No easy solutions
What is happening in France should serve as a warning to every developed nation. There is no easy solution. Preferential treatment of minorities breads resentment from the majority, ignoring the minorities results in their frustration. France is in a situation it can't effectively manage because of the massive growth of the Muslim population. With more than 5 million Muslims geographically concentrated in a few areas around the country, and particularly in Paris, the French are now facing the consequences of fostering ethnic ghettos.
Last year I traveled to Paris and visited the area in which my father had lived after World War II. It is now predominately Muslim, very poor and has one of the cities highest crime rates. What struck me most was that I have seen that same area many times over in cities across the world. People are living in abject poverty and all it takes is a 20 minute metro ride for them to be surrounded by wealth and success. It is understandable why this would breed resentment.
It's irrelevant what policy a government adopts to deal with the immigrant population. The capitalistic system by it's nature puts hurdles in front of the poor. Dealing with poverty would require a massive shift in wealth distribution and that's not something any government wants to mandate. So for now, it will be interesting to see how the events unfold in France and across Europe. Who knows? One day the same thing may happen here.
Last year I traveled to Paris and visited the area in which my father had lived after World War II. It is now predominately Muslim, very poor and has one of the cities highest crime rates. What struck me most was that I have seen that same area many times over in cities across the world. People are living in abject poverty and all it takes is a 20 minute metro ride for them to be surrounded by wealth and success. It is understandable why this would breed resentment.
It's irrelevant what policy a government adopts to deal with the immigrant population. The capitalistic system by it's nature puts hurdles in front of the poor. Dealing with poverty would require a massive shift in wealth distribution and that's not something any government wants to mandate. So for now, it will be interesting to see how the events unfold in France and across Europe. Who knows? One day the same thing may happen here.
posted by mochi at 6:34 PM
11 Comments:
It is interesting. The true conservative point of view, which I subscribe to in some things, is "self empowerment" through "personal accountability" but, as we both know, many people are born into an environment of futility and have no concept of life otherwise. This is where the conservative ideal falls short. Just as socialism breeds laziness and indifference, leaving people who've never known true freedom to find it for themselves is a recipe for hopelessness.
Of course these "poor" people could never be held responsible for their actions. The problem is always society--not the individual.
Where have I heard this before?
Mochi, how do you come up with this conclusion with France being Europe's most socialistic nation?
-Jack
Those damn poor people, they could be rich if they just wished hard enough. Losers.
Hmmm...wishing never got anyone anything...hard work does though.
I agree that being poor gives one the excuse to destroy another's property and create violence and anarchy. I did it all the time when I was poor.
-Jack
A parody:
What is happening in the United States should serve as a warning to every nation. There is no easy solution. Preferential treatment of of the United States wealthy breads dishonesty which results in their frustration. Scooter Libby is such an example. He can't be blamed for any ethics violations or lies, because he has been in circumstances and environments that have taught him to be that way.
With more than 2 million bureaucrats in the United States, the United States has been guilty of creating government ghettos.
It is understandable why this would create an environment of dishonesty and vice.
It's irrelevant what policy a government adopts. The political system by it's nature puts hurdles in front of these poor bureaucrats.
-Jack
:)
P.S.
Mochi,
I would like to help any Neo-Lib who firmly believes in wealth redistribution. I know most of you are well off, and I would like to offer you the opportunity to do for those less fortunate. We maintain a food and shelter program in our community and are always in need of funds. If any of you would be interested in contruting it would be greatly appreciated!
Jack, hard work can get you stuff, although I'll bet there are more examples of hard work not paying off than otherwise. Not to mention the working poor, who work really, really hard and barely eke out a living, while others do hardly any work at all and rake it in hand over fist. Hard work is one piece of the pie, but there are contributing factors, internal and external, that are absolutely necessary. Hard work by itself won't achieve the desired end. Success is just as often nothing more than a stroke of luck.
Now... we're not saying that poor people are lazy, or are poor because they want to be, or because they descided to be, are we?
I think a lot of "conservatives" have an issue with social programs because they view it as "wealth redistribution". That's what it is, in a sense, but that phrase is misleading. Any time the government taxes us and uses those funds to pay for something --anything-- money is being "redistributed". Speaking personally, I don't like my hard earned money being diverted to an idiotic war that is being fought half-assed by our dip-shit Commander in Chief, but that's just me.
Programs like welfare and unemployment, while not perfect by any means, work. I used to be cripplingly poor myself. Luckily I had no children so I didn't have to get on full blown welfare, but I took advantage of the City of Boston's free healthcare program. It was that or nothing. At the time, I was working two jobs and going to college, all the while burying myself in student loan debt. If the funds that paid for my healthcare were not "redistributed" in my direction and I had some sort of health crisis, I would have either died or some hospital would have had to incur the cost of my care without reimbursement, which leads to higher health care costs for everyone, regardless of the taxes they pay.
To me, this is the down side of the libertarian point of view. Sure there are abuses of "government hand outs", but the reasons why they were implemented in the first place still ring true. If a member of our society is down, we should lend them a hand. If not out of a general sense of decency, we should do it for the comfort and safety of the current not-so-poor, because history shows if we leave the downtrodden to fend for themselves long enough, some will pull themselves out, sure (just as they do now) but eventually they will revolt and the wealth and privilege that the "others" enjoy will be taken from them by force.
By definition it is socialism, but who cares? There are good aspects of socialism just as there are good aspects of libertarianism. Libraries are socialist institutions, but I think they should be kept around. Same goes for public schools, police, fire fighters, the FDA, public works, etc. This "leave everyone alone and they'll find their way" mentality is naive at best and negligently homicidal at worst. It is a good credo to keep in mind, but it shouldn't be the basis of our society. We simply know better.
Shea, early in life I was the "working poor". I did ok though, I worked two jobs, avg 70 hours a week. I consider where I am a product of hard work--I was never "given a break". I was hired as a result of affirmative (re)action once, but when I found out I promptly quit. Yes, there are a few who work hardly at all and rake it in--although I don't know many of them.
But yes, a lot of poor people are poor because they know no better nor have the ambition to be anything other. Shea, I realize you are in social work, but I know what keeps my color in its economic state, and it is not hard work! My brothers have been taught to be victims and feel entitled to the benefits without the work. Thats why many of them resort to crime or welfare. No, no one desires to be poor, but there is only one honest way out of that and it is not taking some meager handout from the state.
Smorg,
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin and several other of our founding fathers (and Plato I think also) who defined government or "the state". They said that government in its purest form is "force". If one thinks about it, government uses force to get people to do things. For example, it says that if you kill someone it will bring force (penalty) to bear against you for that action. So we empower goverment to use force for issues of personal safety (police forces, military, etc.). The government also uses force to advance moral agendas. For example, it can put someone in jail for indecent exposure, or think about the host of sodomy laws that are out there. While we may agree with some we may disagree with others--but we need to be consistent. In the example of poor people, I think it is my moral obligation because of my faith and work ethic that I try to help the infirmed and needy. But people have empowered the government to bring force to bear against me if I don't do this--in other words, the government makes me pay taxes to feed the poor and help the infirmed. If I refuse to pay my tax, then I will be thrown in jail or fined until I pay it.
So if you use the rule of thumb that "government = force" as a measuring stick for what force should be applied to, then it may help you with evaluating what the government does.
Question: SHOULD the government force us to do what it thinks morally acceptable? Do you think that the government should legislate morality? (I know of one government who was the absolute moral authority--the Nazi Regime, Saddam's Baathist Party, etc.)
Keep in mind, the more we allow the government to use force to legislate moral directives the more control they have over our individual freedoms. The current governmental move to ban gay marriage is the same use of force it uses to force me to feed the poor.
Found this link:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0300d.asp
-Jack
I agree, Jack. Government is force and they coerce us into doing their bidding by using it.
I agree with discussions we've had in the past that the best way to attain equality for gays is to remove any governmental significance to marriage. I'm all for that. That's a good libertarian ideal. Any place where government isn't needed, it shouldn't meddle. Of course, the hard part is getting some consensus on where it is and isn't needed.
I think social programs like welfare are good uses of government force, just as police and an army are good uses. Rarely in life are we able to adhere strictly to only one ideology or philosophy and we'll never become a completely libertarian society just as we'll never become a completely socialist one. I think our country would benefit greatly from scaling back MANY of its powers, but programs that help the poor don't qualify in my opinion (they qualify for scrutiny and change to become more efficient, but not deletion).
Any time a governing body tries to get many different people to agree on how things are done there is going to be vast differences in opinion. While I would like to have a true libertarian state it's just not going to happen. And, to me, cutting programs like welfare because some people abuse them or in an attempt to become more libertarian is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree, Smorg. I guess I was speaking largely in a purist sense, but we know that purism is not always the most practical. I think that many social programs should be safety nets, and they aren't--they are ways of life to hold back those dependent upon them. They don't create opportunity, the sap initiative. They CREATE dependence by virtue of what they are, while the bureacrats who run them justify the means of their own subsistence promoting the "need". This is why many of our government programs are wasteful and ineffective, and constantly lobby for their continued existence.
The problem is, that these kind of organizations drain money and resources from areas of real need. This is caused by a lack of oversite in government in general. Politicians are great about starting programs to give away your and my hard earned money, but they don't install checks and balances that normal business have to make them run well (why should they, the pot of money is bottomless, right?!). Take Shea's agency for example--he has spoken often of their overtaxed social workers who have endless caseloads and limited resources--but they would not be in that condition if there were not so many ineffectual organizations siphoning off money for what is really needed. See, I believe the government should be about safety nets for those who truly need them, not ways of life for people who have been taught to depend on them. (BTW, I saw another commercial for food stamps on TV the other night--it blows my mind that if we have such a food stamp problem out there that we would have our social services agency advertising to get people to come get food stamps-ON TV NO LESS--how much does THAT cost?!) Go figure it, Smorg, over half of what you make goes to the government--that's money that your kids, your family or anyone you would love to help will never see.
All of this in context of, if we as human beings would shoulder our responsibility for our fellow man, we wouldn't need a wasteful and innefficient leviathon of a government to fill those needs. I guess we have gotten what we deserve, huh?
WSC, sounding mighty conservative there, ol' chap! ha! (or should I say, making commonly good sense...)
Gee, I was just reading over my comments--I need to start spellchecking...
Post a Comment
<< Home