- Capitalism and Alternatives -

help and kindness

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on October 22, 1999 at 16:43:47:

In Reply to: OK Frenchy your a prime example of the nasty debator, please help me understand you. posted by Lark on October 22, 1999 at 15:15:41:

: nazi/facist/republican/neo-liberal conservative/capitalist? No I dont think you would.

Some word play on 'neo-liberal'. Kind of annoying really isnt it. Liberalism has its source in Locke, JS Mill ans the like - hardly a 'new' thing at all, nor is is currently espoused liberalism significantly different from liberalism from 'the old days'.

'they' (whoever they are!) got away with rewording liberal as 'neo-liberal' due to the dumb acceptance of the word liberal as describing (largely in America) the broad mixture of civil liberties and authoritarian leftist beliefs which sprouted most notable in the 60's.

These people are the 'neo' liberals, theyre 'newer' and their intent with the word liberal is certainly different from its actual meaning. The phrase 'neo liberal' is more apt to what passes for liberals and progressives in the US today.

Note that Australian Septimus used the word liberal in its accurate form.

: Here's my solution, one I've proposed many times; When you see a homeless guy, or someone that is makeing lousy wages and can't support himself according to your standards, take him in, give him your food, share your soap, allow him equal use of your gas range.

:That is fine as far as it goes, admirable even, but I can't perform such acts on a global, national or even more than local scale. Charity is fine but it eventually leads to dependency and then it degrades both parties.

I think Frenchy has a point here. His contention that if you want to help you should shows up an important element - that the helper is not obliged under force of law to help - its in denial of the notion that "people are bad unless you force them to be good" and and it also undermines the notion that "people are behaving 'badly' because 'the system' forces them to". Unless I've misread him.

But your point is interesting - you see I think that when you personally help a person out it becomes a matter of mutual regard, the person helped will often wish to repay the kindness, to show the appreciation - both parties are willing exchangers, its genuine and focussed. Institutionalised 'help' whether its via government handouts, charity or by an enforced social decree which demands that everyone may take the same creates the enmity and dependance. Enmity because the help is offered via a removed faceless institution and not from the hands of actual genuine people (makes you feel like a second class citizen) and dependancy creating because its always there regardless , you dont get the impression that "wow, this kind fellow really helped out or I'd be a gonna" - a feeling of bing uniquely selected for help by a real person but more "the well is never dry, I may aswell get my bit, the bastards" - a feeling of receiving alms for being incapable.

: This is a very sound question citizen, you are perhaps used to dealing with a different calibre of socialist etc. the sort that is more concerned with fousting a monolithic superstructure upon everyone else, the type of person who finds it easier to empathise with institutions, parties, leadership or abstract theories than people.

Lark, I mentioned here that authority may be necessary anyway.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup