R
ribozyme
Guest
What about health care? Robert Rector conveniently left that out in his analysis. How did you infer my definition (actually it is Mark Thoma’s) involved things: it is based on the ability to participate in society.
- Status
M
mapleoak
Guest
Sorry, but it is an attempt to push socialist and/or nanny state ideas.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Why are you so concerned about what I am doing? You should first look at what you are doing. So, what are YOU doing to efface the misery and suffering and to reduce poverty?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
In reading your foundational statements, it really seems they do not support spending more money in the ways in which money is currently spent, since the root cause, which you describe as dysfunctional families, would not become functional just because they get more material aid. Rather, on a domestic basis, your premises seem more to support either removing children from dysfunctional homes early and permanently, or forcing people to have abortions and/or getting sterilized, since voluntary “abortion on demand” does not seem to be getting anywhere in eliminating dysfunctional families.The problem with economic systems based on profit is that it is often more profitable to let some people die, so they do. In the U.S. we have many children who are born into cycles of poverty that they are never able to escape. To suggest that simply by working hard one can overcome all obstacles is naive. It has never been true and it isn’ true now. The thing is that we hear about the “success” stories - they are trumpeted from the rooftops. They make good copy. The stories of those who suffer until death, often an early one, don’t do so well. I decided to make a mid-life career change to teaching with the hope of making some sort of positive differnce in inner city schools. Here’s what I’ve learned: no matter how good a teacher I am, I cannot compensate for the lack of decent housing, food, health care, nurturing and general safety faced by my students. I cannot make up for the years of poor education that they have received in the 6 or more years before I got them. Especially when you consider I have them less than 5 hours a week for less than a year. If a student’s parent(s) is dead or incarcerated, if they work 3 jobs, if the neighborhood is rife with life and death danger, if all after school programs are cut to the bone, if housing is inadequate or if the student is actually homeless, if he/she is hungry, scared, or just plane worn out from shouldering cares that would cause an adult to shrink - most aren’t going to make it. It’s just too much for them to overcome. They’re just kids! Abortion kills a non-sentient fetus that would grow into a baby. Poverty kills living, born, sentient children every day. Yet the very folks who decry abortion also tend to decry state sponsered social programs. And that results in less (or no) funding, which simply causes more suffering and exacerbates the problem. I know you’re going to say that there are private charities, etc., but they aren’t cutting it. IMO, we need decent social programs and we need to fund them adequate (even NCLB isn’t funded - so it’s truly just a PR idea in most areas, especially poor urban ones). If you really care about people, then you need to be willing to put your money where your mouth is. Sure, gov. programs could be more efficient. Let’s make them more so, not get rid of them. Private charities have problems too - much of what they take in is spent on fundraising, for example. If we had millions more kids living in poverty (and we would were abortion illegal) this would simply add to the problem, it’s not a solution. Again, I just don’t equate the unborm with the born and I find those who are willing to push for laws to protech one and not the other to be hypocrites of the highest order.
And the above is just in the U.S. - look at Africa, Latin and South America, many Asian countries. The poor are great in number and suffer horribly, yet we sit here in comfort debating the “socialistic” aspects of various relief ideaologies while they starve to death. Is that Christian? Do you really think Jesus would approve of such political bickering and hair splitting while children starve? I, for one, do not.
I would also like to suggest reading Ribozymes thread on Potter’s theory of poverty reduction in the Philosophy section (I think that is where it is) as he sums it up in a much more articulate way then I can).
As regards poverty in foreign countries, it seems your argument would support only military intervention, since governments that perpetuate poverty will continue to do so regardless of the amount of money they are given and regardless of the amount of abortion funding a country like the U.S. might provide their citizens.
It is a curious anomaly that we have, by your account, large numbers of people who live in poverty for generations, and yet we also have some 15 million illegal immigrants who came from even worse circumstances. I realize this is anecdotal, but most of the illegal immigrants I know, work and seem to be able to accumulate wealth doing it. Granted, many of them also make maximum use of government aid programs designed for citizens. But when I see many of them buy (cheaper, to be sure) houses, decent vehicles, AND ALSO send money back to relatives south of the border, it tells me some of the assumptions Americans usually make about intergenerational poverty are flawed.
Again, this is anecdotal, but for some time I have noted that every yard sale around here is crowded with Hispanics. It is interesting to see, e.g., Hispanic women buy, for 50 cents or a dollar, virtually pristine childrens’ clothing that cost $25 and up, new.
It may be different elsewhere, but never yet have I seen children of illegals going around ragged or dirty or looking underfed. And those are people facing barriers to employment that the domestic poor do not face.
B
bilop
Guest
Everyone in the U.S. has access to healthcare. Many do not have health insurance.
Hospitals are prohibited BY LAW from not treating soemone.
Our health care system is screwed up in many ways (inefficiency, too much litigation and defensive medicine, overuse of unecessary proecedures etc.) but everyone does get care.
God Bless
L
Lisdogan
Guest
Eish you should ask this question. I came to Africa in 1968 from Canada as a volunteer. I gave up Canadian citizenship to become a Zambian, because the South African government took away my South African husband’s passport while he was in exile from SA (doing his PhD at Harvard, then working in Zambia), and we both took Zambian citizenship (check your atlas, one north of Zimbabwe).
Since 1968 I have worked in over 30 countries (visited 54 at last count, on work) principally on education policy (I am not a teacher but a policy and development specialist in the field of socio-economic and education matters), and latterly on the influence of HIV/AIDS on education, children, teachers, and communities. I have walked jungles in Cambodia, held HIV dying children in Bangkok, watched and worked as 2000 people per day die of HIV in South Africa, watched Zambia move from the wealthiest country in Africa to the most iimpoverished.
I did what I could and have paid the price. Long term travel and difficult assignments under dreadful conditions in many cases for Commonwealth Secretariat, UN and bilateral agencies (USA, UK, Sweden, Germany, Canada, etc) and working all over Africa, and then into Asia, burned me out in 2003 (when I was holding 5 anti-poverty jobs which included developing policy for handling 10 million HIV orphans in the Southern African region). I now have stress-related chronic fatigue syndrome and lupus which will last a lifetime.
My husband has done the same anti-poverty policy work, retired 7 years ago as Director General (head) of the SA Education Department, and is now continuing to work on major policy and development crises in South Africa as senior advisor both to the Department and to the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.
We do not have pensions because of the way we have worked, and because we could not be in SA until Mandela came out of prison.
We have put, at last count, 18 kids (Malawi, Zambia, South Africa, Nepal) through school into college level, have adopted several, and watched our Zambian son, an auditor, die of HIV.
If you would like to contribute to the university fees of our Zambian grand-daughters, please feel free to do so; and the guys who come to the gate because they are starving; and the car-parkers who are desperate for a bit of money to feed their kids; and our ‘family’ in Soshanguve, a township in which Andrew (14) is beaten up and his shoes and cellphone taken; and the HIV orphans at the Catholic home east of Pretoria where we live; and all those who do in fact live merely to survive as they can.
You asked the question. Want to help?
Maybe now you can tell me what you do to help? Or do you just worry?
Ah well, my motto is: ‘Just do it. If you cannot do it, pray.’ That’s good: the apostolic dimension.
In Christ
S
Swan
Guest
I realize that I might not have been very clear - it can be difficult to cover all bases and provide all explanations in what I tried to make a relatively short post (I was short on time as well).
I think the cause of much of the dysfunctionality is the poverty itself. Poverty does terrible things to people. When we see a concentration of abuse, drug use, alcoholism, drop outs, gangs, crime, etc., in poor areas I don’t believe it is because the folks who live there (regardless of there race) are inherently “bad”, I beleive it is a direct result of the despair, anger, and frustration that poverty causes. Poverty is, IOW, the root of the problem, not the race, culture, morals, etc., of the poor. Now, having said that I will concede that there are “bad” people who are poor, but there are “bad” people who are middle class and rich as well. I think we spend a lot of time and energy blaming the victim. It enable us to let them suffer with a cleaner conscience. I support funding programs, especially those that target parents with young children, that will empower these people to break the cycle of poverty. We need to reach these kids before they give up and end up dead or in prison. We can spend the money on decent housing, better schools and smaller class size, nutrition, after school programs and enrichment, job training for parents along with childcare services so the kids aren’t left alone, etc. It’s an investment in our future as a nation, as a world. Or we can not do these things and build a lot more prisons (what we are currently doing). I have never supported forced abortion or sterilization on anyone - I find the idea immoral. I should add here that I do think we need to improve our foster care system and our social work systems - give them the funding they need so they have the manpower to not only investigate problems but to be able to provide the resources to solve them as well so more kids can stay in the home. Foster care kids are often abused and neglected so we need to revamp that system in a big way.
As to foreign contries, I do not support wholeale armed intervention as I believe a non-violent approach is best. It is a dilemma and I do not see easy solutions. I think we need a strong UN-type organization that is able to take organized action against rogue and if armed intervention becomes inevitable (as I believe was the case in Rwanda) it has to be done with multi-national troops and in a way that is designed to protect the nation’s autonomy and prevent the enforcement of another nation’s agenda (imperialism, colonialsim) from becoming a reality.
I think it might be worth doing some research on the social mobility of incoming immigrants and Americans who were born into a cycle of poverty. I’m just guessing but I think there is a competely different mindset between the two groups. The newcomers still have hope while, in many cases, those born in cyclical poverty, have often lost it (i.e., they are surrounded by people who have lost hope and it influences them). I think this might explain a lot. And, of course, we need to find a way to revive that hope (see above).
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I am sure your experience with domestic poor and foreign poor is greater than mine. And I acknowledge that my knowledge is anecdotal. But still, I do know lots of illegals here. I don’t know a single one with so much as a grade school education. (Third grade is the level I hear most) And that is third grade in a foreign country. Many can’t speak any English at all, and have huge barriers to employment. And yet, I don’t know any who have let their children run ragged or get involved in crime, if they can help it. I see their kids all the time. I know many who have bought houses, cars, etc. I do understand your thought that many of the domestic poor have “given up”. But I’m not sure that’s adequate. If you talk to some of the illegals and learn what their lives were like in Mexico or El Salvador or Guatemala, the poor in this country have no conception of what it’s like to be poor. I know of people who WALKED from Guatemala, through an unrelentingly hostile and cruel Mexico, into this country in order to work in meat packing plants or on dairy farms or as roofers or framers. And the “hope” they have is in working hard, earning a wage and building a life for themselves and their families. I know some who have taught themselves to be plumbers, bricklayers and concrete workers. You can make a good living doing any of those things.
There’s just more to this, and I think maybe it’s cultural, but not in the sense of a “poverty culture” that deprives people of motivation just because they don’t have things others have. Illegals lived in far worse poverty, and have to do a lot more to escape it than citizens do. There’s something toxic about the society in which many of the domestic poor live, and I suspect a lot of the kids don’t have the right motivations because they were taught to be dependent, blaming, admiring of ciminality. Again, I’m not sure there really is any answer other than taking children away at a very early age. A friend of mine works for the juvenile office locally, and the State has slowly come around to the realization that the “supportive” programs really don’t work. My friend’s job is to represent the juvenile office in terminations of parental rights.
It’s not racial either. Virtually all of the terminated parents are white. But they have gotten themselves into the “white” version of that blaming, thieving, drug using, criminality-admiring, work-avoidant, dependent culture that is not a matter of race at all, but of character.
And when it comes to foreign countries, I do not favor, e.g., invading Zimbabwe. But when all aid ends up in the hands of Bobby Mugabe and his cronies, is there really an alternative to either invading or just letting it go? The U.N. is so profoundly corrupt that it can hardly be regarded as an answer. It’s corrupt because its course is determined largely by the world’s leaders, most of whom are corrupt themselves. I just don’t see how pouring money into the hands of corrupt leaders does anyone any good but them.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Swan:
I agree with you that foster care is often (but not always) horrible; hardly better than the places from which the children were taken.
I suspect that taking children away when they are still adoptable is part of the answer, instead of waiting until they are so warped that nobody will adopt them. For those who are older and perhaps damaged, I genuinely think the reinstitution of orphanages might be a better answer. I worked in an orphanage once, when I was a student (for room and board). It wasn’t the best thing that could be imagined, but there were rules, there was discipline, there were no excuses, they went to school, study was enforced (part of my job), they couldn’t go roaming the streets at nigh (another part of my job) and it was “lights out” at 10:00 p.m. (enforcing that was also part of my job). It was up in the morning at 6:00, shower, Mass, (Catholic or not) breakfast and to school. Rooms had to be cleaned on Saturday morning right after breakfast. (all part of my job to enforce). If, after all the sanctions for misbehavior didn’t work, it was off to detention. They usually didn’t stay there long before they wanted to come back. Lots of them went on to trade schools or junior colleges. Lots joined the service in one branch or another. Some came back afterward (invitation only) to help run the place and give good role models to the younger boys. Some of those former “boys” who had been in the Marines were the best role models and disciplinarians (and recruiters) you ever saw. Those kids ended up regarding their fellows as their “family”, in the same sort of way men in the service see their fellow soldiers as their “family.”
I’m not sure there are better answers. I know it sounds harsh, but sometimes the drastic answers are the only answers.
I agree with you that foster care is often (but not always) horrible; hardly better than the places from which the children were taken.
I suspect that taking children away when they are still adoptable is part of the answer, instead of waiting until they are so warped that nobody will adopt them. For those who are older and perhaps damaged, I genuinely think the reinstitution of orphanages might be a better answer. I worked in an orphanage once, when I was a student (for room and board). It wasn’t the best thing that could be imagined, but there were rules, there was discipline, there were no excuses, they went to school, study was enforced (part of my job), they couldn’t go roaming the streets at nigh (another part of my job) and it was “lights out” at 10:00 p.m. (enforcing that was also part of my job). It was up in the morning at 6:00, shower, Mass, (Catholic or not) breakfast and to school. Rooms had to be cleaned on Saturday morning right after breakfast. (all part of my job to enforce). If, after all the sanctions for misbehavior didn’t work, it was off to detention. They usually didn’t stay there long before they wanted to come back. Lots of them went on to trade schools or junior colleges. Lots joined the service in one branch or another. Some came back afterward (invitation only) to help run the place and give good role models to the younger boys. Some of those former “boys” who had been in the Marines were the best role models and disciplinarians (and recruiters) you ever saw. Those kids ended up regarding their fellows as their “family”, in the same sort of way men in the service see their fellow soldiers as their “family.”
I’m not sure there are better answers. I know it sounds harsh, but sometimes the drastic answers are the only answers.
M
mapleoak
Guest
You are to be commended for the work that you do/have done. God be with you.
But you do understand the context of the rhetorical questions I was originally asking another poster, right?
C
consumedconvert
Guest
My views and feelings on poverty?
I’m opposed to it, except in Franciscans.
I’m opposed to it, except in Franciscans.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Let me explain. Imagine you and four others sit down to play poker. Each of you have $100. At the end of the game, we add up the results:
You +$400
Player 1 -$100
Player 2 -$100
Player 3 -$100
Player 4 -$100
Sum $0
Nothing has been created, and amongst you, you have no more that you started out with. The characteristic of a Zero sum game is that for every dollar you win, someone else loses a dollar.
Now imagine you have $200,000 and have a contractor build a house for you. Let’s add up the results this time:
Contractor +$200,000
You -$200,000
Your house +$200,000
Sum +$200,000
Something has been created (a house.) This economic transaction is not a zero sum game at all – while you “lost” $200,000 in cash, you “won” $200,000 in the value of your new house. And the contractor also “won” $200,000.
R
rlg94086
Guest
S
Swan
Guest
Yes, I agree with you about our American urban poor - there is no doubt a different mentality at play here than with immigrants. I think part of it might be that those coming to the U.S., legally or not, in an effort to better their lives and the lives of their families, actually believe they can do that here, whereas many born here are more jaded and cynical when it comes to the U.S. as being the “promised land”, so to speak. And those kids (immigrants) see their families working hard whereas the uban youth whose mom is a druggie and whose dad is in jail might have few if any role models. I know we’re both generalizing here and I’m sure we can both think of exceptions. I’m really happy to see that you don’t p(name removed by moderator)oint a certain race. I work with a group of white people doing anti-racial work so I find this refreshing. Here in L.A. so many people point to the Hispanics and where I’m originally from (Nashville, TN) it’s the blacks. I heard not long ago that there are actually more white people on welfare than any other race, yet when folks talk about welfare, esp. its abuse, they usually single out a non-white race to point fingers at.
What part of the country are you in, if you don’t mind saying? City or rural? I haven’t lived in a rural area for a long time so don’t really know the circumstances of the rural poor. We have so many complications in the city, yet more services are available here as well.
S
Swan
Guest
I love it when folks who “make good” give back. I did my teacher training/grad work at a local Catholic college and 95% of my fellow students were Latinos who were teaching at Catholic schools in their old neighborhoods. They are great role models. The kids respect them because they know they’ve been there, you know? We also have a local charity run by a priest called Homeboy Industries. They have a bakery and I think other businesses. They also do gang tatoo removal, etc. It takes good people going into the trenches, I realize that you can’t just throw money at the problem, though these programs don’t run on air.
I realize I didn’t address the UN issue from your previous post. Yes, the UN is corrupt - I think we need an organization based on the founding principals but perhaps structured in a way that doesn’t lend itself to so much corruption - although it looks like no matter what we do there is always someone who finds a way to cheat the system. But we can’t let that be used as an excuse to give up. We can all do a little something, IMO. It’s a failure to do anything, sort of armchair quarterbacking, that really gets me.
Also, I’m really glad that you’ve had such good experiences with Hispanics. The ones I’ve met are wonderful folks. The men and women in the teacher program were really great and I came to a new level of respect for them and their culture.
S
Swan
Guest
I’ve copied the below from a thread in the Philosophy section that Ribozyme started (hope you don’t mind, I just feel it says so much and that these folks hadn’t seen it). I post it in answer to the nanny state implications made by a previous poster. I think this is as good an argument as you’re going to find to rebut the idea that the state has no role in social justice/poverty reduction:
*I read this from The Open Society and Its Enemies chapter 17m and I thought it would be relevant here.
Quote:
*I believe that the injustice and inhumanity of the unrestrained “capital system” described by Marx cannot be questioned; but it can be interpreted in terms of what we call… the paradox of freedom. Freedom, we have seen, defeats itself if it is unlimited. Unlimited freedom means that a strong man is free to bully one who is weak and rob him of his freedom. … Nobody should be at the mercy of others, but all should have a right to be protected by the state.
Now I believe that these considerations, originally meant to apply to the realm of brute-force, of physical intimidation, must be applied to the economic realm also. Even if the state protects its citizens from being bullied by physical violence (as it does, in principle, under the system of unrestrained capitalism), it may defeat our ends by its failure to protect them from the misuse of economic power. In such a state, the economically strong is still free to bully one who is economically weak, and to rob him of his freedom. Under these circumstances, unlimited economic freedom can be just as self-defeating as unlimited physical freedom, and economic power may be nearly as dangerous as physical violence; for those who possess a surplus of food can force those who are starving into “freely” accepted servitude, without using violence. And assuming that the state limits its activates to the suppression of violence (and to the protection of property), a minority which is economically strong may in this way exploit the majority of those who are economically weak.
If this analysis is correct, then the nature of the remedy is clear. It must be a political remedy - a remedy similar to the one which we use against physical violence. We must construct social institutions, enforced by the power of the state, for the protection of the economically weak from the economically strong. The state must see to it that nobody need enter into an inequitable arrangement out of fear of starvation or economic ruin.
This, of course, means that the principle of non-intervention of an unrestrained economic system has to be given up; if we wish freedom to be safeguarded, then we must demand that the policy of unlimited economic freedom be replaced by economic intervention of the state.*…
In this way, the Marxian view is analogous to the liberal belief that all we need is “equality of opportunity”. We certainly need this. But it is not enough. It does not protect those who are less gifted, or less ruthless, or less lucky, from becoming objects of exploitation for those who are more gifted, ruthless, or lucky.
Regarding intervention, Popper warns that it too is extremely dangerous, but he does not argue against it. Of course, Popper disagrees with Marx that unlimited economic power is the root of all evil; instead, he believe that uncontrolled power in any form is dangerous, and a democracy provide a means to control such power since people are freely able to change their rulers in a bloodless fashion. However, I am somewhat surprised that Karl Popper explicitly promoted economic intervention in The Open Society and Its Enemies since he admired Hayek’s work (he is considered to be a major apologist of laissez-faire economics and was generally opposed to state intervention). I do agree with Hayek’s assertion about how a totally planned economy is not feasible because it is impossible for the central planners to have access to the necessary information to perform such a task. They cannot possible have information about everyone’s preferences and desires, nor do the have adequate information about supply and demand of goods to effectively conduct economic policy. Regardless, I do agree with Karl Popper that the role of the state should protect the economically weak which, of course, is an aberration of John Locke’s assertion that the government’s function is to simply protect private property. Contrary to Locke’s original view, limited government is not enough to ensure the liberty of the disadvantaged. I am a liberal because I believe that libertarians are generally myopic about the economic coercion (although they are passionately against physical coercion) of the economically unfortunate and such an approach is not conducive to bettering the lot of the economically disadvantaged.
Although taxing the economically privileged is a limitation of their liberty, John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice argues that this is acceptable from the perceptive of the original position. For example, if you do not know who you would become before you were born (a position of imperfect knowledge called “the original position”), you would rationally support a system of moderate redistribution to provide a safety net if you were born in an unfortunate position (such as not having enough wealth or skills to earn a descent wage). From the perspect of the original position, one would agree with Popper that equality of opportunity is not enough. Because of this, redistribution is ethically justified even if it does involve coercion. I do not think private charity alone is capable of doing this.
“Oh, you know, this is the thing that we have to learn, that we are fallible, and we make mistakes.” - George Soros
dieoff.org/ *
*I read this from The Open Society and Its Enemies chapter 17m and I thought it would be relevant here.
Quote:
*I believe that the injustice and inhumanity of the unrestrained “capital system” described by Marx cannot be questioned; but it can be interpreted in terms of what we call… the paradox of freedom. Freedom, we have seen, defeats itself if it is unlimited. Unlimited freedom means that a strong man is free to bully one who is weak and rob him of his freedom. … Nobody should be at the mercy of others, but all should have a right to be protected by the state.
Now I believe that these considerations, originally meant to apply to the realm of brute-force, of physical intimidation, must be applied to the economic realm also. Even if the state protects its citizens from being bullied by physical violence (as it does, in principle, under the system of unrestrained capitalism), it may defeat our ends by its failure to protect them from the misuse of economic power. In such a state, the economically strong is still free to bully one who is economically weak, and to rob him of his freedom. Under these circumstances, unlimited economic freedom can be just as self-defeating as unlimited physical freedom, and economic power may be nearly as dangerous as physical violence; for those who possess a surplus of food can force those who are starving into “freely” accepted servitude, without using violence. And assuming that the state limits its activates to the suppression of violence (and to the protection of property), a minority which is economically strong may in this way exploit the majority of those who are economically weak.
If this analysis is correct, then the nature of the remedy is clear. It must be a political remedy - a remedy similar to the one which we use against physical violence. We must construct social institutions, enforced by the power of the state, for the protection of the economically weak from the economically strong. The state must see to it that nobody need enter into an inequitable arrangement out of fear of starvation or economic ruin.
This, of course, means that the principle of non-intervention of an unrestrained economic system has to be given up; if we wish freedom to be safeguarded, then we must demand that the policy of unlimited economic freedom be replaced by economic intervention of the state.*…
In this way, the Marxian view is analogous to the liberal belief that all we need is “equality of opportunity”. We certainly need this. But it is not enough. It does not protect those who are less gifted, or less ruthless, or less lucky, from becoming objects of exploitation for those who are more gifted, ruthless, or lucky.
Regarding intervention, Popper warns that it too is extremely dangerous, but he does not argue against it. Of course, Popper disagrees with Marx that unlimited economic power is the root of all evil; instead, he believe that uncontrolled power in any form is dangerous, and a democracy provide a means to control such power since people are freely able to change their rulers in a bloodless fashion. However, I am somewhat surprised that Karl Popper explicitly promoted economic intervention in The Open Society and Its Enemies since he admired Hayek’s work (he is considered to be a major apologist of laissez-faire economics and was generally opposed to state intervention). I do agree with Hayek’s assertion about how a totally planned economy is not feasible because it is impossible for the central planners to have access to the necessary information to perform such a task. They cannot possible have information about everyone’s preferences and desires, nor do the have adequate information about supply and demand of goods to effectively conduct economic policy. Regardless, I do agree with Karl Popper that the role of the state should protect the economically weak which, of course, is an aberration of John Locke’s assertion that the government’s function is to simply protect private property. Contrary to Locke’s original view, limited government is not enough to ensure the liberty of the disadvantaged. I am a liberal because I believe that libertarians are generally myopic about the economic coercion (although they are passionately against physical coercion) of the economically unfortunate and such an approach is not conducive to bettering the lot of the economically disadvantaged.
Although taxing the economically privileged is a limitation of their liberty, John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice argues that this is acceptable from the perceptive of the original position. For example, if you do not know who you would become before you were born (a position of imperfect knowledge called “the original position”), you would rationally support a system of moderate redistribution to provide a safety net if you were born in an unfortunate position (such as not having enough wealth or skills to earn a descent wage). From the perspect of the original position, one would agree with Popper that equality of opportunity is not enough. Because of this, redistribution is ethically justified even if it does involve coercion. I do not think private charity alone is capable of doing this.
“Oh, you know, this is the thing that we have to learn, that we are fallible, and we make mistakes.” - George Soros
dieoff.org/ *
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The area in which I live is “rural”, in the Ozarks, but somewhat different from most rural areas in that it is within an “economic zone” about 100 miles by about 50 miles in which around a million people live. Lots of jobs in manufacturing and service industries. Almost everybody is of Scots-Irish or English origin with nearly universal, but low-percentage, American Indian admixture. Pockets of Hispanics, many of whom are illegal. Very few blacks. Handful of oriental entrepreneurs, widely dispersed. I would not characterize the area as “typically rural” for those reasons. The “rural poor”, if measured by generally accepted definitions of “poverty”, vary. The great majority are employed and own homes, the latter being due to low housing cost and a certain native resourcefulness in asset acquisition. Very high church attendance. Socially and politically very conservative across all classes. Low crime tolerance. No labor unions of consequence. Virtually all whose children live in real want are those who, as I said, have opted for aversion to work and/or outlawry…character issues.Yes, I agree with you about our American urban poor - there is no doubt a different mentality at play here than with immigrants. I think part of it might be that those coming to the U.S., legally or not, in an effort to better their lives and the lives of their families, actually believe they can do that here, whereas many born here are more jaded and cynical when it comes to the U.S. as being the “promised land”, so to speak. And those kids (immigrants) see their families working hard whereas the uban youth whose mom is a druggie and whose dad is in jail might have few if any role models. I know we’re both generalizing here and I’m sure we can both think of exceptions. I’m really happy to see that you don’t p(name removed by moderator)oint a certain race. I work with a group of white people doing anti-racial work so I find this refreshing. Here in L.A. so many people point to the Hispanics and where I’m originally from (Nashville, TN) it’s the blacks. I heard not long ago that there are actually more white people on welfare than any other race, yet when folks talk about welfare, esp. its abuse, they usually single out a non-white race to point fingers at.
What part of the country are you in, if you don’t mind saying? City or rural? I haven’t lived in a rural area for a long time so don’t really know the circumstances of the rural poor. We have so many complications in the city, yet more services are available here as well.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And that is mostly due to government:
- We bulldozed “slums” and “ghettos” in the name of Urban Renewal. Now we have classy neighborhoods and shopping areas where poor people once lived and worked. The poor people were concentrated in “housing projects” where neighborhood identity was lost, and where there are too many poor to find jobs in the local area.
- We rewarded women for having children out of wedlock – and penalized families for having “a man in the house.”
- We – the government – failed to provide a quality education to the children of the poor.
- We raised the minimum wage to the point where these with no skills and no work history cannot find jobs.
- We persisted in this wrong-headed approach for generations, even though it was obvious it not only was not working, but was counter-productive.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You have just described Stone County, Arkansas.
Arkansas is number 48 in per-capita income, and Stone County is below the state average. The population makeup is as you described it – but people here manage, most of them without government assistance.
Our church, Saint Mary’s could serve as a good example – we aren’t even a parish. Yet we have fish fries and other activities to help our neighbors in need. When the Super Tuesday tornado ripped through town, the local churches responded – with shelter, hot meals, and so on. Saint Mary’s has a Catholic Charities Disaster Response team that is still working with some families hit by the tornado.
We take care of ourselves, we take care of our own.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Yup. I’m not far from where you are. Same people. And those jars in the convenience stores and restaurants with the homemade signs that say “need help with medical bills” or “need help with mortgage payments” have the recipient’s names on them because they’re not ashamed to ask, and you know it’s legit, and they fill up fast because you know the people half the time, or at least the families they’re from. And you can’t tell who’s rich or poor, most of the time, just by looking. And where else do you see short-bred heifers or fattened steers or just-overhauled 1953 Chev pickups at church fund-raising sales?
- Status