Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
I remember some of the cities in the northwest US did exchanges during the recession, where people could trade in their firearms for groceries and basic necessities, to astounding results. Australia did a gun-buyback thing after Port Arthur that was massively successful, and there hasn't been a massacre (defined as 4+) since.
|
I would caution against confusing correlation with causation with this one. I'm not saying there wasn't a positive effect either way, but with matters such as these, it's important to remember that the effecting factors of any given situation is highly sensitive to the particular place and time, and definitely the culture and history of a given set. We cannot see a good idea somewhere and automatically assume that it is a good idea everywhere. It's easy to slide into the uncomplicated idea of it working as a blueprint across the board, but I think care needs to be taken when it comes to implementation of such things without first considering the particular demographics and situations of each individual area.
Quote:
|
I think if we were to start helping people to obtain what they need, they would stop having to take it from others. Unfortunately, the capitalist attitude blames these shortcomings on the individual, and that's a dead end path with no long term solution in it. A society has to take care of all of its individuals or it just fosters a paranoid and selfish environment.
|
It's a grand idea to be able to give everyone what they need. I wish we could. The truth of the matter is that someone has to pay for it. And while capitalism has (and continues to) contributed to a large percentage of what this country is financially and opportunity-wise, the government programs have to have an income. Taxing 1 percent of the population is definitely not a solution that, for some reason, a sh*t-load of people in the U.S. recently seem to not understand.
People helping people is a really nice concept, but, again, we have to see things contextually. In our fiscal climate here, the government is spending so much on programs that no amount of taxation will ever reverse the inevitable result. The solution of the left is generally to create new revenue, while the solution of the right is generally to cut the spending associated with governmental cost. Regardless of who is right or wrong, the people suffer from either position when not approached in a balanced way.
Anyway, without diverting further into current fiscal politics, I mean to say that yes, there is a culture of need here, but short of abandoning Democracy and Capitalism and replacing it with all-out Socialism whereupon there is no other goal than to carry your own weight to the extent that it carries others, without hope for rising above that without being limited by how much of society you can support, there are always going to be casualties stemming from a system that rewards those with something to offer it.
Whether everyone is afforded the same baseline to start from is another discussion entirely, but I don't think that is relevant to capitalism at its core, but more to societal perceptions and accommodations as a whole.
I don't disagree that existing at the bottom of the barrel fosters the kind of environment that breeds violent alternatives. This is practically the nature of survival. It is a mechanism. Yet, I don't think that humanity is defined by it, and I do think that it is far more possible to excel these days than it ever was. But, obviously, this is still dependent on a Capitalist system. The people have to provide a product or service if they expect someone else to pay for it.
Seeing these points as standard "gimmes", as it were, I would like to use them to state that yes, things can stand some change. But I would be careful about assigning blame to the system itself, rather than the way the system is used (or abused). You apparently align along that reasoning, so I know you know what I'm saying is at least partially true. I would, however, like to add that I think our problem here in the states is less about the unavailability of success than it is about the expectation that success is a right, and that survival and growth is no longer something that must be achieved, but bestowed at the expense of those who achieved it themselves.