M
markomalley
Guest
Glen,
I hope we can agree that the ultimate goal of any anti-poverty program should be to become redundant. By that I mean that the goal should be for the participants in that program to become independent of the requirement for assistance: that they gain the ability to produce sufficient goods and/or services so that they can provide for themselves and their families. (Of course, if that is the case, then the workers who administer such a program will eventually become largely redundant).
I would hope that we can agree that such a program would support and build up the construct of the nuclear family (using a definition that agrees with the teachings of the Church) and would support societal mores that would encourage that kind of construct.
I would hope that we can agree that such a program would ensure that the material and spiritual needs of those who are unable to work, through no fault of their own, would be provided. Specifically, I am talking about the elderly and the (mentally or physically) disabled.
We may not agree on the best way to accomplish these goals, but I would hope we can agree that these would be laudable goals.
So before I waste a bunch of bandwidth, can you agree with me that those are the types of goals you’d like to see?
I figure if we can agree the ends, we have a basis for discussion of means. If we can’t agree on ends, then any discussion on means is sort of pointless, as we’re not even trying to get to the same place in the end.
I hope we can agree that the ultimate goal of any anti-poverty program should be to become redundant. By that I mean that the goal should be for the participants in that program to become independent of the requirement for assistance: that they gain the ability to produce sufficient goods and/or services so that they can provide for themselves and their families. (Of course, if that is the case, then the workers who administer such a program will eventually become largely redundant).
I would hope that we can agree that such a program would support and build up the construct of the nuclear family (using a definition that agrees with the teachings of the Church) and would support societal mores that would encourage that kind of construct.
I would hope that we can agree that such a program would ensure that the material and spiritual needs of those who are unable to work, through no fault of their own, would be provided. Specifically, I am talking about the elderly and the (mentally or physically) disabled.
We may not agree on the best way to accomplish these goals, but I would hope we can agree that these would be laudable goals.
So before I waste a bunch of bandwidth, can you agree with me that those are the types of goals you’d like to see?
I figure if we can agree the ends, we have a basis for discussion of means. If we can’t agree on ends, then any discussion on means is sort of pointless, as we’re not even trying to get to the same place in the end.