It's been an ongoing issue, the poor, as well as how to deal accordingly with them. As it relates to scripture, the poor are dealt with on a level with mercy, as well as dignity. Leviticus Chapter 19:9,10 speaks of the gleaning process that occured during the harvest time in Israel. To those who owned the field, it was a requirement that the fruits that overstretched the boundary of his field were not to be gathered but were to be leftover for the widow, the orphans as well as the alien residents.It was a social saftey net that was set in place to assist those who were truly needy, and a loving and merciful provision that God had placed within the social structure of the Israelites of old times. It's a wonder to me at times, how many of us who were bible trained and were on a mission to try to assist and help people in a Godly mission, have somehow become callous and heartless with regard to thier feelings for the poor and under priveleged, as if it was some sort of disease that you could catch. There are things that have brought people to where they are that have nothing to do with being irresponsible, having not made better plans, not having saved enough money, or any variety of excuses that folks have given as to the reasons people come to be in need. $#!+ happens, it's life and I'm rather surprised by the out pouring of denounciations by those here who maybe more priveleged than others, who seem to have a self righteous stance regarding this whole issue. It's sad and I really wonder at times, just what kind of Jehovah's Witnesses some of you were. The poor you have always, Jesus said, but it was never always so black and white with regards to the treatment of them. There so much grey area that you need to consider. Yes there are those who drain the welfare system and those should be singled out and screened thru as it pertains to social services, but there also are some legitimately sick people who desperately need such services and they should be looked at as less than you, or beneath you. One day the hand that is so elegantly in many of your favors is certain to change. The self righteous attitudes of some of you here is deplorable. You might want to check yo'self before wreck yo'self. Life has a way of administering to the haughty and self righteous, a hand in life that you wouldn't wish on your worse enemy. The same people you pass by and overtake on the rungs of the ladder of life, you will see several of those same types of people going down the other side. Though no longer a practicing Jehovah's Witness anylonger, nor am I one who will ever set foot in a Kingdom Hall again, I still hold to some of the values that come from having been one, that of having sincere care and concern for other people. Especially those who were my family in the faith.
Health Care: A Right or a Privilege?
by prophecor 401 Replies latest members politics
-
-
wednesday
said many times many ways
karma is a bi*ch
those that show no mercy will have their judgment without mercy.
-
upside/down
those that show no mercy will have their judgment without mercy.
From who...?
u/d
-
FlyingHighNow
Time will tell. Or, do you think that we should go in the direction of becoming even more fierce, eliminating the weak, the incompetent, the fucked up, the parasites, the sensitive artists, the renegades, those whose values are nonmonetary/nonpower/noncompetition centered?
S
Social Darwinism and what I call a Back Door Holocaust, this is what many people, including some leaders in the US believe in, whether they've thought of it consciously or just believe it without analyzing it. No more value is placed on these type of people than what the Nazis and their ilk placed on them. Social Darwinism is a more subtle way to get rid of the weak, the deformed, the mentally ill, the poor, the less fortunate, whether they be good planners, poor planners or just in the path of a hurricane or tsunami. Just like the Nazis were eventually toppled, the present day Social Darwinists will be toppled, too. Good always triumphs over evil eventually. Hitler got what was coming to him: where is his Third Reich now?
Lisa, it's not up to you to save everyone. I know it isn't up to me to save everyone. Lending a hand and assisting the less fortunate isn't the same as saving everyone. Supporting goverment and private programs that help everyone is a good way to start. Not everyone who needs help is a lost cause. I've seen people falter, under extenuating circumstances, then receive loving help from family, friends, private and governmet programs and then rise up stronger than before. Not forgetting the kindness and generosity shown to them, they turn and help others. The quality of life for everyone is improved as the kindness multiplies.
I've been doing some research on Sweden and her welfare state. It's not a perfect system, but it's been very successful in providing services for and protecting Sweden's citizens, all of them, not just the wealthy, the lucky and the "good planners." The country enjoys prosperity even though the majority of it's companies are unionized, everyone has access to healthcare, help with rent, childcare and so on. The unemployment rate is not that big: it's less than 5 %.
Terry, I don't know what to say except that I'm very, very glad you're not in the position to legislate any of your ideas.
-
Satanus
I see both sides of this issue, and it's one of the things about which i puzzle. What is the best approach for the best possible for the most people for the long term??
Your foundation for that query ASSUMES the great number of people are more worthy than your self AUTOMATICALLY.S
T
Hmm. Possible. But, also possible that i like it to be there for me, if i need it. S
-
DanTheMan
I've been chewing on Terry's posts, and how they relate to my brother's situation.
My 41 year-old autistic brother Joe is by all accounts a person who has received far more tax-funded services in his life than what he has contributed economically.
My family is fortunate that many of these services exist, as if we had been forced to foot the bill for all the expenses of his adult life, we would all be much less better off financially, as just his medicine bills alone would run into many thousands of dollars per year, were there no government programs to assist him.
Of course the pure-capitalism objection to that is "why should society be forced to pay the expenses of a person who does not contribute?" But my response to that would be "why should my family be forced to pay for the expenses of a person that doesn't contribute? Where's our gain?" And if both were to refuse support, which it seems to me that that would be the case were we to apply your ideology both as a society and as individuals, where would that leave my brother? A homeless, seizure-prone person leading a nightmare existence.
Is that a cultural aesthetic that any society wants to cultivate? I just can't imagine that to be so. To the contrary, I would think that individuals living in poor societies would look with envy at a society that has such an abundance that it is able to provide tax-funded services to disabled individuals, regardless of whether or not they or somebody in their immediate family would directly benefit. The ability of affluent societies to alleviate some of the unimaginable suffering that it's less able members would experience were they born into poorer, more primitive areas of the world constitutes a significant part of what makes living in our society so freaking much better than living in rural China or India or some other place like that where the average person makes $500 a year or something.
"Red in tooth and claw" and "nasty brutish and short" are two of the phrases that come to my mind when I consider the sort of ideology espoused by libertarians such as Terry, and I certainly don't want to live in a world characterized by these phrases, nor do I think most people would.
-
Terry
Sorry, man, but what have you been smoking? ;-) I've seen so many die-hard marxists claiming that the only problem with "true communism" is that it has yet to be implemented, because people aren't mature enough yet to be benefitted by communism.
The number 1 reason why you have a "mixed-economy" (and there are many degrees of mixing to be observed in economies around the world) is because only the mixed models work for real people. The moment you start blaming peolpe for not living up to the ideals of one economic social or political system or another, you inadvertently admit that the system in question is a failure. Face it, or you'll never stop blaming "the people". In a democratic society you just have to come up with political or economic solutions which most people are ready to be convinced to accept.
Whether we like it or not, there will always be cynical bastards who will make use of "pure capitalism" or "pure communism" to their advantage and at the expense of the respectable followers of the true form of the true ideology. (sorry, for the irony, but there's no point in prescribing "true" ideologies for real people). Communist party notables and fat capitalist cats are not so different as we might sometimes think.Well, okay. Your dispute seems to be---not with Capitalism--but, with what people are calling Capitalism. At that point you invoke an analogy. When you invoke the analogy the argument becomes a Straw Man inadvertantly. Not your intention, surely.
There was indeed a time early on in our history when we were very close to laissez faire Capitalism and the workability of it was astounding.
What people hated about it was that it did not pretend to be Altruistic! It was never touted as "the best way to achieve the common good". Its moral justification lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's surval AS MAN, and that its ruling principle is the JUSTICE that stems from ONLY getting what you DESERVE through what effort you expend.
COMMUNISM advertises a kind of JUSTICE that allows nobody to excel __at the expense__of the group. Which is to say: forced sharing to create equality.
CAPITALISM advertises: may the best man win!
It is the unfettered competition of the good/better/best ideas in the market place which CAPITALISM strives for.
The damage done to this idea over time is everywhere apparent. GOVERNMENT CONTROLs!
Laissez faire Capitalism means "hands off" to the government controls.
In a Capitalist setting human relationships are VOLUNTARY. Men are free to co-operate or not as their OWN JUDGEMENT dictates. Under the other forms of economy mentioned it is the FORCE of Government which dictates who does what and who benefits.
Certainly there has accrued a foul-smelling history of government tampering with the free market over and over. Always this is under the guise of "fairness". However, the true story of it all is the powerful legislators wielding controls to redound to their benefit.
Just look at the auto industry. Our government can place high Tariffs on foreign made (superior quality) automobiles so that the domestic-made slapdash products won't be punished financially by an enlightened consumer public! END OF MARKET FORCES!
Over and over Capitalism has taken blow after blow until it hardly resembles what it represents.
Yet and still-with all this said: capitalism has given AMERICA the largest successfull history of progressive achievement the world has ever seen. The movers and the shakers never choose a Socialist enviornment in which to grow their fortunes. Look at the fiasco that Russia turned into when investment in that blossoming democracy turned into the rape and pillage of a nascent economy.
We have the right to own and control (mostly) our own property here in America. We can create something and protect our interest in the control of it through copyright laws and patents. Despite tax burdens and bureaucratic redtap--our economy continues to grow ONLY BECAUSE OF THE OPPORTUNITY implicit in the heart of Capitalism.
Under Capitalism, for the very first time, the poor and the starving had OPPORTUNITY to succeed in stablizing their future through investment, creativity, talent and hard work. The standard of living grew by leaps and bounds as a result of this system.
Today a poor family in America has a satellite dish, cellphone, microwave oven, color tv, X-box, central heat and air and so many amenities created by the overflow of successful innovations of Captialism that these same poor people don't have any idea what European pre-Capitalist poverty was all about.
Statism, government control, socialism and coerced equality cannot stand a close comparison to the historic fruits of Capitalism.
T.
-
SixofNine
But not the historic fruits of "true" Capitalism, eh?
-
Terry
I've been chewing on Terry's posts, and how they relate to my brother's situation.
My 41 year-old autistic brother Joe is by all accounts a person who has received far more tax-funded services in his life than what he has contributed economically.
My family is fortunate that many of these services exist, as if we had been forced to foot the bill for all the expenses of his adult life, we would all be much less better off financially, as just his medicine bills alone would run into many thousands of dollars per year, were there no government programs to assist him.
Of course the pure-capitalism objection to that is "why should society be forced to pay the expenses of a person who does not contribute?" But my response to that would be "why should my family be forced to pay for the expenses of a person that doesn't contribute? Where's our gain?" And if both were to refuse support, which it seems to me that that would be the case were we to apply your ideology both as a society and as individuals, where would that leave my brother? A homeless, seizure-prone person leading a nightmare existence.
Is that a cultural aesthetic that any society wants to cultivate? I just can't imagine that to be so. To the contrary, I would think that individuals living in poor societies would look with envy at a society that has such an abundance that it is able to provide tax-funded services to disabled individuals, regardless of whether or not they or somebody in their immediate family would directly benefit. The ability of affluent societies to alleviate some of the unimaginable suffering that it's less able members would experience were they born into poorer, more primitive areas of the world constitutes a significant part of what makes living in our society so freaking much better than living in rural China or India or some other place like that where the average person makes $500 a year or something.
"Red in tooth and claw" and "nasty brutish and short" are two of the phrases that come to my mind when I consider the sort of ideology espoused by libertarians such as Terry, and I certainly don't want to live in a world characterized by these phrases, nor do I think most people would.
I'm not a LIBERTARIAN!
Libertarians are anarchists. Anarchists know how to tear down and not how to build up.
Every man for himself is not the way I want to live nor an enviornment friendly to families.
Now, having said that---let me address your situation.
Who is responsible for the "other" guy's problems? That is the essence of your situation.
A success has many fathers and a failure is an orphan---is the old saying.
You rightly cringe at having to bear the entire financial burden of a brother who needs profound care at a profound financial cost. Who wouldn't?
But--this is the sort of burden which has two possible means of solution. Let us examine them.
1.Voluntary aid by any/every person so inclined both financially and through hands-on effort in the form of time or money contributed. This might include religious people who feel compelled by their creed to assist those in need. The point of this is that the effort would be entirely VOLUNTARY.
2.Compulsory deductions from non-willing citizens who have no recourse but to comply to the enforced removal of funds from their paycheck to be distributed according to the policies of others.
Which one falls into the category of a FREE COUNTRY of FREE CITIZENS whose power of choice is honored and who's ability to decide is respected?
It is not unlike the person who is childless who owns a home and who is taxed by the local School District. There is an implicit unfairness to the compulsory aspect of being compelled to pay for something you don't yourself use.
Anybody who tells me I should be FORCED to help somebody to do something is holding a gun to my head after a fashion and is no better than an outlaw in the old west who holds up the stagecoach.
I have no doubt whatsoever that there would be more than enough voluntary participants to compensate for those who do not wish to help out any cause.
Let us take a look at the nature of JEHOVAH'S WITNESS CHARITY.
JW's are compelled by the governing body authority to do what they do and the result is they are the LEAST CHARITABLE of all religions! In any national emergency they will ONLY help their own (fellow JW's) and ignore the pain of strangers. Whereas, the so-called "worldly" religious people give endlessly of their time and money and effort to help people who do not share the same church roof as they do.
Who really is the better off of the two groups?
Any compulsory situation kills off the giving spirit.
That is worth considering.
T.
-
Terry
Leviticus Chapter 19:9,10 speaks of the gleaning process that occured during the harvest time in Israel. To those who owned the field, it was a requirement that the fruits that overstretched the boundary of his field were not to be gathered but were to be leftover for the widow, the orphans as well as the alien residents.It was a social saftey net that was set in place to assist those who were truly needy, and a loving and merciful provision that God had placed within the social structure of the Israelites of old times.
The responsiblity was placed on the poor themselves to go in to the field and pick up the leftovers. It was not gathered by government agents from the landholder and distributed to the doorstep of the widow with the orphan. The effort was individual. "if they do not work neither let them eat" is to be found in your Christian Greek Scriptures and I hardly think that is charitable sentiment.
T.