Registered: Jan 2001
Location: library
Posts: 19562

Ok, I wrote this a while back at home, with no internet to do so with, and well, I was half in the bag, so if you don't like it, or it just seems retarded, keep your fat trap shut, I hate you anyways.

For a while now I have been comtemplating this thread and the ideas brought up in it. It has been a niggling thorn in the back of my mind for quite some, as I see that there are arguements for "both" sides of the issue, though it is hardly black and white. iNute maintains that as civilized people we have a responsibility to care for those in need of help, and it doesn't seem that too many people disagree with that. The bone of contention seems to be the method, on one hand you have the desire to enact legislation in order to insure that all are cared for, and on the other hand you have those who favor voluntary charity.

The downside of legislated welfare programs is obviously the potential for abuse and the high overhead costs involved with bureacratic procedures and the potential for abuse. Legislation also breeds a sense of entitlement on one hand, and resentment on the other.

On the other hand with voluntary charity, there is the problem of selfishness leading to voluntary charity being inadequate, and in large part that charities are often the province of religious organizations.

I find myself a bit torn here, between my idealistic preference of free will and my dislike for human suffering. I say it is idealistic of me to prefer free will because it often seems that given free reign people will act in a selfish manner rather than sefless, though this is a broad statement and I have no definate sort of figures to back it up, nor do I think it is very quantifiable.

Fuck, ok this is a rambling, disorganized piece of shit, I lack the words to convey what I'm after and all may feel free to mock me, so I go on with rambling after the excuses.

So, the basic problem I've wrestled with is how to see that the less fortunate in our world are cared for without the interference of goverment, enforced charity, and yet not rely on "the basic goodness of humanity" and I have been turning it over in my mind and finding little.

Until recently.

There is one thing I can think of that has more power to affect the average person than any goverment, and that is social pressure.

I guess the closest thing I can think of to what I have in mind is what was referred to as "noblesse oblige" or "with riches come responsibility", but in a more general sense. What I guess I am shooting for here is "with humanity comes responsibility". It's difficult for me to put this into words, what I envisage. I shall slip into analogy, though that is something that is usually a clumsy tool prone to misconception. Take the social taboo in most societies against public nudity. )I must make an aside for a moment to say that this no comment on public nudity, simply the way it is dealt with in society at large, but I digress) In large part, there are social and even legal prohibitions against nudity, but think for a moment if tomorrow, all across the United States, all laws regarding public nudity were revoked. Would the streets be flooded with nude people(at least where the temperature supported such), everyone taking advantage of the new freedom to expose themselves? I highly doubt it. There would be a number of indiviualistic types who would probably instantly cast off their clothes and go for a stroll(myself among them) but the large part of the population, and I do mean large would continue to wear clothes whether conditions demanded it or not. Even those that went nude initially would likely return to wearing clothes a large portion of the time(again I include myself). Why would they do this if the law no longer required them to wear clothes and the weather remained fair? Social pressure, plain and simple.

So I'm blathering on about social pressure and what the fuck does this have to with the topic? Well, whether you are for voluntary charity or goverment endorsed welfare, I suggest you practice social pressure as a way to press forward the idea that we should take care of each other.

This may seem like I am advocating voluntary charity, and maybe I am, unless you accept social pressure as a greater force than law, which you may not, but here I have suggestions for "either" side of the question.

If you favor voluntary charity, by all means, express your view, do what you can to put it forward, and damn well make sure you contribute where you can, but also do not begrudge the taxes you pay that may go towards welfare or other goverment program, as they do help some, recognize that it does some good, even if you feel volunteerism is better, accept it as the lesser of two "goods". The difficult part in choosing this is that in order to avoid being guilty of hypocrisy you must be a vocal, even strident proponent of charity, to the point of almost looking down on those that don't contribute. This may seem difficult, or perhaps even wrong, but if you desire to rely on everyone taking their responsibility, it must become desirable to do ones 'duty' as a 'human'.

For those that are proponents of goverment based welfare, by all means, continue to be so, but until such time as the goverment provides for all that are in need, contribute to charity where you can, and promote as what is neccesary 'for the time being' in order that you can assure everyone is taken care of until such time as legislation is enacted, if it ever is. I think it self evident that if one belives it is the responsibility of the government to take care of the people and the government is not doing so, one should do what one can in order to provide for those that need it, else be guilty of hypocrisy as well.

I know this is terribly disjointed and my reasoning probably makes little sense, but what I'm aiming at here is that social pressure is harder to change than laws, and more persausive than tax breaks or warm fuzzies from donating to charity and if the majority of people come to see helping others as a duty, or something simply that civilized people do, without a thought, then legislation and reliance on generosity both become obsolete. I envision a community of people who pay attention to those around them and give thoughtto how they can help anyone around them who needs their help.

I know it seems a pipe dream, fantasy of a grand type, but what has anyone to lose by striving towards it? I can't see a single drawback to reaching for this goal, no matter what your stance. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. Sending a few bucks to the local soup kitchen is not enough, nor is voting for laws and then simply paying your taxes. The social ills of mankind can only be solved by concious, willing cooperation of the whole.

Yes, I know, I sound like a stupid hippie.

May whatever god or gods you believe in smile upon and if you belive in none, may the dice fall in your favor, and then share the benefits with others.

-m

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16165

Mord, I think you're waaaaay too apologetic about this thread. In my opinion, if "voluntary" is removed from the charity equation, then it ceases to be charity; it becomes something else.

Amen.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: library
Posts: 19562

Yeah, but is something that is encouraged by social pressure really involuntary? It is possible to buck society, I mean just look at paint, he refuses to come out of the closet, even though that's the new thing to do.

-m

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16165

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mordecai
Yeah, but is something that is encouraged by social pressure really involuntary? It is possible to buck society, I mean just look at paint, he refuses to come out of the closet, even though that's the new thing to do. . . .

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 2573

I once lent some guy 20p because he was short for the buss we were both about to get on to. My reasoning was thus, i really just didnt need the money and had it to spare for any whim i might have. He was probly gonna be late for work if he missed the bus which is a real pain in the ass if you've ever done that you know it fucks up the whole day.

I said "do this for someone else" as i gave him the money.

Maybe he will and maybe he wont, maybe he thought i was taking an oppertunity to be holyer than thou. Whatever he got to work on time and probly didnt have such a bad day.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Zion
Posts: 4444

Well thought out post, Mord. I know that I give a decent share of my earnings every year to charity. The only organized charity I give to is Toys for Tots. Larger companies like the United Way are too top heavy in my opinion and will never see a dollar from me. I like to give on a local scale. If the sign on the Jesus Saves building says they need TP I buy an extra package at the store and drop it off on my way home.

Now, I can also be the tightest pocket on the planet. Let me explain. Where my store is located is a "highway" for transient people. I am constantly removing people from living in my pallet stacks behind my building and soliciting money from my customers both in my store and on our sidewalk. I am ALWAYS decent about it and arrange for most of them to get a ride to the shelter. But in my encounters I have ran in to a few people in need of help who have actually told me that I "owe" them something. In further talking to these individuals they have told me that because I have more than they do and that I need to share it with them. Fuck that. people who think society owes them anything have another thing coming. I don't owe anybody anything except for my family and my taxes. How dare somebody think that since they are on opposite sides of the fence from me that I have to share what I work hard to earn. 95% of the people I remove from my work are employable. I know because I ask. Most are unwilling to stary in one place long enough to secure employment or housing. They'd rather travel and bum. I have a hard time with that.

Do I think charity is a good thing? yes. Do I think that social pressure is a good thing? yes. I think as a whole society does care about other people and will give generously. I also think that on average those of us in the middle and lower classes give a higher percentage of our pay to charity than those in the upper classes.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

Karma?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beatrice, Nebraska
Posts: 18490

Pay it forward, bitches.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

The pinnacle of Failbot technology.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Zion
Posts: 4444

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nutrimentia
Karma?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mordecai
There is one thing I can think of that has more power to affect the average person than any goverment, and that is social pressure.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

And damn those hippy scumbags who might suggest that it is the government's responsibility to prevent the forcible sodomising of those that they incarcerate.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 14954

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cruise Director
Most are unwilling to stay in one place long enough to secure employment or housing. They'd rather travel and bum. I have a hard time with that.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
And damn those hippy scumbags who might suggest that it is the government's responsibility to prevent the forcible sodomising of those that they incarcerate.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

I can't think that any behaviour means that people 'deserve' to be sodomised (at least, sodomised against their will). Which is why, I guess, I don't think that claims to have a a justice system ring anything other than hollow, if that situation obtains in the prisons.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: . o O
Posts: 6367

quote:

---

Originally posted by J E B Stuart


In my opinion, the long and short of it is this -- a person should focus upon his/her charitable heart, rather than devoting energy and concern toward whether others are doing likewise.

Amen.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beyond Mason-Dixon Line
Posts: 16165

quote:

---

Originally posted by cw
So shines a good deed in a weary world. [P]

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2451

Nice post mord, I like the idea of this social pressure of which you speak. I also agree that it is likely to be the best way to achieve more effective care/assistance of the poor and needy in a society, but I must also agree with ChipsJr that it seems an approach much more suited to promoting successful private charity organizations than successful gov't welfare programs (such can exist in theory, just not in the world as it has evolved thus far)

however . . .

it is a pipe dream.

To implement such an idea would require change on a massive scale on how we view the world around us and how we teach our children to view the world and the people in it. Such a plan would require most people to view most other people as equals regardless of their current position in life (ex. Cruise Director sees employable people where others see just bums). It would also (I should think) require a sense of community lost in our modern world.

Which brings me to my next point, there are many forces in today's world which work in direct opposition to implementing such a plan. One is the increasing presence of technology. Inventions such as the internet that promote a far less personal form of communication tend to reduce the sense of community as one would associate it with actual people. Also the degradation of family units (traditional or otherwise) tends to promote the thought that the only people we can depend on are ourselves, after all how can you learn to trust and depend on others when the first folks you should be able to depend on (your parents) split up and you spend only limited time with either as one does not live with you and the other often spends so much time away from home at work or whatnot that there is no longer a dependable presence in the home (often).

To rephrase (hopefully better):

I think such a plan requires people to learn to depend on one another within a community. When one learns to depend on others, one also learns how other depend on them. This is a lesson best learned as a child (imho) who learns to depend on his parents for food, clothing, shelter and various forms of emotional support and learns how much their parents depend on them to follow the rules and do as they are told. The problem in the current evolution of society is that more and more children are learning that they can't depend on their parents for things they need as more couples divorce and more families have 2 full time working parents. Both cases lead to situations where a childs dependancy on their parents is cut short of what it would have been several decades ago.

Then there is the idea of capitolism which in today's society has everybody seeking to better their own situation. There is no ceiling for lifestyle. Very few of us would net a million dollars in a year and say, "I only require $80,000 to live a comfortable lifestyle so I'm going to give the other $920,000 to charity." I should think one of the best places for social pressure to start is to mock the rich for their extravagant lifestyles. Make them feel guilty about flaunting their wealth. But I digress, the point is how can you even start to implement social pressure for more charity when at the same time we promote wealth to the point of extravagent excess as a good thing?

To try to sum up the general theme:

While social pressure would be a great way to go, we have quite a ways to evolve as a society before such can happen. Much wealth and technology developed over the last several decades and our society has evolved in a very greedy way overall as a response to those developments. Perhaps in a few centuries when we become accustomed to this modern world we will be able to at last return to some of the more sappy ideals of our forebearers and implement such social pressure that will aid the homeless and the needy, but imho it is unrealistic to believe that us, our children, or even our grandchildren will live to see such times.

*of course this should not disuade us from being the examples mord mentions, I'm just saying it is unrealistic to expect any results from it in your lifetime. Such efforts would fall into the realm of I'm doing this becaquse it is the right thing to do, not because I will see any benefit or effect because of it.*

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged