I quite agree about the idea that the "taking care of" those in need should be addressed by charitable organizations and the churches-theoretically.
However this is a problem in reality "nowadays" for many reasons. For example, the non-religious and non-believers. They don't seek assistance from churches-you all know why. And when you go to a church to seek assistance people are confronted with "humility" and "moral judgement" and such. Not so much from the church volunteers and staff, but these thoughts can be within ones own mind as one is aware they are dependent-but everyone wants to believe they are independent (even if it is an illusion). And to obtain assistance from the church again in another month one must go back again to apply-thereby facing the facts of their dependent situation once again--then monthly.Ugh-regularly reviewing their own situation and reflecting in the mirror? As you mentioned-relationship and consequences. But people who are of the line of thinking that they should be provided for by others seek to avoid consequences as they are the type of people who don't take responsibility for themselves. And knowing charitable assistance can't go on forever because charitable organizations and churches have assistance program's designed to "bridge the transition" or help folks get on their own feet.
It is much easier to go to a government office and just be a number in a crowd where you apply once and get mailbox money for years to come. No judgment..no looking in the mirror...no expectations to meet if no one expects you to get on your feet..no repeated reflection or assessment of one's situation...no need to figure out a way to pull oneself up...permission sanctioned by the official government to boot--promoting the idea that its not their fault...that society is responsible for them...and best of all, it facilitates the illusion of being independent--and worst of all...it perpetuates the idea that the successful or truly independent SHOULD be responsible for them.
And, as more and more of the masses seek help from the government rather than the churches...we perpetuate the population of non-christians...and our taxes rise to pay for this. This seems to me to be a gradual but massive shift in our society from donations of funds to churches and charities to funneling funds to the government entitlement programs. A very bad thing. As someone who has something to give...shouldn't you get to decide who you want to help? Homeless children, cancer victims, etc. Yes of course you should. Likewise, shouldn't you get to decide when and how much you wish to give for help-of course you should. Why then do we give away our freedom of choice to our government?
And this is why the government has stepped in with entitlement programs isn't it. Because in our local communities we tend to help those we consider to be deserving. Yes, there are some undeserving folks out there who would go without help but by their own choosing (even if they can't see it that way). Wouldn't society be better off if folks had to go to the church and look a community in the eye to get help--and be required to give help in return (i.e. show up on saturdays to help hammer nails in the house being given to a needy soldier)? Each of us has only so much to give and as the government takes more we have less to donate. Growing gov't=shrinking charities. There seems to be a tug of war out there for our dollars between the church and the state. Ultimately this permits folks to force the givers to help those whom we otherwise would not help. After all, how long would you continue to financially support your neighbor if they are unwilling to support themselves or give back something in trade? Or how long would you donate funds to your neighbor just to prevent your neighbor from breaking into your home and taking what he pleases? And this is the most disheartening aspect of the whole movement. Takers have something to give but simply don't have any sense of philanthropy-trade-service-debt to others. And that givers continue to give only throws fuel on the fire-why shouldn't they develop a sense of entitlement? After all, did they actually threaten to break in or riot? Or is that just the fearful thinking? The reality is that there are pure takers out there and only fools perpetuate the the situation. Pathetic really. And if some folks contribute to the welfare dependency under the guise of preventive measures regarding crime, then aren't they voluntary participants in blackmail? After all, we have laws and a punitive system that is designed to pull these sorts of criminally oriented people out of society.
And I'm not so sure there is some widening gap out there between the economic classes. It may simply be that with the advances in technology, education, access to information on a global scale has made it possible for more folks to find a path to becoming millionaires and even billionaires. There are more millionaires now than there ever has been-yay-inspirational and speaks volumes about our country. Yes there seems to be more demand on the entitlement system (hey people need a raise to keep pace with inflation right? And the birth rate in the lower economic classes is booming). So on the surface it may appear to be a widening gap, but could it be that the population growing in the poorer groups is simply out pacing the population growth in the wealthier groups. And with the opportunity here in our country only those who don't find a place to apply themselves can't make a comfortable life here. One does not have to be a millionaire to be comfortable and happy.
And even the poorest of folks in our country don't have to walk for hours crossing a field where lions seek you for diner just to get to the nearest river of somewhat contaminated water and then back to a village carrying the heavy bucket just to have a drink. Who in our poor can even imagine risking their life for a contaminated cup of water? Yet, the mailbox money they do receive isn't enough? And stealing is their chosen method of survival? Give me a break.
It's not about economics, it's about principles, morals, ethics and values. It's about belief systems. Some people have good ones and some people don't. And as the tug of war continues between the government and our churches for our dollars (which facilitate the perpetuation of ideas)...the war over perpetuating one belief system over another will be at the center. Who would you like to see win?
And yes, thanks--the wagon example was used to demonstrate the social security dilema- and can be applicable in other examples. Its a personal favorite visual.
Originally posted by Michele Fischer:
This is an interesting discussion. Normally one I wouldn't want to touch, but here goes.
I'm not sure what the answers are, but it is clear that the gap between the rich and poor is widening.
I invest in low income real estate partially as an investment and partially to give back, providing ethical affordable housing. Some, normally those who don't see the connection between actions and consequences, still view me as greedy and unreasonable.
My husband has a theory that we as a nation tolerate career welfare because the alternative is rioting and break ins. Helps with perspective.
Seems like people and churches need to do more so that the government can do less, and they can instill more relationship and consequences, but it is a hard sell.
I think the upper class can and should use their resources to generate more resources.
