On Jun 11, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
Consider that not everyone has had the benefit of your upbringing and
self-reliant nature. Consider also that a very large portion of your
welfare is dependant on the health of your community. As
self-sufficient as you try to be, you still depend to a huge degree on
the local, national, and global economies. These economies are fueled
by the 'average American', and they're reliant on said people being
able to continue spending money. Social welfare programs, as
abhorrent as they can be to those of us who work hard to be
self-reliant, are aimed at keeping those who aren't (whether through
their own fault or not) alive, healthy, and participating in the
economy.
As a thought experiment, what do you think would happen if all social
welfare programs were completely removed? It's probably impossible to
say for sure, but I believe the results would be disasterous, both
locally and globally. Thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of
thousands, would die due to lack of health care. Similar numbers
would end up on the streets, and crime would increase dramatically as
people turned to theft to survive. Economies would be ruined, and
even the well-prepared, self-reliant, and lucky enough to not have
disasterous accidents would suffer far more than they do now by paying
for the social programs that prop up our civilization.
Our culture has evolved, thanks in large part to big businesses and
their advertising, to desire far more material goods than we can ever
hope to afford. It takes tremendous willpower, or at least a lot of
training, to avoid this. So a big part of our society walks a
tightrope, just one big mistake or accident away from insolvency and
complete ruin. It just makese sense right now to provide a safety net
beneath them, for the benefit of everyone.
I would sure like for things to be different, but I also believe that
a lot of the comforts, conveniences, and cool things we take for
granted depend on our society being set up the way it is. I honestly
don't know how things could be changed without complete disaster.
Maybe we'll end up with disaster anyway, which will force a change. I
don't think anything else will do it.
--Levi
This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking response. One item that
does come to mind is an interesting (to me) question:
Should we have a societal meltdown, which would go first - internet
based infrastructure or real-world infrastructure. In other words,
which do you think we would lose first - internet access or grocery
stores with food on the shelves?
<snarky>
You can take the food (I've got/can produce lots more), but don't take
my intertubes...
</snarky>
-- Kimball
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
