Hi-
A further word about taxes and responsibility. I believe all moral people feel an obligation to help the helpless and those who suffer. The obvious question is- what is suffering and terrible misfortune, and what is self-inflicted? Can or should we help those who destroy themselves? What is considered an 'acceptable' social outcome? Are we required to provide that outcome for all, regardless of their abilities, effort or self-destructive behavior?
Without question, there are those who through no special fault are in awful circumstances. My practice has extended gifts and loans to staff members in trouble, because we feel it is wrong to go home with plenty while someone who works for us suffers. If that person were suffering because of substance abuse, or untreated mental illness, I don't think we would be as sympathetic.
What about those who drop out of school, and then rely on public assistance because they can not get a job that pays well? Also, we have an understandable soft spot for children. Should we support women who become unintentionally pregnant, drop out of school and become chronically unemployed? 30% of white pregnancies are to single women, 70% in black women. I get to deal with these situations every day. I suspect there would be a great deal more caution about use of readily available contraception if women knew they had to support their children, and men knew they would be called upon to support the women they impregnate.
Construing an unwillingness to engage in societal co-dependency with the misbehaved as cruelty to children and the poor is ridiculous. Rewarding irresponsibility with support seems wrong to me. These individuals are suffering only because of their own choices and behavior. The claim that society as a whole is better off by 'helping' these individuals also seems wrong. Subsidizing bad behavior, as opposed to helping those truly suffering, does nothing except allow bad behavior to flourish.
Ted
A further word about taxes and responsibility. I believe all moral people feel an obligation to help the helpless and those who suffer. The obvious question is- what is suffering and terrible misfortune, and what is self-inflicted? Can or should we help those who destroy themselves? What is considered an 'acceptable' social outcome? Are we required to provide that outcome for all, regardless of their abilities, effort or self-destructive behavior?
Without question, there are those who through no special fault are in awful circumstances. My practice has extended gifts and loans to staff members in trouble, because we feel it is wrong to go home with plenty while someone who works for us suffers. If that person were suffering because of substance abuse, or untreated mental illness, I don't think we would be as sympathetic.
What about those who drop out of school, and then rely on public assistance because they can not get a job that pays well? Also, we have an understandable soft spot for children. Should we support women who become unintentionally pregnant, drop out of school and become chronically unemployed? 30% of white pregnancies are to single women, 70% in black women. I get to deal with these situations every day. I suspect there would be a great deal more caution about use of readily available contraception if women knew they had to support their children, and men knew they would be called upon to support the women they impregnate.
Construing an unwillingness to engage in societal co-dependency with the misbehaved as cruelty to children and the poor is ridiculous. Rewarding irresponsibility with support seems wrong to me. These individuals are suffering only because of their own choices and behavior. The claim that society as a whole is better off by 'helping' these individuals also seems wrong. Subsidizing bad behavior, as opposed to helping those truly suffering, does nothing except allow bad behavior to flourish.
Ted
"Subsidizing bad behavior, as opposed to helping those truly suffering, does nothing except allow bad behavior to flourish."
ReplyDeleteAye, there's the rub. It's what Theodore Dalrymple has written about over in Britain. How do we help the downtrodden without rewarding bad behavior? It's a tough call...when it comes to taking advantage of a system designed to help the hurting, unscrupulous people are quite clever in getting handouts they don't deserve.
David Graham
AMEN! I was a divorced mother of two little boys who quit her job when the boss grabbed my breasts one day. It never entered my mind to go to the unemployment office or welfare office. I busted my butt looking for another job and found a better one within two weeks. Meanwhile, my boys and I ate beans and cornbread. What little money I had went to buy milk and gas for my little VW so I could take them to school and go on job interviews. There's something really wrong with our society when having several illigitimate children is accepted and rewarded. And it's wrong for able-bodied people to drive their Cadillacs down to the unemployment office. As a taxpayer, I resent the fact that I am paying for them to lay around on their collective asses.
ReplyDelete