The reasons I believe as I do are multitudinous, but just to take a couple or three, first, back before the Protestant Revolt, the functions currently managed by the government’s “safety net” were performed by people showing their love for God by loving their neighbors: monks and nuns. They were assisted in this endeavor by the people in the surrounding area. Along with the Protestant Revolt came the theft of these resources by the local rulers, which may explain why people now look to the government to fill these functions.

I believe that charitable work performed by people dedicate to this work and supported by thoe around them would be much more helpful to the poor than the government safety net. The latter is a cold bloodless check or deposit on the card which appeared through taxes or through debt. There is no connection to mindness or human warmth in this.

By dealing with real people who are helping the poor as indiviuals, with money voluntarily contributed to help them, a human relationship is formed. The help each needs can be quickly and easily individualized for each person’s circumstance, and non-monetary help can be given as well. This young person needs training, that elderly person needs a companion, a middle-aged person needs a job. The government puts them all on the same stock programs.

And another point is the destruction of human solidarity that those who are not poor should feel when they see a poor person. This is replaced by an attitude of “I gave at the office,” the sense that the problem is not the problem of the non-poor but the problem of the government.

So these are some of the reasons I think that the government should not be in the business of helping people. To me, a humanitarian government is one which allows people to live freely, which allows people to work their way up if they so choose, without instituting refulations in every way to keep people from working their way out of poverty.

But remember to that I also advocate a system in which the income disparities would probably be greatly reduced.

 

[Robert_Sock]

No.

The reasons I believe as I do are multitudinous, but just to take a couple or three, first, back before the Protestant Revolt, the functions currently managed by the government’s “safety net” were performed by people showing their love for God by loving their neighbors: monks and nuns. They were assisted in this endeavor by the people in the surrounding area. Along with the Protestant Revolt came the theft of these resources by the local rulers, which may explain why people now look to the government to fill these functions.

I believe that charitable work performed by people dedicate to this work and supported by thoe around them would be much more helpful to the poor than the government safety net. The latter is a cold bloodless check or deposit on the card which appeared through taxes or through debt. There is no connection to mindness or human warmth in this.

By dealing with real people who are helping the poor as indiviuals, with money voluntarily contributed to help them, a human relationship is formed. The help each needs can be quickly and easily individualized for each person’s circumstance, and non-monetary help can be given as well. This young person needs training, that elderly person needs a companion, a middle-aged person needs a job. The government puts them all on the same stock programs.

And another point is the destruction of human solidarity that those who are not poor should feel when they see a poor person. This is replaced by an attitude of “I gave at the office,” the sense that the problem is not the problem of the non-poor but the problem of the government.

So these are some of the reasons I think that the government should not be in the business of helping people. To me, a humanitarian government is one which allows people to live freely, which allows people to work their way up if they so choose, without instituting refulations in every way to keep people from working their way out of poverty.

But remember to that I also advocate a system in which the income disparities would probably be greatly reduced.

What do you feel should be the immediate effort to end the starvation of people worldwide. Do you agree that this is a crime against humanity that must be rectified immediately?

 

[St_Francis]

…Do you agree that this is a crime against humanity that must be rectified immediately?

We went through a long thread on whether the fact that people starve to death is a crime, is a crime against humanity, etc.

What do you feel should be the immediate effort to end the starvation of people worldwide?]

As was mentioned in the thread I mentioned before and elsewhere, people who are starving are starving for different reasons.

What are we supposed to do about those who are starving in North Korea? Should we go in there and topple the government so that we can feed the people there?

What are we supposed to do about people starving in Somalia, where the warlords steal the food as or before it is distributed to the people? Just start shooting?

What are we supposed to do about the people who have no food in the Phillppines as the result of the typhoon? Pretty much what we are doing: sending money and many are going there to help out.