Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The fact that movements to abolish them entirely get no political traction essentially means that they work as well as any massive infrastructure will ever work in a democracy.
|
I don't think I've ever met anyone who wanted to truly abolish the system.
There is a continuum along which the various levels of social support and equalization fall, ranging from one end which entails a complete eat-what-you-kill philosophy, and the other, upon which we see complete state confiscation and redistribution on an "equal" level. (I use quotation marks on equal simply because, as a side note, this usually ends up involving not a true equalization, but rather a redistribution based upon factors more to the liking of those in power than productivity. In some countries, this has involved being of the proper party, while, in others, it has involved being of the proper race or gender. It's still all subjective, based upon influence rather than any definable worth to humanity.)
Where we would like to see our system fall on that continuum depends on a number of factors, including our beliefs regarding the efficacy of the various economic models, our beliefs regarding personal responsibility, and simple feelings of charity and pity.
I no doubt fall more to one side of that continuum than do you, but neither I, nor anyone I know, occupies the end of that line. I'm probably your paradigm of the poor-hater here, and I suspect I fall much closer to the middle of that continuum than do you. I am more to that one side because I don't think redistributive reward systems work - see above - and because I have seen the systems part way out to that end fail, and the systems way out to that end fail miserably.
Also, I have seen us constantly redefine "poverty" over the years, such that programs that were to guarantee survival now serve to guarantee "self-realization". I have no doubt that, were we to continue moving your way, we would find some new emotional need to meet, the failure of which would mean "poverty". I am unwilling to finance your moving target simply so you can feel better about yourself.
But the main point of this post is, you need your demon out there, so you speak of the abolition of life for "the poor" - i.e., abolishing the systems of support - you need to know that I will laugh at dying children as I drink my undeserved champagne, because you cannot support the argument to move along the continuum with any more than "it feels good to me". This is not a "haters versus the compassionate" argument, it's simply a matter of how much we need or want to give to those who, for various reasons, can't get it for themselves.
(This would be an excellent opportunity for you to respond with some anecdote about a starving Los Angeles child who was trampled by Rush Limbaugh's coach-and-four. It would really be your best shot, because the other best shot I've seen - income inequality - means nothing in the absence of discussion of the question of, how many loaves of bread can "poor" people afford now compared to other times.)
Now, I'm going to go out and shoot some elderly people, in the interests of doing my part to abolish Medicare.
(Edited to add: When one is forced to go back and correct THAT many typos, one should probably conclude that the champagne has not yet worn off. Happy New Year, all.)
((Yes, even to the non-self-actualized. But buy your own goddamned champagne.))
Threaded Mode