Fighting Poverty
This post is largely a response to a post by Mair about poverty. In the post, she's upset about a law recently passed in a county in Virginia prohibiting (homeless) people from asking for money on public roads and highway medians. She has this to say:
"The law upset me because I feel like there is nothing wrong with homeless persons reaching out to their fellow man/woman in this way. To me, asking strangers for money is a beautifully heart-breaking example of humility and yet dignity. I think the ability to ask for help is one of the most dignified acts we can do."
What worries me about what Mair's said is that it romanticizes poverty. I think poverty is a terrible thing that few people choose and some people are forced into, and that society should focus itself on giving the disadvantage the advantages they lack; to providing the opportunities and support required to end a person's homelessness. While I agree that admitting your need and honestly asking for help is incredibly dignified, I also have the perception that where homelessness is concerned this is often not the case.
As I see it, when it comes to poverty and homelessness, there are generally two positions. I hate to oversimply things so please tell me if I am, but in this case I think it's valid. On the one hand, the right, you find the opinion that homelessness and destitution are the result of irresponsibility and poor choices. On the other hand, usually the left, you get the opinion that homelessness is the result of bad circumstances and that the disadvantaged show heroic degrees of humility in asking society for support.
In a very un-innovative fashion, I suggest the neither and both are true. There are people amongst us who are horribly disadvantaged and those who are ridiculously irresponsible. The irresponsible refuse to join society economically and socially regardless of what programs or opportunities are given them. While this in and of itself is a perfectly acceptable decision, they should absolutely not be allowed to prey upon the dignified compassion for the disadvantaged held by the rest of us. The truly disadvantaged should be respected and cared for, but the irresponsible who would pretend to be so should not.
So while I think laws preventing panhandling are a little unjust, I don't think they're completely unjustified. There is something very wrong with homeless persons begging for money with signs describing all sorts of terrible situations if they're not true.
note: please notice that I have not said the decision to live apart from our capitalist wonderland is evil - it's perfectly fine and possibly very good. It's only when one chooses not to maintain the role of a functional member of our society and then publically and vocally begs it's charity with false claims of tragedy that I take issue with it.


8 Comments:
Since the problem is twofold (irresponsibility and circumstance), I think the solution to poverty should be twofold, and I welcome comments on my approach. First, citizens of our country need to stop thinking of volunteering and other charitable acts as such, as supererogatory; rather, we should consider a certain amount of community involvement obligatory. Second, instead of welfare, our government should have a job creation program that uses "welfare money" to pay people to do useful things. This would require hiring a whole slew of people to monitor, enforce, and disburse funds, which would grow the economy. After its initial stage, it could be farmed out to private contractors, the way our defense industry works.
What kills me in all of the discussions of poverty is the lack of attention paid to the plight of children, to whom none of the conservative "responsibility" arguments apply, and to whom all of the liberal "circumstance" arguments apply. Children are a community's responsibility (after a family responsibility, of course) and until we as a society decide simply to lift children born into poverty out of it by caring for them and taking over roles their parents either will not or cannot, the cycle will NEVER be broken.
"until we as a society decide simply to lift children born into poverty out of it by caring for them and taking over roles their parents either will not or cannot, the cycle will NEVER be broken."
I'm not against what you're advocating here (caring for neglected children), but I'm at a loss for how you are to accomplish it. This idea seems to depend on a benevolant government agency deciding on who should be able to be parents, what they should be required to provide, and setting a threshold for when the community, aka the government, steps in. It seems like we already have that in social services and its effectiveness is less than we desire. Also, since I'm assuming institutionalizing children is decidedly passé, we also suffer from a shortage of people willing to take in these children. Plus, the whole government decides who should have kids brings back the good ol' leftist memories of eugenics and forced sterilization. But other than that, helping children is totally sweet.
Also, ignoring the "New Deal" overtones, if you clarify what "useful things" might entail, than I'll at least entertain the thought of converting the monolithic welfare agency into an equally monolithic "useful things" agency.
#1: "I'm at a loss for how you are to accomplish [taking care of children in poverty]."
By part one of my plan above: the transformation of our society into one where community involvement is seen as obligatory.
My caveat, though, is that this will not be forced or mandatory in any way: it's not a new government or para-government program. It's simply a movement of citizens, where so many people spend their time helping that not helping is seen as undesired/shameful.
#2: The Useful Things agency. It won't work perfectly, of course, but I think it would be better than welfare. Activities would include cleaning up streets and highways, maintaining parks and other public places, and, ironically, "volunteering" (except that it would be paid) at short-staffed non-profits, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc.
In one scenario, homeless people who are looking for work would receive their welfare checks as payments for upkeep on the shelters they live in; and, like capitalism, there would be benefits involved. The harder and better they worked, the more money they could receive.
Right. Chuck: Please note that in my specific thread, poverty was being discussed in light of it's advertisment by "panhandlers." Children rarely fall into that category in our country.
1.) I agree. Conservatives especially who talk so much about de-regulating welfare (Bush's faith based initiatives and whatnot) need to put their money (or time, but since time is money we'll leave it at money) where their collective mouth is and spend time making privitized social services work.
2.) Why does this have to be a government agency? Maybe because it would replace part of the welfare system? I think it's a great idea though. Maybe the government could contract this out so it's not got the self-regulating beauracracy component.
I think we could put laws in place to stop things like panhandling if we created a working social system so that the truly disadvantaged could get better help elsewhere.
And until then?
I agree with the whole "citizens of our country need to stop thinking of volunteering and other charitable acts as such, as supererogatory; rather, we should consider a certain amount of community involvement obligatory." But- I think that a paradigm shift of that magnitude is too lofty a goal. For example: Me- It's not that I'm totally against spending my time helping people less fortuanate, but I'm working 60 hours a week, commuting 10, and I would only be marginally above the poverty line were I to work all year. So, basically, I'm too busy and selfish to spend what little time I have fighting poverty when I could use that time to fight my own poverty. However, I did totally buy a homeless guy Taco Bell the other day in a feeble effort to save myself from hell.
Until then: spend the money we would on making those laws on developing a better social services system to find and help the truly disadvantaged.
Jack: nice work. :) What did he get? How did you do it? "Hey, can I buy you some taco bell?"
He got the same thing I got, a Grilled Stuft Burrito and a crunchwrap supreme. I was waiting for my food while he was fumbling with some change to buy a choco-taco or something so I just offered to pick up a meal for him. He was generally appreciative, and I was more than happy to give him money that I knew would be spent on food- not crack.
Post a Comment
<< Home