Re: Laura/Margaret/Greg: A conflict in core beliefs

["Laura Walker" <LJW6626@worldnet.att.net>]

Greg --

You are ALSO correct.  Providing assistance and being our brothers' and
sisters' keepers, IMO, helps people learn to help themselves, by providing
them with training, "welfare" and other forms of federal, state and local
assistance until they are competent and capable to take care of themselves
and their families.  Unfortunately, it doesn't end there, however, because
employers (and others) are hesitant to hire people who have been on welfare,
unemployed for extended periods of time, etc.  I don't think I need to
elaborate on the ways in which the poorest and lowest classes in our society
continue to be discriminated against in employment and other ways, in spite
of their determination, will and desire to "make it".  Thus the reason that
unions, community (local, state, federal) agencies, non-profit
organizations, legal aid, will probably always be necessary.  Otherwise,
these folks -- or probably many, many of the rest of us average low-middle
class individuals -- would never even get the opportunities to get the
skills/training/jobs/benefits...

Laura
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY <noprivacy@essential.org>
Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: Laura/Margaret/Greg: A conflict in core beliefs


>Thank you, Ed.
>
>  You are correct. What I do find interesting, however, is that there are a
>large number of converts (at least that I'm aware of) from modern
>liberalism to libertarianism in their thinking. They make the leap from a
>position that embraces "social" freedom to embracing "freedom." I am hard
>pressed to find anyone who has gone the other way. But, it is a hard step.
>No doubt about that. It is a difficult step to grasp the notion that to
>truly be your brother's keeper, you need to provide the temporary
>assistance he needs, then insist that he learn to be his own keeper. He may
>kick and scream and fight and tell you you are cruel and heartless and
>uncaring. But anything less disables him. So, the discussion is worthwhile,
>even if tedious at times.
>
> Best,
>
>   -- Greg
>
>"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
>change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret
>Mead
>
>
>
>On Sunday, February 14, 1999 12:14 PM, Edward Britton
>[SMTP:fremin@geocities.com] wrote:
>> Laura, Greg, et al.
>>
>> After reviewing your disparate arguments--and myriad others of similar
>ilk
>> on other lists--I am here to tell you all that you will never reach a
>> resolve regarding this most basic of "economic contentions."
>>
>> This issue boils down to a basic conflict in the core belief systems of
>> both sides of the debate. Whereas "free market" partisans cannot accept
>> relative poverty in a socio-economic scheme as being caused by anything
>> other than the sloth of those who suffer from same, "collectivist"
>> partisans cannot fathom the "nobler" atributes of social Darwinism.
>Whereas
>> one group insists that such hybridized systems which blend socialism and
>> capitalism can work together for the good of all, the other will continue
>> to relentlessly tout the merits of rugged individualism. The two modes of
>> thought are, sadly, immiscible.
>>
>> Edward   ><>
>>
>>
>
>