Why do we not end poverty? Why the inaction?

Because it's not my problem. I "act" every day to feed myself and my family. In fact, I "act" every day to feed others around me, sometimes including friends.

If I feel the desire, I sometimes even give a few dollars to bums on the streets, as long as they're not begging and have no signs demanding that I give them something.

Bottom line is, it's not my responsibility to live for any other man. I may choose to help whomever I wish, but beyond that, I bear no responsibility whatsoever.

The question may be why is there poverty? If it were, I'd respond:

Because international Nations irresponsibly come together and form organizations that take money from citizens immorally under the guise of "solving the problem of global poverty". Then they use that money to fund their meetings on "how they're going to fix the problem". A few of the more corrupt politicians take the money (such as Kofi Annan and his son) and embezzle it for their own ends, leaving the tax payers less able to generously donate according to their own desires.

If we had no coerced efforts in the first place, individuals may be more able to assist on their own. And if we had no international organizations wasting efforts, manpower, minds, and talent, some of these well-educated people could be running companies to employ the poverty-stricken individuals we're speaking about.

The true problem is people who feel, for whatever reason, some deep moral obligation to FORCE assistance on these "helpless" people in the first place.

Let them figure out their own problems. It's none of our business.

Dewey wrote:Yes, Belinda, reducing poverty has a lot to do with the perceived need for economic growth. Reduction is easier when there is growth. Some of the added wealth gets to the poor. Theoretically, at least, poverty reduction can occur without economic growth. The existing wealth can be redistributed from the rich to the poor. Our human nature regretably make that hard to do.

I think invictus_88 makes a good point about the merits of going the redistribution route. I don’t however share his apparent scorn of the UN Millenium Campaign. Poverty is relative, as he says. But I see nothing laughable about the efforts to abolish unmistakable, extreme poverty.

I share with your distaste, Dewey, but mine's for your comment about re-distribution of wealth. How can you regret the fact that our human nature makes it difficult for us to place a band-aid on a bullet wound?

Poverty cannot be cured by re-distributing wealth already created. What must be done is, as invictus indictated, re-distributing the means by which the wealth is earned. As I said in my earlier post, if we focused less on giving products and more on granting opportunities, we would have permanent solutions.

It might not be your desired solution since it wouldn't render you their permanent Santa Claus, but it would fix the problem.

How much did YOU give 'directly into the hands of the poor'* and needy in, say, the last twelve months?

Is this because of your ignorance, you didn't know that people were hungry, sick...?

I didn't give DIRECTLY to more than a few. And I have absolutely no shame in that, because there I have no obligation to give.

I know people are hungry and sick. I get hungry and sick sometimes, so I feed and seek comfort for myself.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that explains why I should be obligated to fulfill anybody else's needs.

Belinda wrote:

I have yet to see a compelling argument that explains why I should be obligated to fulfill anybody else's needs.

Then I guess you are not a parent, teacher or medic.Or civil engineer, poet or military officer.Or political representative, fireman or policeman etc.........

shop assistant
farmer
cook
dock worker
ship's captain
sewage worker
barman or barmaid
sound technician
counsellor
actor
website designer
plumber

This is fun for me I like lists

Strange coincidence. I was a Military Officer, a Policeman, a counselor and teacher, worked on a farm growing up, have designed websites, have acted .... what does this have to do with answering my question?

There is no compelling argument that explains an obligation for me to serve others. I am free to do it voluntarily, which I have and continue to do. But I am not required, by anybody at anytime.

* And I don't have children -because- I don't desire to care for them *

Belinda wrote:

Strange coincidence. I was a Military Officer, a Policeman, a counselor and teacher, worked on a farm growing up, have designed websites, have acted .... what does this have to do with answering my question?

Because all these exist to serve others. Society is an arrangement for mutual assistance.

I wouldn't say that they exist to serve others, but to provide a service. I was an Officer because I enjoyed leading soldiers; a cop because enforcing the law gave me satisfaction; etc, etc. You're right when you say that "Society is an arrangement for mutual assistance". It doesn't exist to serve others, but to work utilizing mutual assistance, for individual progression. You work to advance your own ends with the understanding that both you and the party that you are arranging your affairs with will benefit.

I don't exist to deprive anybody of anything. I wish success for all. However, I am not responsible for their success, and will not ascribe to myself a sense of responsibility for another's failure, out of an irrational sense of guilt or any other self-pitying emotion.

I think the term "Sociopath" is a morally loaded one, Scott. It means:

so⋅ci⋅o⋅path  –noun
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Either you are an amoralist or you aren't. Make up your mind. Honestly, I understand your struggle. But you are calling people names on one hand and demanding that they do something to prove their "sense of moral responsibility" when on the other hand you're saying that there exists no such thing.

Hypocrisy is an evil thing, Scott. I'm sure that's why you chose to become amoral. Do you still wish to embrace your ideology, or would you rather satisfy your sad, insatiable self-righteous human nature? If so, please just find a cult [religion] to join now so that your efforts are at least pointed!

Why don't we help others? Because they are not our responsibility! There exists no such thing as a "moral responsibility or social conscience". These are devices originally fabricated by religion, and perpetuated by other social groups in order to retain their 'flocks' and gain power through the exploitation of human guilt. That's why they're so naturally and readilly ignored!

Scott wrote:I am using the term sociopath to mean what I always have believed it to mean in a scientifically psychological sense, which is one who does not feel empathy. It is a very abnormal condition. Most of us feel empathy and sympathy for others. Helping others makes us happy, and seeing others in pain makes us unhappy.

Scott,

Forgive me for being rude earlier. I was just in the heat of the moment. As for your intended meaning, my response is as follows:

Why do we act like sociopaths [as if we do not feel empathy]? We do not. We act as if we are empathetic in droves in America. Here is the problem. When we are deprived of capital at outrageous proportions we are unable to give in outrageous proportions [as we have been known to in the past].

Americans have always given more per capita in charitable contributions than any other nation. However, when taxed into poverty we are rendered incapable. I have been discussing this matter with Invictus in another thread, and you are free to read it if you wish. My point was that we are unable to pursue our happiness [through charity or other means] when our security is threatened.

Our security comes in many forms. Financially speaking, we need safe transportation, safe housing, safe communities, good education for our children, good medical care for ourselves and our families, etc. When we do not have these things, we can't give. Why would you expect us to give security to others if we have not secured it for ourselves first?

It is, in other terms, a matter of survival of the fittest. Most people will not sacrifice their own well being or the well being of their families in order to fund the security and comfort of others first. This would be outrageous by most people's standards, wouldn't you agree?

So why would you expect us to give to others when we have not secured for ourselves a future that guarantees all of these ammenities?

Or should we be expected to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of others?

Another good point, if you'll allow me to add to your post, Juice, is that we would go bankrupt continuing to fund our handout operations.

Warlords the world over [Africa, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc.] steal UN and American envoys of food all of the time. Yes, Scott, it may only cost a few pennies to feed a group of people. For one tribe. Then a few more pennies for another tribe. Maybe a dollar per region. Only a couple thousand per country. Per month. Minus the losses to the warlords. Minus the losses to the politicians. Minus the losses to the lobbyists. Etc., etc., ad nauseum.

When do we realize that we cannot continue to fund the handouts to the rest of the world. You can give a man a fish ...

When will we shed ourselves of this guilt instilled in us by religious and other zealots that make us feel as if we are responsible for THE WORLD.

It is not possible for us to fix EVERYBODY'S PROBLEMS! We would go bankrupt and die before we even made a dent! So why cripple our economy in the meantime and ruin any chance we have of even protecting the people's freedom and safety that we do help secure in our own country?

Tax individuals and entities less, and allow them to give as they wish. Then maybe churches and other organizations will have the money to help when they can.

nameless wrote:End hunger and poverty!
Eat the rich!

Brilliant AND original, nameless!

Give it a shot. I'm sure you'll find success beyond your wildest imagination!! Then ALL the poor people in the world can starve after they've squandered the wealth of the people who once funded the mechanisms that brought them their food!

[A word of advice ... watch out for that cold steel in your face on the way in the door ]

nameless wrote:

whitetrshsoldier wrote:

nameless wrote:End hunger and poverty!
Eat the rich!

Brilliant AND original, nameless!

Give it a shot. I'm sure you'll find success beyond your wildest imagination!! Then ALL the poor people in the world can starve after they've squandered the wealth of the people who once funded the mechanisms that brought them their food!

Take a deep breath, soldier.
Literary device warning!
What brings the poor their food, as well as the rich (and about everything else that the rich enjoy), is by the labors of the poor!

A word of advice ... watch out for that cold steel in your face on the way in the door

Thats what the aristocrats said during the French Revolution.

(A Joke; What do you call a 'poor' or 'middle-class' person that defends the wealthy few?)

Take a second and laugh yourself, nameless!

What's another name for a machine gun, buddy?

100 soldiers for the price of one!!! J/K, but not really! I was just messing around, not serious at all. This whole 'class identification' crap is like trying to identify 'race'.

One of my favorites was an episode of "Chappelle's Show" showing the "Shades of Black". From '50 Cent to Michael Jackson, it was the "Who's Really Black" of "Black Culture". It's not like anybody can really identify an answer - it's a bullsh#t question, just as class is!

The whole debate is ludicrous.

Dewey wrote:And I can’t quite believe that either one of you really thinks that the poor inherently lack the necessary intelligence, ambition, and energy to become and stay rich.

It’s all relative. There's no black and white borderline.

To Scott, I wrote:

whitetrshsoldier wrote:And sometimes the rich are undeserving, but their property came from the sweat of somebody's brow, at some point in time. It may be slightly unfair that they received it at birth, but somebody earned it at some point, and it was their decision who to hand it down to.

The 'serf' also has the ability to rise through the ranks. I understand that it does not occur very frequently, but it is possible, and only through innovation and bringing something new and special to the world. If egalitarianism truly existed, why would people innovate? Competition is natural for every living species of animal on this planet; why should we regard it as negative for us?

Dewey,

Thank you, Sir.

I hope you understand that this is all I preach.

nameless wrote:You know if/that you are 'black'.
The 'whites' makes that relatively clear.
You know if/that you are 'poor'.
The 'haves' make that relatively clear.
There are obviously definitions, just no 'universal' definitions.
Nothing exists without definition..

Bah!

No definition exists without a 'definer'.

If a person allows the definition to define them, they have become that 'definer'.