Moral Hazard and Social Justice

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Let me re-phrase that question: In today’s world, what advice **could **the poor be given, and that they have the means to actually use to lift themselves out of poverty?

I’m sure you have heard the argument, that it is not** advice** that they lack. It is means to apply that advice.

Leaf, I am sorry that you focused on this “advice/advise” terminology. I never meant "advice’ as a means of helping the poor.

Zoltan’s first inclination towards “advice” to the poor would be: “Get a job and support yourself!”

That might apply to the majority of dependent “poor-by-choice” but in no way should apply to the few deserving poor. Nor should it apply to the “temporary poor”. Those who were not poor at one time and are working their way back to prosperity. ( Zoltan has been here more than once)

The few who really need a square meal more that “advice” should get the meal. The majority of “capable” poor should heed Zoltan’s advice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf, I am sorry that you focused on this “advice/advise” terminology. I never meant "advice’ as a means of helping the poor.

Zoltan’s first inclination towards “advice” to the poor would be: “Get a job and support yourself!”

That might apply to the majority of dependent “poor-by-choice” but in no way should apply to the few deserving poor. Nor should it apply to the “temporary poor”. Those who were not poor at one time and are working their way back to prosperity. ( Zoltan has been here more than once)

The few who really need a square meal more that “advice” should get the meal. The majority of “capable” poor should heed Zoltan’s advice.

So it comes down to a judgement of who among the poor is capable and who is not. Would it surprise you to find out that most of the poor are not “capable” in the sense you mean? I don’t actually know this to be the case, but I am speaking hypothetically. I want to determine if your position is based on the ideology or is based on a practical assessment of the condition of those “in need”. In other words, hypothetically speaking, if we did find out that most of the poor do not have job opportunities they could take, but are not taking due to laziness, would you recommend material aid, even public material aid, to the poor?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So it comes down to a judgement of who among the poor is capable and who is not. Would it surprise you to find out that most of the poor are not “capable” in the sense you mean? I don’t actually know this to be the case, but I am speaking hypothetically. I want to determine if your position is based on the ideology or is based on a practical assessment of the condition of those “in need”. In other words, hypothetically speaking, if we did find out that most of the poor do not have job opportunities they could take, but are not taking due to laziness, would you recommend material aid, even public material aid, to the poor?

Hypothetically speaking, the “deserving” poor should always be helped. However, the second part of your question opens a can of worms. I don’t support “public material aid” if that means government aid. Charity and benevolence are personal virtues. The individual has the right (and responsibility) to determine who or what program is deserving of his/her help.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I know this might be drifting off topic but what about the working poor or even those in the working class? There are some good fellows out there that do work but they struggle especially those with mouths to feed, for instance workers without health insurance or the families that need to live paycheck to paycheck allowing them no opportunity to save whether it’s for their child’s education or retirement? What is their recourse?

Would they (or at least their children) be considered deserving poor? Or are they perhaps victims of factors and variables such as excessive regulation that may drive up living costs (i.e. land use planning or health/insurance regulations)? Or is it something more (something that may necessitate another thread for another day)?

Have a wonderful October.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

In addition we have to factor ourselves as personalities into this.

As believers amidst the world around us, we do various things or ought to if we don’t:

• urge authorities and companies not to oppress the poor. Those nine words cover the political angles of it, in the most multi-party sense, completely.
• give of ourselves in time, money or kind, plus prayer, in however small a way, to specific acts, actions or projects where the benefit is going to be concrete and unarguable. Someone gets an hour’s company. Someone gets a bagful of groceries while awaiting their state benefits (“welfare”).

Let’s face it grandiose “schemes” don’t meet Christs’s words - “I was lonely and you didn’t visit me”.

We are small so God calls us to act small. It’s time to stop thinking we are the fixers or the movers and shakers. If we intercede, our words will find the real One and at the same time will fall more in line with what is really needed. A day will come when He will ask us whether we cared.

95 % of the world’s population aren’t even broken any more. They are comminuted especially by loneliness.

Moralising by megaphone is not catechising. It’s one version of worldly politics having a side “benefit” of letting certain elements off the hook of responsibilities they would be in a position to help shoulder (in one easy little way or another) to the general good. That includes the likes of us when we could have spared a few minutes chilling out with someone “uncool” or doing something pathetically small for a needy acquaintance and imploring the Almighty to send someone else to them as well to do a little more. And it doesn’t upbuild the people being talked about, it doesn’t give them hope. It shames them. They are grappling with many generations of deepest destruction at many levels (not always material but increasingly frequently so).

St Paul’s heart was revolted in Athens but he spoke affirmingly. Jesus Christ doesn’t crush a broken reed. There’s a little bit of good in the worst of us and that probably means you and me as well as all those “them”.

We don’t need to wait for the heads of governments and corporations to make the first move. They might watch us and want to become late-starting but welcome co-workers (not necessarily in our denomination).

 

[HeartnSoulMan]

Most Catholic Social Justice issues can be fulfilled in practicing the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Beyond this education is the next step in assisting the poor the most positive way. Remember the phrase from St. Vincent de Paul Feed a man a fish and you feed him for a day teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Honest work which began a curse is now a blessing and assists in transforming us as individuals and through solidarity into a more just society.

The great philosophers, and political analyst caused more trouble this last few hundred years then they were worth because they took normal life and compartmentalized it and set it to philosophical phrase and complicated it into phobias. Life went from something we live to something we observe in others.

Everything written in such complex theory and argument which has been based on an atheistic view of life is pure garbage in a shiny sack.

Once theologians and apologists ignored written nonsense and only argued against serious arguments. this last two hundred years they have written so many arguments against nonsense that they have sometimes created nonsense themselves and been too caught up in their own genius to see it was nonsense.

I read a document that spoke about God creating the world and allowing the worlds nature to process through the accidents of nature and chose which parts of nature to promote toward His desired end. There are no accidents of nature to God. It is all divine providence. All life all the universe is in a constant state of motion driven by the will of God.