Being able to separate oneself from personal subjective feelings with objective thinking is a key component to, I believe, critical thinking. My sister the other day asserted because I once said, "Sarah Palin is a political star" it meant I agreed with her politics.
This is, of course, is nonsense and I suppose I gave to much credit to a university graduate to be able to distinguish from the two. Unfortunately, these days, you have to "quantify" everything you say lest it be misinterpreted because people have forgotten how to think.
For the record, I don't care for Palin or her politics. I don't consider hers to be conservative but a pop variation of it. However, people would be fools to ignore her.
***
Why is it that creating dependency on the government to protect all citizens is seen as "humanistic?" To me this feels non-humanist. Just because one feels the state isn't the best way to help deal with (or cure) social ills, doesn't mean they "don't care" or lack any humanist qualities.
I agree with your last paragraph. Problem is since we have jettisoned religion and charities only the state is left to take care of the citizens. I can not rely on Power Corporation or Chase Manhattan to provide the services I singlehandedly could not afford for myself when life or death is in the balance.
ReplyDeleteRelying on charity is humiliating, sharing public services that one has contributed to finace is totally another thing. And that is where conservatives and neoliberals are off the track with their philosophy of if you can not care for yourself, die.
We've jettisoned the church, religion and charities...so we traded it for the state? Did we progress then?
ReplyDeleteProgress, maybe not but at least we left as little people as we could by the wayside.
ReplyDeleteNot progress? While I agree, it only adds to my point: Government intervention = progress. It's the whole raison d'etre of the NDP and socialists.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure it's been effective. All we've done is swept our poor huddled masses under the rug. We still see persistent if not high poverty rates. The homeless on Mtl. streets is not becoming of a "socialist-leaning" society.
At best, we've provided some relief and help those who truly needed the help and used that charity to better themselves. At worse, and this is serious, we've made people dependent on the state. We're no longer self-reliant.
"We're no longer self reliant". I would not say that offhand. Just look around you at the numerous community organisations in every fields of action. Look at the thousands of volunteers serving the community with enthusiasm.
ReplyDeleteHow many entrepreneurs like you are still going for it?
As for the homeless on Montreal streets many could have a home...if they wanted one. Every day hundreds of them refuse to be helped and even to be taken to a shelter when the thermometer dips in the low minuses. Ask any streetworker. Mental health is their larger problem; to help someone with a mental problem, that someone has to acknowledge it first or it has to be so severe that the dangerousness of the situation authorizes compulsory action, not easy to demonstrate before a judge when psychiatrist either argue one against the other or, ss I have witnessed in many cases, squarely refuse to take on a case if it implies going to court.
Question: Why do we still have poverty if there's a welfare state?
ReplyDeleteAh, mental health - the great big challenge - private or government - of the 21st century.
However far reaching a welfare state is, and ours is a mixed welfare/self care one, it can not solve everything. Poverty is a relative notion. Our so called poors are rich compared to many in South America, Africa and even in some parts of the USA.
ReplyDeleteHere poverty is if you have a family income below 25ooo$ or somewhere around that. Of course a good many earn even less than that. Our food banks even now cater to working families outdone by the rising cost of living and watch out when those interests rate start going up again.
What our system is doing is preventing those people willing to help themselves from lacking basic essentials but they are still poor although not absolutely destitute.
However no system can prevent alcoholics, drug addicts or compulsive gamblers from blowing away any help they can get thus remaining utterly deprived of the essentials; even communism and the police state can not do it.