Thursday, October 16, 2008
I think I need to clarify what I said in my last post. I do not believe that we have an "obligation" stemming from some overarching ethical code to redistribute income in order to assist people in poverty. I do, however, believe that a realistic approach to modern society requires that we provide assistance to those living at exceptionally poor levels. If we want to fight crime and the other problems that follow poverty, a pragmatic outlook leads us to address the problem at its core. The "moral necessity" I spoke of is not a moral necessity to assist but one to protect the rights of all Americans (in all classes) who are threatened by the effects of poverty. If this requires money, it is no more inappropriate or contradictory to a capitalistic ideology than any other funding dedicated to programs like law enforcement, defense, and public works. To me, all of this is necessary to maintain a "social system that leaves men free to achieve, to gain and to keep their values." Dreams of total individual independence are utopian ideals which cannot be realistically cast upon a functional, modern society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i think dreams of a society where everyone is equal is an unrealistic utopian ideal!! We must not give up our values for the excuse "It's not realistic." A lot of people would agree that alleviating poverty completely in the most unrealistic goal of all...poverty will ALWAYS exist. Furthermore, by "protecting the rights of everyone", you are violating the rights of others. You cannot take away money from one and give it to another. Concerning defense spending and law enforcement, money is taken from all but everyone receives the benefits. This "common good" idea and "redistribution of wealth" is trash.
Molly, I like your quote about the corneas of a man's eyes. Although I don't agree, I think it is an excellent example of the principle you are trying to explain. For that matter, all of your quote serve as a great point of discussion.
However, I agree with Erik's point. I don't think the objective is to create a society where "everyone is equal." I also recognize your statement that eliminating poverty is an unrealistic goal, for there is a lot of truth in that statement. Poverty, like any other social ill, will continue to exist. However, I do think it is realistic to provide assistance to those who are destitute.
Molly notes that programs such as law enforcement takes money from all "but everyone receives the benefits." I think it is wrong to assume that programs combating poverty do not also have a benefit for everyone. Not only does it benefit those who are in need of help, it also can alleviate social ills that plague our entire society (the rich included). In an article from the Christian Association for Prison Aftercare, it was stated that, "poor people make up the overwhelming majority of those behind bars as 53% of those in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration." Assisting those most in need (whether or not this means taxing those who are more wealthy) not only solves issues of poverty, it also benefits the wealthy and those removed from poverty. With such a noticeable connection between poverty and crime, I firmly believe that it is in the best interest of everyone so combat these social ills (not simply through charitable donations, a topic I will elaborate on shortly). None of these aims are attempts at "utopian ideals"; instead, it is a recognition that effects of poverty and destitution affect all citizens in some way, and that, although the system will never be perfect, it is reasonable and practical that assistance be given to those in need.
Furthermore, I would like to comment more on the "redistribution of wealth issue" that you mentioned. In your earlier post you mentioned that you contributed to different charitable organizations. I find this admirable, and wish that a larger portion of the population similarly embraced this approach. However, private contributions to charitable organizations will never serve as a practical solution to the poverty crisis in the United States and around the world. Ironically, in a recent study by the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost "30 percent more of their income" to charitable institutions. In an interview with the United Way Director in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, more contributions of over $500 come from those making under $35,000 -- more than any other income bracket. I find these statistics very interesting, because it illustrates the importance of empathy in the discussion of poverty. Those who are most familiar with the conditions of poverty, those who have been in situations of need themselves, are most likely to give to charitable organizations. Though the rich do giver more money, it accounts for a lower overall percentage of their total welfare. This is one of the many reasons that I believe that it is wrong to issue claims of "personal responsibility" and the importance of individual charitable contribution. Although I am in no way denouncing the value of individual contribution (or personal responsibility for that matter), I just believe that these are not feasible ways of addressing a problem that cannot be ignored.
I resent the term "redistribution of the wealth" because there is no "wealth" being distributed to those in need. It is distributing the bare minimum necessities of life. These are necessities that, as Erik mentioned, we afford to our most despised convicts and prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. For that matter, many people in situations of poverty commit crimes simply so they can go to jail, have food, and a place to sleep. There is sometime wrong with our system if those in poverty are committing CRIMES simply so they can receive the necessities of survival in a state or county jail. Regardless of the reasons (laziness, need, addiction, mental/physical disability), we must provide the basic necessities of life. This is not a "utopian ideal."
Post a Comment