"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
I suspect that pretty much everyone sees the VERY poor (and I do mean the VERY poor) as less than human sometimes, so offended by the obvious truth, not so much so.
Afterall, it's very hard sometimes to see as human the homeless people one encounters begging on the freeway entrance, lying on the streets, living in tent cities etc.. and often times one wishes they would just stop annoying one as well (as in: "I'm so sick of them here begging for money"). But actual political power is a different thing than getting silently annoyed at a homeless person on a freeway on-ramp, and the rich have it more than anyone, so society reflects their actual preferences much more than my annoyance.
Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 5-28-17 at 2:27pm.
Trees don't grow on money
well some rich people think only of themselves and how to make more money. As long as their family and cronies are benefiting. . Some rich people enjoy the fruits of their labor and also are generous and philanthropic. I would probably be defined as rich however I started at the other end of the spectrum. My sibs and I were taken from our home and ended up in foster care. If government programs did not help us I cannot imagine where we would be. Who cares about biracial orphans? Lucky for us the government did.
Fast forward 40 years and we ended up nurses, social workers and an engineer. It did not happen without the safety net. We have all paid back many times the help we received. And none of us were disabled. Can you imagine in your wildest dream what would have happened to us if anyone was not pretty smart. What if we had a disability?
Some people get served a shit sandwich. If we had not benefitted from government programs we might have ended up prostitutes or dead. We were not losers, parasites or takers. And we have all given back through service and taxes many times what was given to us.
Flowers: That is an amazing story; thanks for sharing with us!
ANM: I think there's a defense mechanism whereby people perceive others as less than human (e.g. slave owners in the American south, Germans in Germany during WW2) to defend against the horrible thought of "that could be me or my loved ones!"
While I respect the story, it must be acknowledged that prior to Roosevelts "New Deal" and Johnsons "Great Society" many orphans, poor and unlucky people were born with little opportunity and made similar successes of themselves without government reliance.
LDAHL posted a truth that should be understood. Good government is a reflection of a moral people. A government system can not make good stewards of its people. Giving credit to the government for individual success undermines your own freedom and autonomy. I do not wish to succeed as a result of government policies.....I wish to succeed despite them. And the best scenario is that I succeed without its many interferences where it is not needed in the first place.
flowerseverywhere....charity was not the invention of government. Good people, like you and your siblings define it and make it possible.
This is a chicken and egg argument that can go round and round. Yes, government is a product "of the people, by the people and for the people." No, none of us make it "on our own" without government policies and infrastructure. Yes, those policies were created by our three branches of government. No, it is not wrong to expect our government to support our values, nor is it possible for the government NOT to support them unless you are a strict libertarian.
What is success? Is your success built on the backs of other people? Is your success due to the advantages granted to you by family? Were those advantages given to your family through the laws and policies of the government? Did our elected officials determine the level of "charity" based on our votes? Of course. Should government support even be called "charity"?
What is government interference? The laws that protect churches from taxation? The laws that permit a woman control over her own body? The laws that enabled the South to be desegretated? The laws that determine that minor drug offenders land in jail? The laws that permit the poor and infirm to access to out tax dollars for medical purposes? Whose morality are these laws meant to uphold? Which of these laws do you support and which do I support? If you support different laws that I do, are you more "moral" than I?
Point being, the tension between government and morality is constantly in flux and impossible to untangle. You may think that there should be NO government interference other than collecting the necessary funds to pay our bills. That's fine. But that's a value judgement in and of itself. Some say it's the duty of government to promote the general welfare (that was the writers of the Constitution)--it's up to us to decide where that line is drawn.
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
some did but many of us have relatives helped a lot by say the G.I. Bill. Many succeeded then in ways that just aren't even applicable now, like high school drop outs succeeded, but very few parents that actually want success for their kid would recommend that path. They would recommend something far more conventional: graduate high school or at least get a G.E.D. then ideally go to college (but try to limit debt while doing so, unless quite certain it will pay off) or if that's absolutely untenable based on one's personality, find a way to apprentice or train for a lucrative trade etc.. Why? Because it's advice that is much more tailored to the modern world than how someone succeeded in 1910, which is likely to lead to almost *spectacular* failure in the modern world.While I respect the story, it must be acknowledged that prior to Roosevelts "New Deal" and Johnsons "Great Society" many orphans, poor and unlucky people were born with little opportunity and made similar successes of themselves without government reliance.
While there are political policies that have made things much worse economically than anyone can defend (including things like outsourcing jobs), the modern world is so different from the world in say 1910, that it is literally *never* going to be that world (technology, population increases globally and nationally etc.).
Morality and financial success have very little to do with each other. I suppose it is possible to be such a rotten person, that karma bites one back hard, and one makes enough enemies to undermine their success as noone is on one's side anymore. But on the other hand, many people have chosen at any (or many) given points in their life to take a less lucrative job over one that was more morally dubious. And so their rewards for doing so are certainly not in terms of financial success, which may have been greater otherwise. But then they are presumably people with enough character not to measure themselves primarily by financial success anyway (although in this culture it can be tempting and of course money is still practically useful).
very few people live by that degree of autonomy, it's very rare no matter what people pretend (observation tends to show otherwise). And I think those who do probably have a harder time of it, and I probably come far closer than most, to relying on noone but oneself (I obviously don't mean in a survivalist sense). They may not rely on the government, but most people rely on spouses/lovers, rely on their parents etc.. And they get A LOT of help here, their parents have been doing stuff to help them get ahead from day 1 pretty much, and I don't just mean "oh we had enough to eat and never went hungry growing up" although even that is helpful, I mean making sure they go to good schools etc.. Their lives are heavily planned actually they just don't tend to see it, because they are like a fish in water. Some people have no such advantages and it makes all the sense in the world for them to take government help instead even if it's just a grant to go to college for low income people etc. (the help can be a help or a hindrance but it has nothing to do with government help per se - it's probably far more often a help). Because really very few other successful people are doing it without help of some sort either.Giving credit to the government for individual success undermines your own freedom and autonomy.
Trees don't grow on money
They may not rely on the government, but most people rely on spouses/lovers, rely on their parents etc
I am not sure I can agree with that line.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)