Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2014-06-19 06:46 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2014-06-19 06:46 pm
[ SECRET POST #2725 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2725 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12.
__________________________________________________
13.
__________________________________________________
14.
__________________________________________________
15.
__________________________________________________
16.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #389.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion
(Anonymous) 2014-06-20 06:00 am (UTC)(link)I'm not talking about poverty in the individual sense but poverty as a social condition. Poverty does not exist because of entitlement; entitlement is not the reason there are poor people or people on welfare. It's the result in large part of broad economic conditions, and in many cases of fundamental underlying injustices.
Of course entitlement plays a part I'm sure, and there are many cases where one of the reasons individual people are poor is because they are not good financial planners. But after all they are still human beings even if they're not thrifty; and the logical endpoint of your argument is that one should not enjoy anything while being poor, because it costs money and that's the state's money, or in a more indirect sense because it costs time and they could be putting that time to better use. And that's an argument that I absolutely reject. People are human beings with a certain dignity regardless of whether or not they are poor.
Of course, I don't think you'd make that argument, any more than I would say people should get every consumer gadget they want. But it's important to keep in mind that people on welfare are still people & that they don't deserve to be punished for being on welfare & not all people on welfare are the same as your relatives.
Just out of curiosity, do you have much familiarity with Catholic social teachings? I ask just because I think it's a fascinating perspective on this, and I believe you're Catholic, aren't you?
Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion
There are plenty of things to enjoy if someone is poor. Libraries. Some museums. Parks. Friends.
Not wanting to subsidize someone's poor planning is not punishing them. It is allowing them to deal with the predictable consequences of their actions.
Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion
Like I stated above, I'm okay with paying taxes to feed somebody while they look for a job, get through a rough time, etc. What I'm not okay with is paying taxes to feed someone while they spend their money on things they don't need. One is needy and the other is greedy, and Luke 12:15 states: And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”
Also, I live in a country where the Founding Fathers were wise enough to give us the separation of church and state. Not everybody who pays taxes believes in the Bible so it shouldn't be used as a justification for welfare from public funds.
Ben Franklin (who certainly did not grow up in a rich household) wrote: I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.