[MD] Unreality of Equality

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Good morning Ham,

A brief reply while I sip my coffee...

[Ham]
I'm not a Social Darwinist, but I believe that individual life is the most
precious value we know, and that the individual is the Choicemaker of the
world.  "Let them die" is the hyperbole of a frustrated antagonist.

[Arlo]
Fair enough. If I mischaracterized you, I apologize. Then tell me, in your
Friedman-esque world, what will become of the poor? Will they be taken care of
by charity? Will poverty be eradicated? If the guy across the street has a
child that needs medicine, and he and his wife are laid off (but looking for
work), what happens? 

[Ham] 
Arlo, where have you seen injured people "just left to die for the good of the
rich"?  This is America we're talking about, isn't it? -- not Nairobi or
Indochina.

[Arlo]
I haven't seen it, in my lifetime. But I don't know of what other outcome you
advance when you favor (or seem to) removing the safety net completely. What
happens to Joe Schmoe who has a crate fall on his leg and has severe muscular
damage? Since we don't have worker's compensation any longer (just like in the
pre-1920s), and his income was such that he could not afford personal insurance
(just like wages in the pre-1920s), and let's say he was a single dad of three
small boys... what would happen? No welfare, no workers comp, no insurance, all
to protect the wealth of the rich. Does Joe and his boys end up living on the
street? What?

[Ham]
People make themselves valuable by their contributions to society.  You seem to
have a fixation about power and wealth as a kind of conspiracy designed to
suppress "the little guy".

[Arlo]
Wealth brings power, and power exerts control. This is how it has always been
historically. Its not a conspiracy, its simple historical fact.

[Ham]
Yet, little guys rise above their humble roots and achieve greatness every day.

[Arlo]
That's just myth. The statistics year after year show that the vast majority of
people die in the same socio-economic strata into which they are born. And,
more often than not, the risers and fallers are not doing so because of "skill"
(or lack thereof), but out of happenstance.

[Ham]
They may have to work harder to reach their goals, but sometimes that experience
is an advantage in our competitive world.  If this is what you call "inequality
of value", then I suspect you have a myopic view of societal responsibility.

[Arlo]
What I call "inequality of value" is the belief that because Person A has more
money than Person B, Person A is superior. Although untrue, I've found Person A
tends to love to believe it.

That someone may have to work harder to achieve their goals is another
undeniable truism. That some may never achieve their goals no matter how hard
they work is another. All I am saying is that "skill" alone is not determinate
of "success". Of more correlation is socio-economic birthrite. What I favor is
opening as many doors as possible so that those with skill but without
inherited wealth can have as much a chance as possible.

And this is not just "job training", but such things as medical care to children
of poor families. Public libraries. Educational assistence. Loan relief. Etc.

[Ham] 
When have I ever put down an individual (or lauded him) on the basis of his
socio-economic status?  I can't recall EVER proclaiming a person "superior" or
"inferior" for any reason.

[Arlo]
Not outright, but you seem to imply it. If I'm in err, I apologize.

[Ham]
On the other hand, I have questioned the value-sensibility of people on
occasion, but only because they have the capacity to develop this sense and I
want to see them realize their full potential.

[Arlo]
We agree on this. I'm just not sure "jungle law" is the best way to help people
develop their capacity and realize their full potential. Since, like I said,
most's capacity to develop is the result of birthrite, not skill.

[Ham]
There always were, and probably always will be, slums and poverty; but the
disparity between rich and poor in the U.S. is less than in almost any other
country in the modern world.  If the government didn't rob the captains of
industry to run its welfare programs, they would be far more likely to increase
their contributions to the underclass.

[Arlo]
You mean like they did before the government stepped in? Seems to me the
"disparity" you speak of has minimized greatly since the 1900s, when the
government left it to the "charity" of the captains of industry. Indeed, when
you look around at the world countries with the least disparity between rich
and poor, it is also those with significant government intervention. In all
historical cases I can find, when the government has not intervened, the
rich-poor disparity was much higher. Can you point me to an example otherwise?

[Ham]
So, when are you planning the revolution?  And will you be promoting
Socialism or Marxism? 

[Arlo]
A nice mix of all.

[Ham]
Have you ever asked the panhandler on the street why he is homeless and
destitute?  You might be surprised by his answer.  Many destitute people need
psychiatric help or language skills.  Most need drug or alcohol rehabilitation.
 And, let's face it, more than a few just can't marshal themselves to the
responsibilities of the workplace.

[Arlo]
Well, Ham. I don't just preach from a comfy airchair. I talk with many, and I
find your caricature typical. Sure, there are "crazy panhanders", who should be
receiving psychiatric help (but aren't, because who is gonna pay). But there
are much more good, decent people who can't get a break and only need some type
of net until they can rebound.

Look, I'm with you on the abuses happening in the currect system. I don't favor
welfare being a lifestyle. I have seen things that have pissed me off (for
example, when I lived in the Great, Windy City, an expensively dressed woman
ahead of me at the grocer's, had her bill (several carts) come to over $800.
She paid for it all with food stamps. She had a fit when a $3.80 bottle of
something wasn't covered. Then, she got into a brandnew SUV and drove off. Me,
working part-time nights and with a new baby, was struggling to get enough
groceries each week, yet I never thought about welfare, since I knew I didn't
absolutely, positively, no other choice, need it.

Like I said, I think those who do find themselves in that deplorable (and
stigmatizing) position of needed welfare, should be required to work in some
capacity for what they receive, and I think there should be stringent time
restrictions. And job placement. 

[Ham]
But I can't sympathize with the individual whose entire life-agenda is living
off the generosity of others.  Even a dog in the wild does what it has to do to
survive.  Why should a human being with intellectual understanding and a sense
of values resign himself to lifelong dependence?

[Arlo]
We agree here Ham.

[Ham]
I appreciate your candor, Arlo.  But I have known people of your political
persuasion who have drastically changed their position later in life.  Who
knows?  You could be one of them.

[Arlo]
You mean as money becomes more and more important? :-) Actually, I've drifted
"right" in many ways, and "left" in others. I am trying to find a balance here
between abolishing all forms of a safety net and perpetuating the lifestyle of
living on the public dole. 


Arlo