Liberals: How Far Should We Go?

[Meh_Gerbil]

When it comes to helping victims of disasters, poverty and the like I have to wonder how far the average liberal thinks we should go in our efforts. Typically, the conservatives press for more 'personal responsibility' while liberals generally want to hand out as much as possible.

At what point are the handouts enough?

Take Katrina.

Here you have 100,000 desperately poor people.
Undoubtedly many of them were living on government checks for housing, food, and everything else. How long do you keep feeding an able bodied person? How much free education do you provide? How much free training and housing? Is it possible to give too much?

Lets set the handicap and elderly aside -- I think we can both agree that the handicapped and elderly need help.

Take Bob.
Bob is 32 years old, able bodied, and has been on some form of welfare since he was a baby. He's had ample opportunity for free schooling, free training, and free job placement but every job he gets he finds himself laid off after 5 months or less. This has been going on since he was 15. Bob spends most of his time watching TV, smoking pot, and trying to bed the neighbor gal.

Should Bob keep getting checks?
At what point do we just let Bob starve?

It seems to me the world is full of people who want a shot at what we have in the USA. For me, I don't care if Bob starves to death under a bridge, I'd rather see the money go to a family of Mexican Immigrants wanting to open a restaurant. I want the money to go to people who are gonna use it to get to the point where they don't need it anymore.

So can the dregs of society get to the point where you as a liberal are willing to say, "enough"?

[Duder]

Hello, MG -

Let me say first that I think human beings arose through evolution. Evolution is a process whereby the ill-adapted tend to die off and the better-adapted live and have offspring. In this way, over great spans of time creatures can take on some wonderful and complex characteristics like arms, legs, eyes and big brains (it is my view that it pleased God to set up a universe where this system would produce marvelous creatured like us, but that is beside the point).


If we were to take evolution as the final word concerning how human beings should act, then we shouldn't help Bob. The poor guy is ill-adapted, and if by some miracle Bob attracted a mate and had a child, he might pass on his poor adaptation if his lack of ambition has a genetic cause. For that reason, we should let Bob starve if our reverence for natural selection is stronger than any contravening sentiments. I think this is generally the point of view taken by hardcore laissez faire capitalists. The theory is called "social Darwinism" - you let the economically ill-adapted starve.

The trouble is, evoltion by natural selection isn't the whole story any more. Evolution has given humans a great brain, capable of going against the very principles of the evolutionary processes that produced it, if it wishes. We have developed (with God's approval, I think) emotions, values and morals that just don't seem to have much to do with the old survival-of-the-fittest strategy.

Maybe Bob never earned an honest buck in his life. But it is also possible that Bob has redeeming characteristics that others admire. Maybe Bob is the only person who visits his ailing mother in the rest home. Maybe he's the kind of guy who is quick to offer comfort and encouragement to others who are down. He could be one of those guys who's quick to make a joke that makes everybody laugh. Maybe he's even a Christian, and the greatest prayer-warrior in the parish. Maybe everybody shakes their heads at the foibles of poor, pot-smoking Bob the bum, but they love him nonetheless.

Maybe we value these things so much that we say the law of evolution should no longer hold sway. A person is more than his potential contribution to the gene pool or to the economy. Thoughts like this can give rise to liberal, bleeding heart sentiments that tend us to say there ought to be a safety net for every human being.

I say you give Bob what he needs to live. I am not qualified to say he does not deserve life.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Thank you for your response, Duder.

Do you think it is possible to have a society that can feed, cloth, and house people who are able, but simply refuse to work? Can you explain to me why those that are able to work and do so should provide for those who are capable but refuse to work?

I do appreciate in your answer that you've acknowledged value in human beings other than their work ethic.

[Meh_Gerbil]

I say you give Bob what he needs to live. I am not qualified to say he does not deserve life.

I must contest this sentence -- I don't think refusing to help someone that refuses to help himself is the same as denying them the life they deserve.

[Duder]

Thank you for your response, Duder.

Do you think it is possible to have a society that can feed, cloth, and house people who are able, but simply refuse to work? Can you explain to me why those that are able to work and do so should provide for those who are capable but refuse to work?

I do appreciate in your answer that you've acknowledged value in human beings other than their work ethic.

And I am glad to see that you, too, value human traits beyond those that contribute to our ongoing, physical evolution and our collective economic wealth.

I think we can take care of the bums without threatening the well-being of the whole society. Several months back there was a very interesting thread here about proposals that the govenrment should pay a basic sustainance entitlement to every citizen, and the evidence discussed led me to think this could worlk - and actually enrich our society. Give me some time to track down information about the idea and I'll come back better equiped to discuss it.

[Zeluvia]

I think it is partly a fallacy of the right that all poor people are lazy. We need to ask some questions here about poverty before we decide what we should do about it.

I think first off we need to ask and answer these questions:

1. What is poverty? People asked me that in another thread so I have been thinking about it.

2. What are the factors that contribute to an individuals inability to support themselves? Here is my short list:

a. Health
b. Education level
c. Location
d. Cultural considerations (I mean things like what social circle your parents were in, what kind of advantages you have from them, or disadvantages)
e. Innate abilities
f. Luck
g. Current economic state of the country
h. Value of workforce

Some of these are clearly out of the control of the government. Others the government CAN assist with.

Under this should be a social safety net to insure no one starves, and help people recover from events that are beyond their control, but the assumption that all poor are lazy really needs to be examined first.

[Arnold]

I think it is partly a fallacy of the right that all poor people are lazy.

I think it is a fallacy of the left that the right thinks that all poor people are lazy.

[Zeluvia]

Arnold, if you look at the premise of this post, its about Bob. The original poster postulates two things:

1. 100,000 of people from New Orleans are welfare recipients. I question this premise. Social Security covers the elderly and handicapped, does the poster include Social Security as "welfare"?

2. Some percentage of them are "Bobs". He gives a very detailed description of who Bob is.

From the tone of his post, I think he believes a high enough percentage of them are Bobs that we should be concerned about.

Actually an able bodied 32 year old man in the state I live in is NOT eligible for welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance,(unless he did work enough to earn it and then it's temporary) or any other government handout in the first place,(job training and re-education also only applies to specific subgroups of people, displaced workers, returning mothers, ex-cons) so I am wondering why the poster believes there is a large problem with "Bob".

I can only infer from his tone and his post he thinks that a there are a bunch of Bob's stealing his tax dollars so they can smoke pot and mess around with the neighbor.
I contend this view is a fallacy. When Bob does exist, he is usually living in his parents basement, or surviving off crime for which he will sooner or later get caught, and not dependent directly on any social systems.

[Arnold]

Arnold, if you look at the premise of this post, its about Bob. The original poster postulates two things:

1. 100,000 of people from New Orleans are welfare recipients. I question this premise. Social Security covers the elderly and handicapped, does the poster include Social Security as "welfare"?

2. Some percentage of them are "Bobs". He gives a very detailed description of who Bob is.

From the tone of his post, I think he believes a high enough percentage of them are Bobs that we should be concerned about.

Actually an able bodied 32 year old man in the state I live in is NOT eligible for welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance,(unless he did work enough to earn it and then it's temporary) or any other government handout in the first place,(job training and re-education also only applies to specific subgroups of people, displaced workers, returning mothers, ex-cons) so I am wondering why the poster believes there is a large problem with "Bob".

I can only infer from his tone and his post he thinks that a there are a bunch of Bob's stealing his tax dollars so they can smoke pot and mess around with the neighbor.
I contend this view is a fallacy. When Bob does exist, he is usually living in his parents basement, or surviving off crime for which he will sooner or later get caught, and not dependent directly on any social systems.

So take it up with the original poster and stop smearing conservatives...

[Duder]

I think it is a fallacy of the left that the right thinks that all poor people are lazy.

I think it is a fallacy of the right to think it is a fallacy of the left that the right thinks all poor people are lazy.

[Arnold]

I think it is a fallacy of the right to think it is a fallacy of the left that the right thinks all poor people are lazy.

I think... ahh never mind...

[Bagger_Vance]

I think you have to come to some sort of decision. Either you give him enough to keep him alive or you kill him. The reason for the stark contrasts is because if people don't have what they need they will take it. It is the for the sake of law and order that we maintain the welfare program and provide for those that have nothing. If you don't provide for them they will either die of starvation or of gunshot wounds when they riot and loot to live.

It follow the same logic of the public education system. We educate at the expense of the populace because it is in the interest of everyone that more people are educated and allowed to better themselves. We all go up together or we will all go down together. No man is an island.

[Meh_Gerbil]

To clarify my post: I use 'Bob' as an example -- but not as a definition of what all poor people are. Lets face the facts, there are rich lazy people too -- but the fact they are rich shields them from the fallout of their laziness.

I believe some people do need help and should get help -- but at times I feel as if it is a bottomless pit where no matter how much help is given it will never be enough and poverty will always be blamed upon those who aren't poor.

At what point does a person become responsible for the fact they are standing in 6 inches of water in their living room with no food and no shelter?

[Bagger_Vance]

To clarify my post: I use 'Bob' as an example -- but not as a definition of what all poor people are. Lets face the facts, there are rich lazy people too -- but the fact they are rich shields them from the fallout of their laziness.

I believe some people do need help and should get help -- but at times I feel as if it is a bottomless pit where no matter how much help is given it will never be enough and poverty will always be blamed upon those who aren't poor.

At what point does a person become responsible for the fact they are standing in 6 inches of water in their living room with no food and no shelter?

Compassion and mercy have little to do with responsibility. Isn't the whole thing in Christianity about the fact that Jesus makes it where you don't get what you deserve?

From a pragmatic standpoint I would rather not quibble about what people deserve and instead focus on the fact that hungry people won't stay hungry for long. I would rather give them a check collected from our largesse instead of having them rob me at the ATM.

[Zeluvia]

I would rather see the government address the equality of opportunity issues in a real and straightforward way.

For example, how could someone be both RICH and LAZY under our work ethic?

1. Lucky... won a lotto or something
2. Inherited it

If you won a lotto, you are in effect living off the "gambling" expenses of all those that lost, which is a form of wealth redistribution.

If you inherited it, you are in effect living off the work of your parents or grandparents, who worked their asses off so you didn't have too.

Any other ways I don't know about to be Rich and Lazy?