reply to post by charles1952
That makes me think that you're suggesting that the State can take anything from anybody if the State determines that that individual doesn't
need it. Not surprisingly, that position frightens me.
I can't imagine any household needing more than one car per adult driver, or needing a gun, or your crazy neighbor's marble collection with 320,000
marbles. The idea that anything we don't need is the State's bothers me on a philosophical basis, even before we get to the problem of
I'll try to make my position more clear, but don't count on it being accurate and savvy in terms of economics; I am not very well versed in such
I hold my position based on what I see going on around me, and what I gather from images and stories on the web. I see a lot of desperate poverty in
some parts of the city, and in parts of the entire world, including First World countries, where abject hopelessness leads to stagnation and apathy.
If a person feels trapped and lives among unemployed, hopeless, angry people, they are at a distinct disadavantage should they choose to try to pull
themselves out of it.
An overarching depression and listlessness settles on an entire community. Depression is contagious; and when a child is carried by a depressed,
stressed mother (or a crack-addict) they are immediately subjected to those same damaging circumstances. Their infant brains begin to grow in that
environment, and of necessity, they learn "survival" skills that at some point become permanent. A child who grows up surrounded by
life-threatening instability, violence, want, and distracted, unfit parents will not develop into a contributing member of society.
attentive, caring adult can alter a trajectory, but we must be realistic about the dearth of caring adults in some of those
communities. But when one has a parent or care-giver who is struggling to survive and cope, using faulty skills, one does not
grow into a
healthy, well-adjusted person.
Nevertheless, that person is sexually viable and then more children are born. It's a cycle.
In adjacent areas, there are people who have so much that they never learn the value of hard work, of prioritizing, of extending themselves to reach
out to their fellow citizens. All they know is luxury, and how to keep up with their neighbors' luxurious lifestyles.
They despise the poor, who they see as lazy scum, and the poor despise them in return. That does not make for a cohesive community. Now, if the
wealthy Mrs Money comes over to the falling-down house of the extended family of baby Destitute and offers to help get the house above "unfit"
conditions, does that hurt Mrs Money? No. Does it help her? Possibly, if she can appreciate the intangible rewards of being a compassionate person.
Does it hurt the Destitutes? No. Does it help them? Yes, and if Mrs Money offers to exchange this help for help in return, say, trimming her hedges,
both people have gained even more, and baby Destitute will have a slim shot at living a decent life.
I never said anything about excess belonging to "the State", and I don't think that's the answer. I'm not a communist. I just think that
hoarding wealth and spending one's time trying to figure out where and how to hide it from the rest of society, who desperately needs it, is
People should not be starving to death, anywhere. Typhus and cholera and malaria should not be a problem anymore. But they are. While the uber-rich
are choosing which yacht to purchase or signing papers for yet another summer home in the Hamptons, people are
dying of starvation, or of
I just can't begin to fathom how that's okay. How callous to see these things happening, and not want to make it better.
But, I know that not everyone sees things that way, or feels the least bit of compassion for fellow human beings.
I live in the middle class, where people are decent to one another and helpful, not murderously desperate, nor callously selfish.