crazyml
Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC So I'd be thinking along the lines of: "So what sort tools must I provide so that everyone can, if they so choose, better themselves (education, transportation, etc.)? In addition, what sort of lifestyle must I provide such that they do not abandon hope (roof, food, health care, modest entertainment, etc)."? I just wish we would tackle these problems from a pragmatic standpoint rather than a moralistic one. I don't need to be a good person to understand that humans become dangerous when placed under substantial survival pressure. That, in my mind, is the basic equation. If I allow more widespread and more severe poverty I will also be increasing crime and civil unrest. In the extreme case I'd expect rebellion. So in a sense I am simply shifting costs for an aesthetic. I pay more for law enforcement and less for "entitlements" if I allow poverty to flourish. I also don't need to be a good person to understand that a person with access to education is likely to be more productive to society than one without. So providing effective education is more an investment in my mind than an entitlement. This. I support the ideas of a safety net and high quality universal healthcare and education (along with some other programs that some of the P&R regulars would describe as "commie claptrap") for deeply selfish reasons. I believe that a society that does not provide equality of opportunity is less likely to thrive, and I would prefer my children to grow up in a thriving society. So in my selfishness, I'm willing to pay a higher rate of tax - in fact "investment in the future" would be a better term for tax. Now.. the way we pick our politicians means that that investment is not always a wise one... but that's another issue. Poverty is commonly viewed in one of two ways (as one of the previous posters has mentioned) - relative poverty, and absolute poverty. Relative poverty, by definition, relates more to income inequality - people in the bottom quartile of the income spectrum are - relatively speaking - poor. This one doesn't keep me awake at night. Absolute poverty relates to the ability, economically, of a person to meet their (and their dependents') basic needs for shelter, warmth, and food. This one bothers me. As someone whose politics would be regarded as "way to the left" by many, I'm not uncomfortable with some people being relatively poor and others being wealthy, but I am uncomfortable with a society that creates barriers that prevent (or make it harder) for people from a poor background to succeed. In the UK, there are people that go without food. There are children whose only cooked meal each day is the free one provided at school by the state. There are children for whom torn and dirty clothes are not a fashion statement. That's unacceptable, not because I've got a bleeding heart, but because I - selfishly - don't want a potential Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to slip through the net. Now... do I think that the welfare system should pay for beer and cigarettes - Fuck no. Do I think that a 60in flatscreen tv is a "basic human right" - fuck no. But food, shelter, clothing, and access to opportunity - Hell yeah.
_____________________________
Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.
|