A thought on the poor

[mahnmut]

How much a society is worth is measured not by the way it treats its Have-most-s, but by the way it treats its Have-not-s.

Thank you, Ani.

Reminds me of a good principle I know from mountaineering:

The group goes with the speed of the slowest walker.

Or else, it'll break up and you'll lose half your fellow mountaineers.

Also works for Arctic/Antarctic explorers. Which is why the frostbitten Lawrence Oates deliberately left Robert Scott's camp and plunged into the storm - to get his mates rid of himself, and give them a chance to proceed with increased speed. Of course it didn't end well, but you get the idea.

Maybe some of my conservative friends would propose that the poor get left out to die in the storm so that the rest of us could proceed with increased speed? I can see it at the tip of their tongue, but political correctness prevents (most of them) from pronouncing it.

Comments

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Why, I've heard the more sociopathic of them occasionally express such a sentiment.

The reasoning: if we don't leave some behind, all of us will die. That's nonsense. In fact if we don't leave the slowest behind we may proceed in a slightly slower speed, that's all. It's not like a society is constantly going through a permanent snow storm.

By the way Ani was spot on.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

we may proceed in a slightly slower speed, that's all.

Oh, but that's blasphemy! You want US to NOT finish FIRST across the line and LOSE the race? Shame on you! Shame!

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

What line?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

All lines are imaginary, they exist in the head of the megalomaniac.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The problem is, by leaving them behind, they don't actually die, they just get left further behind, dragging us backwards. Look at what's going to happen to us over the next century as we try to work out as a globe how to deal with the lack of resources we've left ourselves with. Trying to play this out as a zero sum game will mean everyone loses.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I think if someone's unwilling to look at it from the human POV, there's another way:

What if i say that by leaving the poor get further behind, society risks extremising them and revolutionising them, and pushing them toward desperation and hence, dangerous actions? Those who are concerned so much for the well-being of the middle and upper classes shouldnt forget what happened each time the poor were pushed to the brink of desperation.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Not being quite sure how serious your last sentence is.....


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Anyone talking of charity (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/172752.html)?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Ah, my friend, we were talking about leaving the poor, or rather sending them into the storm to die, being a secret conservative wish.
Charity probably doesn't mean the same thing to me me as it does to you, but that is a topic for another time.

I was assuming, perhaps incorrectly that this is all stemming from the "stranger amongst us" thread, which actually starts from a very shaky premise, which the whole goal of is to make Christians out to be unfeeling at best and evil at worst.

I am in pretty much full agreement with your exploitation post(s) but it's not really the same thing, at least to me. I do think that the exploitation problem is more of a capitalist type thing, and honestly I think there are as many liberal capitalists as there are liberal ones......except of course my country is the most capitalist of them all and "everyone knows" there are no true leftists in the U.S. (well I know it because I read TP :D)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The problem is, if you leave it up to individuals to decide who they donate to then many people end up getting nothing. How do you think drug addicts, AIDS victims and single mothers would fare if we were depending on right wingers to give charity?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Actually this gets into what is defined as charity, and what conservatives consider charity. Example: We have a very active "crisis pregnancy Center" in my small town, which supports unwed mothers. Also a very active homeless program, most of the homeless here are addicts, or recovering addicts.
These programs consist mainly of temporary provision while said people work thru their, hopefully temporary situations. They are provided with training, treatment, and many times, jobs.
Of course I admit this is easier in a small town (less than 140K) in a semi-self contained valley.

"many people end up getting nothing."
I submit to youthat this is a very loaded phase can could imply a lot, and I may infer from it more than you meant. Since it is past my bed time, I shan't go there tonight, besides I hate to jump to delusions.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I said being a secret wish of the most extreme conservatives. Apparently I'm excluding you :-P

No this stems from a good quote which I saw on TP, made by Ani. I've linked to it here. I liked the quote and I decided to expand on it.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Nietzsche would concur with the last paragraph...

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Nietzsche was such a nice inspiration for a whole type of new leaders, true visionaries for the brave bright future! ;-)