It is a problem right-thinking societies have always had to wrestle with: no matter how rich, advanced, or well-ordered a society is, there will always be an underclass of people whose lives are less comfortable (poverty is relative) than the rest of the populace. It seems to be a natural settling process in eco-social relationships: certain people will always do better than the rest, some will underperform, ergo, there will be inequality.
Boom times shuffle things around, bettering the lot of all, but they cannot be sustained. Human activity cannot proceed at full tilt all the time. Things fall into disorder and have to be rearranged, imbalances occur, and the economy has to recharge through the saving that occurs during a recession. However, this hurts those who do not have enough to save (or lack the discipline to do so.) Government income redistribution is generally accepted as a solution. However, the value of this does not stand up to scrutiny, no matter the altruism at play. It is not morally defensible--at their base, such programs are little more than Robin Hood all over again, only with the help of the Sheriff of Nottingham. The legality of it does not change the fact that it is not a solution desirable to have in a truly free society. In addition, these programs never have the intended affects--they produce dependency, laziness, government debt, and a mindset of tolerance toward government interference. Plus, they never get everyone. There are always people who slip through the cracks. It is apparent that poverty is a fundamental flaw in human society, one that is a natural byproduct of liberty; i.e., true liberty must include the "freedom to fail" as well as the freedom to succeed. Yet at the same time it is evident to anyone with a smidgen of idealism and humane feeling that there must be a "safety net" someplace to keep those who fail (due either to their own fault or through genuine misfortune) from becoming irretrievably miserable and possibly dead, through neglect. To not have such a thing would be callous in the extreme. This leads us again to government programs, since the government is the only authority that we all recognize to, well, govern our societies' comings and goings this way. But even in the era of the modern welfare state there are still many who exist on the streets, unhelped and unaffected by it.
Having depressed myself by this philosophizing on unsolvable problems, I will now proceed to consider forms in which a solution may be found, one which will be in line with ideals of human conduct. Hopefully I'll think of something not totally impractical, though a certain level of impossibility is guaranteed by the very nature of the problem. We'll see.
(To be continued, hopefully.)
Boom times shuffle things around, bettering the lot of all, but they cannot be sustained. Human activity cannot proceed at full tilt all the time. Things fall into disorder and have to be rearranged, imbalances occur, and the economy has to recharge through the saving that occurs during a recession. However, this hurts those who do not have enough to save (or lack the discipline to do so.) Government income redistribution is generally accepted as a solution. However, the value of this does not stand up to scrutiny, no matter the altruism at play. It is not morally defensible--at their base, such programs are little more than Robin Hood all over again, only with the help of the Sheriff of Nottingham. The legality of it does not change the fact that it is not a solution desirable to have in a truly free society. In addition, these programs never have the intended affects--they produce dependency, laziness, government debt, and a mindset of tolerance toward government interference. Plus, they never get everyone. There are always people who slip through the cracks. It is apparent that poverty is a fundamental flaw in human society, one that is a natural byproduct of liberty; i.e., true liberty must include the "freedom to fail" as well as the freedom to succeed. Yet at the same time it is evident to anyone with a smidgen of idealism and humane feeling that there must be a "safety net" someplace to keep those who fail (due either to their own fault or through genuine misfortune) from becoming irretrievably miserable and possibly dead, through neglect. To not have such a thing would be callous in the extreme. This leads us again to government programs, since the government is the only authority that we all recognize to, well, govern our societies' comings and goings this way. But even in the era of the modern welfare state there are still many who exist on the streets, unhelped and unaffected by it.
Having depressed myself by this philosophizing on unsolvable problems, I will now proceed to consider forms in which a solution may be found, one which will be in line with ideals of human conduct. Hopefully I'll think of something not totally impractical, though a certain level of impossibility is guaranteed by the very nature of the problem. We'll see.
(To be continued, hopefully.)
No comments:
Post a Comment