Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRolling Out the Welcome Mat for the Good Samaritan
Remember Lenny Skutnick? In January 1982, we watched on television as the D.C. office worker dove into the freezing Potomac to rescue victims of a plane crash. That day also gave us bank examiner Arland D. Williams Jr., the passenger who kept handing the lifeline to other survivors until he slipped beneath the waters and drowned.
More recently, multiple stories of grace and heroism cloaked the terrorist attacks of 2001, including the story of Chuck Sereika, a lapsed paramedic who grabbed a cellphone and hurried to the World Trade Center that morning to risk his life to crawl into the rubble and help pull two men out.
We call these people heroes. So why does that altruistic spirit -- help people who need it -- seem so absent from our public policy?
Deborah Stone, founding senior editor of the political magazine, The American Prospect, and research professor of government at Dartmouth College, wondered, too. The result is "The Samaritan's Dilemma: Should Government Help Your Neighbor?" The seed for the book was planted when she realized in college that the public policy field had been commandeered by economists like Milton Friedman, the late Nobel laureate who along with others embraced self-interest over altruism.
We can almost recite the code by heart: The greedy shall inherit the earth, and helping others only encourages the helpless to be more so. We ignore the Biblical story of the good Samaritan, the parable character who looked beyond social and ethnic boundaries to help a man in need.
When did the Good Samaritan slip from our public discussions?
"I've been teaching political science and public policy for almost 30 years, and increasingly I've become so disturbed by the assumption that people are self-interested," said Stone. "I think the 'help your neighbor' ethic is the closest thing we have to a universal moral value."
The demise of the government's role in doing good can be traced back to the silver-tongued Ronald Reagan, who delighted in anecdotes -- some true, some not -- that worked to limit people's empathy, said Stone.
In reality, she said "the vast majority of people who get any kind of public or private help don't want it. They're ashamed when they take it, and they take it almost always because they need to support their kids or their sick parents."
When the current president cast volunteerism as an alternative to government entitlement programs, he entirely missed the point that some people need more than individuals can give. You can help someone learn to speak English or to read, but how do you help someone find decent and affordable housing? That's a bigger job calling for bigger resources.
"I think we have a moral obligation to help people who are suffering, and that's unconnected to whatever faith you hold or don't hold," said Stone. "I kept being so angry at the phrase 'personal responsibility' because it was hurled at people and meant 'take care of yourself,' and 'don't be a burden on any one else.' For most people, 'personal responsibility' means taking responsibility for the world around you. You notice someone lying on the side of the road, you take responsibility."
She says: Democracy needs people looking out for other people.
She says: We need to welcome the Good Samaritan back into the public realm.
Contact Susan Campbell at scampbell@courant.com
Copyright © 2008, The Hartford Courant
45 Comments so far
Show Alljimmyjazz
Ok, here I go......
I'm going to start with your alternatives.
1. Anarchism is of course unworkable because even fewer people would have everything as they would just take what they wanted. The strongest prevail.
Far worse than capitalism by any standard I'd say.
2. Communism gives very little private property and in fact reverts to the feudal system where the state owns the land and everyone is assigned their job. Who decides who is in charge? Who decides what to produce, etc? How long before you have an elite just as the Soviets did? All the Soviets I have met say the same thing, they want no part of it again.
3. Socialism
Lets take labor history first. Correct, but that has changed, though Corporations are trying to bring it back, child labor included. And Progressives are helping them. If you go to the third world what you will find is they prefer those jobs you are talking about to no jobs at all. In the end though they will stop the abuses and put in place the protections we have had.
Your first mistake is assuming that there is no work in starting a business or running a manufacturing plant. Or that if you are taking the risk, you should get the reward. Under Socialism if the business fails everyone would be responsible and have to pay for the failure. They had no choice but to work there.
Say I own a factory, I built it up from nothing, my employees are free to come and go as they please with no responsibility for the business, but over the years I expand it, build a good business, pay off my debt and get to the point where I can enjoy a bit of the good life.......so at this point you suggest that if I don't share my profits with my employees, they are free to take over my factory because they don't think I pay them enough? And give me nothing or what they deem appropriate and I'm out?
This is a lot to cover, a very complex subject.
Let me put it this way, how exactly would you ever be able to substitute Socialism for Capitalism in the US? Most people own their homes, cars, etc. What makes you really believe they would just give them up?
And even if you are just going to take over the means of production, do you truly think that all these people are just going to hand it over?
Are we on the same beam here? Or not?
ThomasMore,
My bad, the quote is by Thomas Skidmore, not Thomas More:
"Inasmuch as great wealth is...used to extort from others their property, it ought to be taken away from its possessors on the same principle that a sword or pistol may be wrested from a robber."
This is a distinctly socialist conception of private property rights. It does not advocate a complete lack of legal status for private property (as anarchism would) or a total expropriation of all private property beyond possessions for personal use (as communism, at least in theory, does). It simply recognizes that a certain class of private property, under certain conditions, gives rise to unique injustices and as such should be liable to social control as is deemed necessary.
Thomas More,
The reason I pointed you to the dictionary.com definition of socialism was not to make fun of you. I am not your "superior" just because I know more about socialism than you--and it is apparent to me that I do. There are tons of things, including things relevant to progressive politics like alternative energy issues, that I know very little about.
Socialism I know about.
Furthermore, the dictionary.com definition was a revelation to *me* when I first read it. And from my discussions with many Americans and Britons, it is clear to me taht it would be a revelation to many of them as well.
Socialism as defined in the link I gave--that is, the standard dictionary definition--is about the means of production. It is not about wages or work incentives. Socialism is in no way incompatible with work incentives that differ based on performance. It is not about "doctors being paid the same as trashmen" as the high school version goes. It is not about the government taking away one of your two cows and leaving you the other.
It is simply a recognition that a certain special category of private property, the means of production, is wealth used to create *more* wealth. It is called capital, or productive wealth.
Paris Hilton doesn't bother a socialist. She is wealthy, but her wealth isn't capital. It's all in the form of cars and party supplies and designer clothes. Although she has much wealth, it all either sits in a bank account or gets consumed by her and her friends. Socialism is not concerned with consumption so much as with production. Hence there is even a strain of socialism known as "market socialism", which allows for a consumer goods market (but abolishes the labor market, a "market" of human beings).
Ownership of capital, aka productive wealth, aka the means of production, carries with it extensive power over others. It carries with it a control over the economy at large. It carries with it a power over who does and who doesn't get a job. It carries with it the power over those who have jobs--with the threat that they could join the ranks of those without if they make a misstep.
Capitalism is a system of state-protected private property. From my perspective, this is the worst possible way to organize property rights within a society. Alternatives include anarchism (possible rivate property but no state protection), communism (very little private property beyond personal possessions for personal use), and socialism (private property that simply does not extend to the MoP). Not all of these are equal in my view, but all of them are preferable to capitalism.
The reason socaialists focus on the means of production, out of the broader category of private property, is because this is the specific type of private property which is usually attended by gross violations of human rights. If you read labor history, you can see this in the recent past of America, Britain and Europe: child labor, 14-hour work days, abysmal pay, slum-like conditions on comapany-owned residential property, incredibly unsafe working conditions resulting in tons of unecessary deaths. If you look at the places where American, British and European corporations are outsourcing to in the modern globalized world, you see the same sweatshop abuses being perpetuated all over again in places where laborers have not organized and fought back yet. If history is a guide, several generations will have to suffer pretty badly before labor organization puts an end to the grossest of abuses. It might take longer, or even prove impossible, because of the international mobility that capital now has. Anyway, all of these abuses were made possible because the means of production (factories, farmland, etc.) were owned by individuals or small groups of individuals who legally had the *sole right* to determine how it was used down to every last detail, no matter how many other lives were affected in the process.
This isn't exactly democratic. The democratic mindset says that those who are affected by decisions should get some say in making them. But under laissez-faire capitalism, the mass of workers have no say over how their workplace (factory or sweatshop or whatever) is run. The way that it will be run is dictated by its owner. This owner may himself not even have to work under the rules he creates. Usually he does not--he just sits back and enjoys the profits. It's not hard to see a pretty fundamental conflict of interests at work here.
I would say that the best way to start understanding socialism (and this is not the way I went, btw), is to understand that our society has one kind of property rights--legally-protected private property rights with absolutely no limit on the size or use of the property--and that there are alternative ways of doing things.
The next step is to realize that this fact doesn't automatically require a complete overhaul of everything. It simply gives us the right to change things as we see fit. So we locate the ways in which private property gives rise to abuses, and when we do, to feel free to do something about it. In my opinion, and that of other socialists, abuses occur around property which is used to produce goods, i.e. the means of production: land, capital, and so on.
Your first post, to which I was responding, clearly did not grasp all of this very firmly. That's obviously nothing to be ashamed of, just something to remedy.
In fact, there is a really good quote by your namesake that drives all this home very succinctly. I have it in a book at home, and I'll post it when I get there.
The reality of reformed/modified capitalism as suggested by Thomas More is that it comes about only in response to the natural and inevitable excesses of capitalism, which NEVER stops pressuring for the reversal of those reforms. An example in many of our lifetimes is the post-VietNam liberalization of many American government institutions - including even the ending of that hideous war - which was followed by a concerted reactianary thrust, leading directly to the unspeakable monsters that are now in command. This is one of countless examples, and is exactly why 'liberalism' (that is, liberal capitalism) is treachery to the working class.
The reason I might think that all real 'progressives' are socialists is because ratiional thought, which is a hallmark of classical liberalism, inevitabley leads to the socialist conclusion. Marxism is philosophically bulletproof, while capitalism is philosophically indefensible - at least for humanitaarians. It is really that simple! All the talk about the failure of communist systems (alwqays ignoring that capitalism has failed miserable for most of humanity...) is just a cover for the theoretical bankruptcy of capitalism. Further, even if some socialist factories did indeed put out disproportionate numbers of mens-vs.-womens underwear, there is no known reason why this must be so. To think that a united humanity could never overcome such mistakes is profound, capitalist-serving pessimism.
tailcap August 12th, 2008 1:45 am
A perfect example of the unfettered capitalism as practised now. Which is bad.
tailcap August 12th, 2008 1:31 am
A perfect explanation of communism. Which has never worked. Not once. What you get is a ruling class of "working class nobles" and shared poverty. There is no upside.
Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market. Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, using money, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land.
-oh yea baby!
But notice this: In our capitalist society the profits are private while major losses to big businesses, such as banks are fully socialized at taxpayer expense. For example, the SL crisis of the 80s and the current subprime mortage crisis. Don't worry Uncle Sam will save them using our money.
socialism for the poor- bad
socialism for the rich~ good
profits- privatized
losses- socialized
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.
It is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, although socialist historians say they are older.
Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems would be for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
-oh hell no Americans don't want that!
The next good Samaritan will decide who are the right people to kill.
Obama: "And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?"
Stonetool August 11th, 2008 10:32 pm
And he will immediately grab the coin's from your eye's.
PissantNobody August 11th, 2008 10:15 pm
"Not only is the system inherently unfair, it is inherently war prone, and guarantees the poverty of the masses. You are content with that?"
Capitalism is not like that, in fact I'd argue the reverse. Our poor are rich when you compare the poor from a communist country.
The underwear example is from Russioa but you'll find the same type of thing in any communist or socialist managed economy.
Each year the manager's responsible for setting the weekly quota for manufacturing to deliver to stores, for Mosciow I beklieve it was 1000 ea. to each store of men's and women's underwear.
There was a constant shortage of womens underwear. This went on for years before they figured out that the shortage was caused by the fact that women use more underwear than men.
That in a nutshell is the advantage of Capitalism over Communism. There was really no reason for the folks in charge to be that concerned about the shortage. And they weren't, so it continued.
The rise of Autocratic Capitalism in China would fit your description of Country B.
"How can you oppose that and call yourself progressive?"
Easily because I'm a liberal. Liberals are not usually socialists or communists. If thats what Progressive is, I'm not one.
It in fact confuses me as to when the expectation that liberals or even leftists would inherently be communists or socialists, disparage America, be anti-military or favor the overthrow of American culture. This is a random muse and only touches you in the mention of communism.
Let me ask you since I know you prefer communism, do you think all progressives are socialists or communists? In fact do you view liberals as Progressives? Heck pissant, what is your view on this. Straighten me out please. I'm serious, what do you think?
I see red whenever someone refers to Milton Friedman as a Nobel laureate. THERE IS NO NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS.... PERIOD...... No such thing. A group of economists have created a prize of their own and spuriously attached the "Nobel" name to it. There are only 5 Nobel prize categories and Economics IS NOT ONE OF THEM!! They are: physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. This most contemptible of men rather deserves a prize for furthering the cause of Fascism for the effects his theories have had on the common man. He has done absolutely nothing to better the human condition..... and in fact has been instrumental in the suffering of millions of people. I fully expect that when I cross the River Styx I will find Milton on the other side.
So many questions, so little time!
marc melchiori: First of all, nobody but a demented Stalinist or a capitalist apologist would call the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, or Cambodia under Pol Pot 'communist' countries. While they may have achieved a great degree of defensible collectivization, all three were the resuult of the Stalinist petit bourgois counter-revolution in the 1920's. All three were/are dead set against workers' democracy, which is a fundamental element of proletarian socialism. Secondly, we need look no further than our own country to see a genocide that equals and exceeds those horrible actions. Add to that the two World Wars, the Viet Nam War, the Gulf War, The wars in Central America, etc., etc., etc., to see that capitalism is in no position to criticize even the hideous legacy of Stalin. In fact, Stalin's rise itself was the direct result of the capitalists' all-sided attack on the infany Soviet Union. Finally, we need to look at theory a little here. Capitalism has no plan or hope whatsoever for equality of humanity, universal prosperity, nor the end of war. Only communism offers ANY hope.
Thomas More: I still don't get that underwear thing, nor what you mean by capitalism in its 'correct' form. Don't you realize that softer capitalism in country A just signals the rise of harsh capitalism in Country B? There is no way, in theory or practice, that capitalism can rise above its fundamental limitaion of being a system based on economic domination of one human by another. All I am calling for is the control of the economy by the masses who do the work. How can you oppose that and call yourself progressive? Do you think it is great that Bill Gates' progeny will have a million times the power that yours do for generations to come? Not only is the system inherently unfair, it is inherently war prone, and guarantees the poverty of the masses. You are content with that?
jimmyjazz August 11th, 2008 4:31 pm
Since you said you agreed with socialist Matt I just assumed you were advocationg socialism. Not so?
Fire away. I'm always open to education by my intellectual superiors. Educate me.
Not to get too religious about it, but the parable of the Good Samaritan was in answer to the question "Who is my neighbor?" in response to a great suggestion to "love your neighbor as yourself".
Not only do some today disdain empathy (or perhaps don't know how to love "the other"), it is quite clear that these same individuals suffer from self-loathing.
But, as MLK reminded us "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Love'em as best you can.
Thomas,
You should probably get educated. Honestly, it seems that you need to start here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
More--
The basic idea for our country really was simply: we're in this together...
People forget what an incredible revolution was the Enlightenment and the founding of our country. This was a truly fundamental change; the whole shape of human history was altered as by nothing before or since,
not by wars, by art, by science, by religion.
Until then people universally were governed by despots who oppressed them ruthlessly, supported by priests who told the people that the rulers were divinely empowered, that failures pf fealty would expose them not only to the most brutal punishment but also to afterlives of endless torment.
Most everyone thought it had always been that way and always would be.
The founders drew from philosophers and historians of the Enlightenment this central, truly revolution0nary idea: the only way people could live free of tyrannical government was to govern themselves.
And for the founders this was not just tavern talk. They declared Independence, took up arms and went to war against the ancient tyranny, against the superpower of the age. And at the cost of terrible
privation and suffering, at home and in battle, won the chance to bring our country7 into being as home of a free people,
And they established the Constitution so we could work together for the common good with protection for each.
Doom n Gloom August 10th, 2008 5:18 pm
Not that gloomy today! I agree. That helpful spirit has been alive an well and never left most of Texas. Especially East Texas. Though because of a lax enforcement of Federal law there have been some changes in parts of Texas by necessity. And thats a shame. Have a flat here or dead battery and you won't wait long. I would exclude Dallas and Houston, though I'd say yourr chances are still better than some places.
NativeSon August 10th, 2008 2:46 pm
"When Humanity realizes that the cohesion exhibited by the Tribal systems—can be duplicated in modern society"
They are called nations now instead of tribes. But even the nations are under attack now.
Siouxrose August 10th, 2008 4:15 pm
Absolutely agreed. Personal responsibility is importasnt, but responsibility to your neighbor is just as important.
"It would spring mankind forward if both the responsibilty for self-betterment and the shared contributions of a society that supported the BEST in most of us became joint goals designed to dove-tail. Not either or, but both harmonizing."
Ted Markow August 11th, 2008 11:00 am
You forget that that system was only for that tribe, if you were from another tribe they would just as likely kill you. It was a very racist type of social organization. Suited its time.
Thats the literal truth. And it's what qwe used to practice, or at least as close as any have come to it so far.
jimmyjazz August 10th, 2008 2:31 pm
PissantNobody August 11th, 2008 12:14 am
Capitalism in its correct form, not unfettered capitalism as is being practised now has shown in the past to work for everyone.
Socialism has never worked in any form, a noble thought and idea that is simply impractical when used by human beings. The reason is that the basic idea is flawed. No man or woman will get up each day and strive to do their best or work two jobs so that another can sit at home or go to work and goof off all day long.
It will always come down to the people that are put in charge of ordering manufacturing quotas, for example. 1000 pairs of men's underwear and 1000 pairs of women's underwear. They will do it every single time. Without fail.
For clarification I have never lived under communism nor a socialist form of government. Been in many countries that have it, talked to many there and many that have come here. But no personal experience, just observational.
saw two mimes in a park
helping each other up
pushing each other down
always smiling
sure i was high but it seemed pretty deep
i gave five bucks to a raggedy man on the way home
My Dear Susan Campbell,
You, my Good Lady, are a Saint. The Radical Religious Right could learn something if they listened to you.
There is an old saying: "Live and Let Live," but I have a better one: "Live and Help Others to Live."
Have a Great Day Susan and a Good Life.
Bonatti
"Tell us what will it take to change the nature and soul of humankind in order to create a communist paradise?"
My thoughts as well, marc.
It seems as if the human state is not ready (if it ever will be) to support a true communist or socialist system. And, maybe that's okay. If self-interest will always be a part of our makeup, then maybe what we need to do is work toward a system that relies on both self-interest and common good. Kind of like a free-market system with severe limitations so that the greedy, rich, and powerful have their wings clipped so that they can't keep taking from the public trough, the one that we all need to eat from.
Regulated self-interest with a large twist of compassion. Stirred, not shaken.
"When Humanity realizes that the cohesion exhibited by the Tribal systems—can be duplicated in modern society, with a concise effort to bring that very mind set to a reality—-the quality of life will be on a higher level for everyone—instead of just a few."
NativeSon,
Agreed. This also goes with the saying, "When we're all better off, we're all better off." It is a collectivism that protects both the individual and the society.
From what I know of tribal systems, the cohesion and well-being of the tribe was paramount, so it was imperative that the tribe took care of the individuals and vice-versa.
I'm not sure where the "Greed is good" concept started, but it seems to me that one of the most strident and far-reaching voices of it was Ayn Rand. Her acolytes spread far and wide and finished off any semblance of working for the common good. Milton Freedman and his "Chicago boys" put the final nail in the coffin and here we are today, the bastion of cowboy individualism. And we can see what that has wrought.
Lisa- you really started something with your Marx quote!
From Reagan to Bush, the current trend has been a return to barbarism and a dog eat dog world. Now the big dogs are corporations. I believe there is a path to an egalitarian society even with our present constitution and capitalism. But there needs to be strict regulation of capitalism. That's what GOVERNment is for. An amusing analogy is to imagine what cars and roads would look like without regulation. There would be no seat belts, no pollution control, kids would drive, lots more people would drive drunk, there would be no stop signs or lights... it would be like Mad Max. Anarchy. Today we have lots of control on individual behavior but not enough on corporate behavior.
Pissant - How many more people must die in order for true communism to form. Was the mass starvation of the kulaks not enough, the mass starvation of the chinese peasant during the great leap forward not enough, the killing fields of cambodia not enough? Tell us what will it take to change the nature and soul of humankind in order to create a communist paradise?
Wow, Global Communist revolution is the answer to caring for others. I showed this post to my friend Romaine, who had the distinction of living under TWO communist regimes (Czechoslavokia and the Soviet Union)- He started laughing.
He said " obviously this guy has never had the pleasure of living in a country based on the ideas of Mr. Marx and Mr. Lenin. I can tell you that no one gave a shit about anyone else, they were only interested in helping themselves- particularly those in power".
Communism- thanks but no thanks.
hamster: Hi, yes, that quote is by Karl Marx, 1875, from A Critique of Gotha.
♪I dreamt I saw an open door
within each human heart
and I saw the bonds which keep us close,
although we are apart.
I pray it's not a fable,
I pray the day will come
when the love that lives for every one
shines through -- bright morning star!♪
-- Crazy Bird, "Hearts of Glory"
Reagan was not the cause, and you won't find the answer in the Bible (nor Ghandi nor Dylan). Reagan merely (re-)expressed the values of capitalist economics. He was the spokesman of an anti-humanitarian system where self-enrichment is all that really matters.
I am embarrassed to be having to tell this to supposedly progressive adults, but the Bible is riddled with lies and bad advice. Are we really so addled that we have to look back 2000 years for a guide to social behavior? Pathetic!
If you are really wondering, I can tell you why we are in this state. It is a form of denial about what is really needed, that 'liberals' (aka 'progressives') hate and cannot face: global communist revolution. Communism by its heritage and even its title is the ultimate in sharing with others - which is anathema to capitalism - including reformed progressive capitalism with a cherry on top. Those who really care about the plight of others will be working to build a Leninist vanguard party, that can lead the organized working class to a victory that will ensure that nobody is left behind. Search forever, but I assure you that you will never find a capitalist paradigm that even comes close.
Try to overcome the pervasiive anticommunist propaganda that most CDers have obviously integrated, and get out there and build that party. All other paths are dead ends. Global WMD war is brewing, and there is no time to lose!
♪ Well, the moral of the story,
The moral of this song,
Is simply that one should never be
Where one does not belong.
So when you see your neighbor carryin' somethin',
Help him with his load,
And don't go mistaking Paradise
For that home across the road. ♪
-- Bob Dylan, "The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest"
Well, the idea that Reagan caused everyone to suddenly become selfish bastards is just silly.
Is Reagan riding with you when you blow by that guy that is out of gas on the side of the road.?
I live in a college town. Every time in the last few years that I or my wife have been in need of assistance, it is never the college professors or the country club types that have helped. Without fail it has been some blue- collar guy in a truck. Literally, every time.
Chomsky has written a lot about the Right and the Friedmanites, destroying links and bonds between humans (and animals as well). Their goal was and is to make selfishness and greed a virtue, harking back to Adam Smith, that greed and avarice benefit all, and of couse that is BS.
Wasn't a lot of this doctrine a gift from Ayn Rynd? that awful White Russian emigrant?
It's good to see people speaking of helping one another again. There are those, we know them, who never dropped the yoke of helping during these selfish times. They maintained their integrity and honesty through it all. Their jobs were often lower paying because they would not play the greed game and yet they never stopped helping their families and others, even if it hurt. People often did without themselves to help others. Their example kept hope for a better life alive.
As we age we become wiser in the ways we help others so as not to elicit a sense of shame in them. We also try to do so in ways that do not center around our egos, often giving anomyously. We have also learned that giving will not go unpunished and that we should expect little if anything for our efforts except grief, and yet we know the importance of continuing. We also know that it will likely not come back to us in the kind of world we are currently living in. It is a form of moral maturity to continuing helping given these outcomes. I sincerely thank all of those who have lived their lives in these good ways, you may have been the only link in the chain that held.
I am truly saddened to see the comment section of the local paper today. The topic was a homeless shelter that the city forced to close because they couldn't find a new building. Now will the city kick in some funds to help them? Hell no. Will the city put in money to help the Humane Society build a bigger shelter? Absolutely.
Maybe animals make better photo ops.
Let me preface this by saying that I love animals, that being said most of the comments were of the "More money fo the Humane Society and none for the shelter" kind. The shelter the Humane Society has is adequate.
After all all homeless people are bums who simply won't get a job, right?
Nevermind that the factories have closed down and even the fast food joints lack 'now hiring' signs. They're just lazy.
People around here will open their wallets and checkbooks wide so the Humane Society can build a bigger building. but are tight assed when a homeless shelter seeks a new home.
Sad.
This thread is like an orchestra, each is playing their own instrument--projecting a viable take on this subject--and for the most part, all the "notes" are working together.
What I would add is that the Calvinistic mantra of personal responsibility was also influential in the recent publishing world and its prefered topics. The spiritual parallel is "You create your own reality." Now certainly there is SOME truth to the notion of free will, however the nature of the surrounding society and the impact of other people contribute to this equation.
It would spring mankind forward if both the responsibilty for self-betterment and the shared contributions of a society that supported the BEST in most of us became joint goals designed to dove-tail. Not either or, but both harmonizing.
As for the power of corporations to influence what we eat, learn about, breathe, drive, and believe... I'd like to see those who buy this "personal responsibility solves it all" premise TREATED to actual statistics placing what's wasted on pork barrel spending, subsidies to huge industries, bailouts to banks & airlines, etc. and most egregiously what is spent on military hardware placed in one column, and all that's taken for altruism, the "good Samaritan" stuff, in a column next to it.
If those who were so quick to judge the needy had a TRUE understanding of the $ going to the GREEDY (albeit well-connected), maybe they'd shut up, or learn what Ebineezer Scrooge did.
lobo, i was the one passed out at the bus stop (from a seizure); luckily a good samaritan did stop and call 911. after 3 weeks in the hospital i resumed my life...one that i might have lost if no one responded to my need. as a result i am more attentive to those around me, looking, especially for those in need. good deeds beget good deeds.
After burning out from a career of social work and volunteerism ... It gets to be too much for the few that really take on the battle. We are a mean-spirited people since the Reagan years. I feel so sad for the path we have been led down by our leaders. We vilify folks who are not "it's all about me ... "
About a month ago, I was returning home at night from a barbecue party. I was maybe a half-mile from home when I saw a man at a bus stop on his back writhing and throwing up. An empty bottle of Jim Beam was at his side along with what appeared to be his bike strung with black garbage bags holding belongings. I was thinking of pulling over to help but noticed others noticing the man and doing nothing. I fell into the "groupthink" mode and continued driving.
Now as I write this I'm disappointed in myself, actually ashamed. That person could have been having an epileptic seizure and choking on his own vomit. And I didn't come to his aid. This was surely not the way I was raised and is not part of my moral make-up. Or so I thought. Hopefully, I "re-found" my old self and will never be so uncaring again.
LISA 32- You're kidding right? That was an axiom of Communism. Far from anything Reagan believed in.
They use that phrase "Personal Responsibility" like everyone was "created equal," and that just isn't true. I wonder where this president would be if his parents had been just an ordinary hard-working couple - or if he'd been born to a girl, from a poor family, who'd believed that sex meant love.
There was a good little christian boy from an upper class family, just out of college, on TV awhile back, who'd made his way across country, starting out with just $25, "to prove" a person with nothing could make it on their own!
I was thinking I'd like to see him have his mind reprogrammed with a different kind of life - one that probably millions of people live, and then be given $25 and sent off to make his own way.
Along with helping others, there really should be education, and safeguards, so programs like Welfare, which did work in the beginning, doesn't become a way of life. It's the abuse of programs like this that has turned many people from both parties and all walks of life off.
Why is altruism "so absent from our public policy? Perhaps, because corporations rather than humans control the debate and fund our government. Remove the status of personhood from corporations, let them serve humanity and creation rather than the other way around. "2001 Space Odyssy": Hal the computer is the corporation, UNPLUG HAL!
Didn't Ronald Reagan also say, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"
Maybe we should have listened more closely.
The "Good Samaritan" was a fable when it was told. With a few exceptions one of them being the Essenes (perhaps), this was a concept that the Mid East was envious of.
When the Mid Eastern and later the European explorations brought them into contact with the concept of the "Good Samaaritan" they met it in the tribalism of other smaller societies.
Even the Jews who gave the believers Jesus who is credited with the story, did not practice it----and they were tribal.
When the Europeans met the Native Peoples of the Americas and elsewhere, they on the one hand marveled at the "cohesion" and at the same time worked to replace it with other institutions or obliterate it. They were very successful---for now.*
When Humanity realizes that the cohesion exhibited by the Tribal systems---can be duplicated in modern society, with a concise effort to bring that very mind set to a reality----the quality of life will be on a higher level for everyone---instead of just a few.
The study of humanity will show the student that Humanity is capable of the most marvelous things, and at the same time capable of the most horrific. The level of consciousness is what dictates which way humanity will go.
Presently on a world wide level it does not seem to be of a very high level, but through trial and error humanity may learn to best way to go.
"We call these people heroes. So why does that altruistic spirit — help people who need it — seem so absent from our public policy?"
Exactly.
Libertarian fundamentalists in Republican and Democratic dress have waged a pretty successful decades-long campaign (starting around the time of the Taft-Hartley Act) to hand over every last inch of the world economy to the amoral free market. But *people* are not amoral. We have priorities. We believe that a dollar is better spent on bread for a starving man or woman than on 1/1000 of a new fur coat for some rich person. The market does not make a distinction between the two. Bread for starving people is not a right, it is just another capitalist commodity.
We employ considerations of justice and equity in our decision-making in every realm of life. They want us, for no particular reason, to isolate the economy and say that this one realm of human life will be free from all such considerations. Why should it be? They have no answer. Free market defenses are simply apologetics for the system under which a few people can accumulate additional wealth at the fastest rate. (During booms, that is - come the next crisis, they will run to the gov't for a bailout, as other Common Dreams users seem to be fond of pointing out).
It's time we stand up and refuse to swallow this ideology anymore. It isn't even an ideology, really. Fascism is an ideology; communism is an ideology. Free marketism is just a collection of anecdotes and ideas that help cobble together enough public support to prop up continued material accumulation by the rich elites. It isn't ideology, it's materialism with an ideological sheen.
I just finished two really good books the view capitalism with just this kind of a critical eye - Less Than Two Dollars a Day: A Christian View of World Poverty and the Free Market by Kent A. Van Til, and The Great Anarchists: Ideas and Teachings of Seven Major Thinkers by Paul Eltzbacher. Can't really recommend either one highly enough.
Also, I made an Amazon list:
http://www.amazon.com/Criticizing-Capitalism/lm/RQMOI2ITZ079A/ref=cm_rna_own_lm
BTW, there used to be a user named socialistmatt whose points I really agreed with. He found out that you can have your account deleted for using a swear word even if it is not directed at a person on this site. I promise not to make the same silly mistake. ;)
Deborah, Susan, Zoya and Bonnie,
I completely agree.
Kindness over selfishness.
The battle humans have fought forever, for some, the battle is over others and for some the battle is within themselves.
It puts the responsibility on each of us as human beings.
"....For humanity and our planet. Well said, Bonnie!
Quoting Deborah Stone: "I think the 'help your neighbor' ethic is the closest thing we have to a universal moral value."
This is quite true, as one can see on the website goldenruleproject.org, that this principle is most assuredly at the core of all of the Great Traditions, teachings, cultures, and religions. On the website one will find over 140 formulations from around our planet.
If we could actually put this very high principle to practical work in our lives, there would be a real opportunity to turn toward a more becoming direction for humanity and our planet. Collectively, through our various forms of governing, we have the potential to apply this sincere consideration of others. It will be difficult but ultimately holds real hope.
...an interesting piece. In my long Canadian life, I have observed that the stronger the social programs, the greater the sense of national cohesion. When Michael Moore, in Sicko, asked the Newfoundlander why he should pay for some other guy's medical care, the guy said: "Because he would pay for mine." Since the Free Trade agreement with the US, our social programs have been "harmonized" with those of the US, and we have lost 10% of GDP from our quality of life. Now we as Canadians are almost as divided against each other as Americans are. Ah, "rugged individualism": ain't it great?!
Here's some Canada-US testimony:
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2008.06-sightings-obama-harper-comparison-ken-alexander/
Thank you, Susan Campbell. We've forgotten that it's in everyone's best interests to help those in need.
It's unfortunate that conservatives hijacked the discussion of poverty and welfare, since at its best,the REAL welfare was a shining example of how everyone benefits from aiding the poor. Before welfare was reformed, it primarily served the purpose of holding families together (think "family values")and in their homes during a time of hardship. Adequate food and medical care maintained their health, enabling/ensuring their ability to return to the workforce. It worked. Over 80% of recipients voluntarily quit welfare in under 5 years, moving into the workforce, repaying (via their own taxes) all the money they had received in aid. Providing the poor with access to higher education and legitimate job skills training was one of the central factors to creating our once-powerful middle class. Today, those who fall into poverty have a far smaller chance of being able to work their way out. Our workfare policies created a massive (growing) workforce of bottom wage/no workers'rights jobs. Workfare has been a powerful tool for suppressing wages, breaking unions, and encouraging corporations to break family-supporting jobs down into bottom wage temp help positions. This has harmed everyone excwept the very rich.
We're all in this situation together, and we need to re-learn how (and why) to help each other. Then, we need to re-learn that the government is (supposed to) belong to the people. We have spent the past quarter century using billions of taxpayer dollars to provide "tax relief" for the rich, waiting for the trickle-down economics to kick in. It isn't going to happen. We can see the results of these policies everywhere. We need to reverse course. There isn't a chance of reversing the deteriorating conditions for the middle if we don't shore up the poor.