d0rkyd00d wrote:As much as I would like to, in my heart of hearts, believe that the effects of poverty are deleterious to society, to such an extent that it is worth alleviating to the greatest extent possible (providing food, shelter, clothing, medicines and other "necessities."), I must also be open to the possibility that the cost to resolving these issues would not lead to a net benefit for society, for whatever reason.
This seems to be the only argument for not addressing, with the utmost focus and to our best ability, the problem of poverty in the U.S. and elsewhere. I'm curious if there are valid arguments out there for why, for instance, our ROI from the war in Iraq is better than investment in anti-poverty programs.
K: our responses are driven by our assumptions...we assume that X, Y and Z are the
correct answers without actually getting into the situation.....
yes, purpose does play a role, but it is only one possibility....
we can work it out from several different possibilities....
where do we start from? do we start from a religious understanding or
do we start from a secular standpoint. For example, do we assume
that there is a god... do we assume there is no god... from this very basic
assumption we can derive several different understandings....
for example, if there is a god, let god take care of those in need or in poverty...
or we can take the St. Francis example and hold that if we cannot cloth those
in the world who are without, then we in solidarity, go without clothes ourselves....
what is the relationship between people? are we all related going back to Adam?
are we brothers and sisters going back to the bible? Are we simple people
who happen to live and work near each other? and what connects us is god?
or, or are we related animals that have evolved over the millions of years and in doing so,
we are not distant cousins, but we are related as brothers and sisters?
if we go back far enough, we become closer and closer in our relationship....
and if we go back far enough, at one time, there were only 3000 humans
on planet earth... everyone on earth comes from one of those 3000 people
and their is evidence that around 80,000 years ago, there was but one person
everyone on planet earth is descended from, they call her, surprisingly enough, Eve...
we human beings are descendants from a small group of people who lived around 70 or 80
thousand years ago.........
if we begin here, where we are closely related to each other, as we are, then
we cannot allow people to go hungry or be in poverty.....that would be no different
then allowing my own brother to be in poverty or one of my sisters to be in poverty.....
but then ask yourself, what kind of hatred or anger would let me keep my brother or
sisters to live in poverty? so the starting point is just as important as the final purpose....
then we arrive at the question of, what is the meaning or point of existence?
if the point of existence is as the conservative paints it, then its every man/human being for
themselves... we have no obligation or allegiance to anyone else outside of ourselves....
and should we have a family, then we extend that allegiance to the "immediate family"
and not outside of that immediate family......
but I hold as do most liberals, that we are not islands unto ourselves.....
we cannot, cannot survive without the help that comes from a society,
help that comes from a village of individuals who pitch together and
helps everyone, everyone regardless of their individual story.....
it takes a village is the story of the liberal
and rugged individualism is the story of the conservative...
so if it takes a village, then every single person who is suffering is
damaging to a village... for a village to stay strong and healthy, then
we must help every single person in that village, regardless of how we may
or may not feel about them personally....
I am quite happy that my taxes go to help people in need and people who are down
and out..... I am willing to pay to help people because I hold all people, even those
I don't like... (looking at you UR and observ) and I am willing to help even you out....
because if one person is in poverty and suffering, that means it damages the society
and the village we all live in....
my mom likes to say this:
we have a moral obligation to help people who are struggling even if they
don't want to be helped....
we have a moral obligation.....and in the end, it turns into a moral question...
that I cannot justify anyone being in poverty, (well maybe IQ45 I can justify)
but I can't justify anyone else being in poverty.....poverty is bad for the country as
it is bad for me personally....
and if Biden raises my taxes to feed and clothe the millions who are in poverty,
I am ok with that.... but to take my taxes and give them to the wealthy as tax cuts,
that pisses me off... because why is my money going to those who have enough
wealth to leave generations of their family in wealth.....
but this becomes another question....
what are the values we wish to support by our political system, by
our political choices and by our choices of where we put our collective money into......
that is another question...
Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....