What about the Poor?

[Traveler]

Some questions concerning societies obligation concerning the poor:

1. Do the poor have unique rights - or should the poor be granted privilege (government help) not granted to other elements of society.

2. What responsibilities does the government have concerning the poor.

3. Are all poor "created" equal? In other words - should any assistance needed by the poor be granted based solely on their economic situation?

4. For what purpose should the poor be helped? What should be the measure of success in efforts in helping the poor?

The Traveler

[Backroads]

Some questions concerning societies obligation concerning the poor:

1. Do the poor have unique rights - or should the poor be granted privilege (government help) not granted to other elements of society.

2. What responsibilities does the government have concerning the poor.

3. Are all poor "created" equal? In other words - should any assistance needed by the poor be granted based solely on their economic situation?

4. For what purpose should the poor be helped? What should be the measure of success in efforts in helping the poor?

The Traveler

Disclaimer: thoughts of Backroads only.

1. No and no. The poor should have no special rights that are denied to anyone else in society.

2. To recognize the existence of the poor and provide the means to a basic living standard.

3. No. There are all different kinds of poor. They will have different needs in order to reach the aforementioned basic living standard.

4. The poor should be helped because it is the moral thing to do. However, on a personal level, I don't think we should be looking for a certain measure of success. On a government level, I imagine any government wants to avoid a high poverty level.

[Anddenex]

Some questions concerning societies obligation concerning the poor:

1. Do the poor have unique rights - or should the poor be granted privilege (government help) not granted to other elements of society.

No.

2. What responsibilities does the government have concerning the poor.

Depends on the government the poor are governed by. In the US, I believe the government does have a responsibility to the poor, especially to the poor.

1. Individual rights honored.

2. A form of assistance, welfare, should it be needed. This should be based upon principles of self-reliance. People who are receiving government aid, other than food needs, should be required to work for their wages.

a. Work on a local farm that supplies food to stores.

b. Highway clean up.

c. Janitorial work at government office buildings.

d. Work for constructions companies, the construction company doesn't pay them, who are working on government jobs.

3. Assistance is finding jobs, or as they already do, sending an email with jobs that fit their skills and expertise.

3. Are all poor "created" equal? In other words - should any assistance needed by the poor be granted based solely on their economic situation?

Yes, all poor are created equal.

Yes, yet, I wouldn't title this under a right or a privilege, but surely out of the mercy and compassion of others.

Some SES's, I believe should be looked at with an increasing awareness, picking out the children who appear to be wanting to make a difference in their lives. These are children who through their personal merits are striving to do well in school. These children should receive an added awareness for college assistance, loans, by which they will pay off.

For example, I am totally fine with the assistance Native Americans from reservations receive, who are performing well in school, and which allows them to truly attend better colleges.

However, I would disagree with the idea just because they are Native American, means they receive scholarships, government scholarships, even though they did not perform well in school.

4. For what purpose should the poor be helped? What should be the measure of success in efforts in helping the poor?

To increase self-reliance.

Self-reliance should be the measure of success. How many people actually receiving help for living expenses, i.e. rent, car payments, phone payments, etc....

Are these people being provided service opportunities by which they are working for what they receive?

They have a 9-2pm job, and then required a similar contract of seeking out unemployment.

They could easily have an interview, or application which specifies their skills and talents, and possibly provided jobs, service jobs, which will help them increase the skill. Example, a person who shows a skill in web design, might be given a service job at a local government building in their web design department. They are then taught, through personal experience, how to increase their design skills.

As with Backroads, these are solely my thoughts.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Anddenex

[BrendaM]

Some questions concerning societies obligation concerning the poor:

1. Do the poor have unique rights - or should the poor be granted privilege (government help) not granted to other elements of society.

2. What responsibilities does the government have concerning the poor.

3. Are all poor "created" equal? In other words - should any assistance needed by the poor be granted based solely on their economic situation?

4. For what purpose should the poor be helped? What should be the measure of success in efforts in helping the poor?

The Traveler

Depends what you mean by "poor" (in spirit or/and temporal)? I'm guessing you mean temporal, so I'll give "my opinions" based on that.

1. No and No

2. The government (meaning all of us hopefully), have a responsiblity to assist the poor to provide for there basic needs, a hand up, not a hand out.

3. I don't believe all poor are created equal. Yes, assistance should be granted based on economic situation - again a hand up, not a hand out.

4. The purpose of helping the poor is to enable them to help themselves. To help them see themselves as worthy as anyone else. To provide the basic needs a far as food, housing. To assist them in finding gainful employment so that they may provide for their families.

The measure of success should be in the inability of people taking advantage of the system just because they are lazy. I don't know how that could be done.

The measue of success could also be tax dollars being used better to assist the poor, instead of frivilous spending (or stealing).

[Traveler]

Interesting responses - But I wonder??? There are some poor that because of mental or physical handicap or because of an accident or some such thing have lost the ability to ever care for themselves. In some cases it is aging but the point is that there are some poor that will never as long as they live be able to care for themselves - the so called "hand up" rather than and hand out does absolutely nothing. What is to be done with those that cannot care for themselves - ever? Should they be institutionalized? Should they lose freedoms because they may cause themselves and others difficulty?

There are also individuals that have lost control of their lives through addictions - again a hand up is unlikely to change anything. Should a person be free to pursue addictions to their death or to drain social resources? or should society intervene to alter their inevitable self destruction conclusion? And what of their children? Should they lose access or should children be forced to endure being passed back and forth between society trying to help and parents going in and out of control?

What do you think?

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

Interesting responses - But I wonder??? There are some poor that because of mental or physical handicap or because of an accident or some such thing have lost the ability to ever care for themselves. What is to be done with those that cannot care for themselves - ever? Should they be institutionalized? Should they lose freedoms because they may cause themselves and others difficulty?

I have a cousin who is mentally handicapped. She is a wonderful woman, however by herself, she would not be able to sustain herself financially very long. Her father passed away and her mother still lives. When her mother passes away the responsibility has already been decided to fall within the oldest child, and she is willing to do so.

Family should be the first form of assistance. Where family is unable to assist, then the government, or others, should assist. This however is not a right, or a privilege, but should result from a caring and compassionate society.

Institutionalized? Depends on the severity of the handicap. No, they should not loose freedoms, but privileges may be lost due to their handicap.

There are also individuals that have lost control of their lives through addictions - again a hand up is unlikely to change anything. Should a person be free to pursue addictions to their death or to drain social resources? or should society intervene to alter their inevitable self destruction conclusion? And what of their children? Should they lose access or should children be forced to endure being passed back and forth between society trying to help and parents going in and out of control?

What do you think?

This one is tough for me, because I have a hard time finding any excuse or reason for the government to assist a person who suffer from addictions. Addictions are usually the result of a personal choice.

Society, already intervenes through addiction courses, and prison. These appear to be a good method.

No thoughts pertaining to the children. That is very tough.

[Backroads]

Interesting responses - But I wonder??? There are some poor that because of mental or physical handicap or because of an accident or some such thing have lost the ability to ever care for themselves. In some cases it is aging but the point is that there are some poor that will never as long as they live be able to care for themselves - the so called "hand up" rather than and hand out does absolutely nothing. What is to be done with those that cannot care for themselves - ever? Should they be institutionalized? Should they lose freedoms because they may cause themselves and others difficulty?

There are also individuals that have lost control of their lives through addictions - again a hand up is unlikely to change anything. Should a person be free to pursue addictions to their death or to drain social resources? or should society intervene to alter their inevitable self destruction conclusion? And what of their children? Should they lose access or should children be forced to endure being passed back and forth between society trying to help and parents going in and out of control?

What do you think?

The Traveler

In the case of those who are handicapped--I've yet to meet anyone that is complete incapable of anything. I also believe there are already programs (private and public) in place to continue helping these people. While one might complain about the individual programs, I believe the basic idea of these is good.

As for those who have addictions, no control of their lives, etc, I think they should be given limited help. Oh, they may pursue their addictions, but not at the expense of the public. This sounds very harsh, but if they use what they are given for drugs/alcohol/etc. and thus find themselves in a situation of starvation, it was their choice--though I believe it would be wise for programs to reach out to these people.

As for the children, that's a very tricky subject I almost don't dare give an opinion on. I believe the safety of the children comes first. However, I also think "safety of children" is an ideal that has been abused in quite a few cases.

[annewandering]

It makes a lot more sense to just put them on an an ice floe but then Jesus seemed to be opposed to that idea. Did you know that in biblical times 1/10th of your field was to be left for gleaning by the poor? Every 7 years all debts were to be forgiven?

My opinion is that we are an imperfect society if we do not care for the poor, the widowed and the disabled. It astounds me to see people give watery spinach to the poor at Christmas under the guise of charity. Didnt the Lord tell us somewhere that we are to give our best not our worst? Didnt He say we were to do it in His name? What difference does it make if we do it as a nation or if we do it as a group of neighbors or as an individual. The purpose is to care for the needy, as Christ, Himself has told us to do.

I have been reading in Helaman, mostly, today. If you have the Gospel Library app downloaded go type in Gadianton. We read all the references in the Book of Mormon, mostly in Helaman. It has some good scriptures relating to this.

[Leah]

It makes a lot more sense to just put them on an an ice floe but then Jesus seemed to be opposed to that idea. Did you know that in biblical times 1/10th of your field was to be left for gleaning by the poor? Every 7 years all debts were to be forgiven?

My opinion is that we are an imperfect society if we do not care for the poor, the widowed and the disabled. It astounds me to see people give watery spinach to the poor at Christmas under the guise of charity. Didnt the Lord tell us somewhere that we are to give our best not our worst? Didnt He say we were to do it in His name? What difference does it make if we do it as a nation or if we do it as a group of neighbors or as an individual. The purpose is to care for the needy, as Christ, Himself has told us to do.

I have been reading in Helaman, mostly, today. If you have the Gospel Library app downloaded go type in Gadianton. We read all the references in the Book of Mormon, mostly in Helaman. It has some good scriptures relating to this.

Thank you for this post.

I am astonished and appalled at some of the responses here.

Sometimes people temporarily need some help. Why do we have Bishops' storehouses? Is it not to feed the poor? Should we let them go hungry instead?

And, yes, there ARE disabilities and illnesses that are so severe that people cannot work. Do we just let them go without? Do we let only the wealthy receive medical care? They have more money so they are more deserving?

[Backroads]

Thank you for this post.

I am astonished and appalled at some of the responses here.

Sometimes people temporarily need some help. Why do we have Bishops' storehouses? Is it not to feed the poor? Should we let them go hungry instead?

And, yes, there ARE disabilities and illnesses that are so severe that people cannot work. Do we just let them go without? Do we let only the wealthy receive medical care? They have more money so they are more deserving?

Astonished and apalled? I haven't seen a single person on here that has said anything but believing the poor and disabled, temporarily or permanently, should be helped. Where did anyone say we shouldn't care for the poor and needy?

If you're referring to my belief that it is difficult to help addicts, it is because a simple "here is money" program is often counter-beneficial. Hence, my support of programs that are out there or could be out there to help them in other ways.

As for those who are too disabled to work, that is true, but I've seen severely disabled people (as in a quadripeligic paralyzed from the neck down) who still get part-times jobs in addition to other benefits--they do this because it is depressing to them not to work. It is far from uncommon for those on disability to be depressed about their inability to contribute to society. Hence, many of them do find non-traditional ways of working that may not included a commuter 9-5 job, but computer work, etc.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Backroads

[Traveler]

I want to thank all those that have responded. My goal in beginning this thread was to point out that poverty is not just about money. There are many needy people - sometime we call all needy people poor. But that is not true. The Book of Mormon tells us that we are all needy people and we are all in need.

The real question is - how do we help people. I admit I stacked the cards and played a trick. The truth is that our efforts should have the same goal weather we are helping the poor or the wealthy. If we are helping the sick or those spiritually in need.

But the other side of the coin is our willingness to accept help in our need. My father was the greatest man I have known. But accepting help was his greatest difficulty and challenge in life. He was stricken by age and despite his great wealth he required help in the most simple things like eating and going to the bathroom. I must admit it was most difficult for me to get over the stigma concerning certain privacy issues and condensed to helping my father go the the bathroom and clean himself afterwords.

But I learned something - my father has passed from this life and I can honestly say I have no regrets. There is nothing I wish I had done or said. I helped when I really did not have to.

But my biggest goal as to bring to light that helping the poor is not a government program - it is an individual program. It is one one one doing for those what they cannot do for themselves.

I would like to say that we deal with addicts differently but the truth is that for many poor addictions are just another cog in their wheel of poverty - many addicts are also mentally and physically broken. And finely the truth is that if we live long enough we will all be poor and dependent and there will be no cure - no step up and we can function on our own. Many of us will die following months of dependence and unable to take care of ourselves.

The Traveler

[talisyn]

I think the war on poverty will be won individually. We need to see what we can do to help our brothers and sisters reach the goals set for them pre-mortally, and it's much easier to achieve them when we have full bellies and warm clothes. I believe government assistance is necessary when we fail to do our part. And since we are all human with human failings, gov't is needed many times more than is comfortable, to pick up our slack.

I think it is our responsibility to do what we can to make the burden for our fellow beings lighter, and that includes doing what we can to be as light a burden as possible. Helping in the DI or cleaning the church building when we get help from the bishop's storehouse, making baby quilts if we can't stand up long to work, mowing lawns or volunteering in classrooms if we can't find employment, these and many more can help everyone involved! I think we need to evolve past this 'I am a hardy pioneer island' way of thinking. All it does is make people on all sides of the issue angry with each other, and we all know who likes contention.

[Guest]

As for those who are too disabled to work, that is true, but I've seen severely disabled people (as in a quadripeligic paralyzed from the neck down) who still get part-times jobs in addition to other benefits--they do this because it is depressing to them not to work. It is far from uncommon for those on disability to be depressed about their inability to contribute to society. Hence, many of them do find non-traditional ways of working that may not included a commuter 9-5 job, but computer work, etc.

I've had personal experience with 3 amazing individuals. One was my boss - a quadriplegic. He was 21 with 3 children (he married his pregnant girlfriend right out of high school and had 3 back-to-back kids) when he got hit by a drunk driver and became quadriplegic. His wife left him while he was recovering from the hospital when she learned he is now a quadriplegic, leaving all 3 kids at home, the youngest only 5 months old. He used government assistance to ask his father to quit his job so he can help him take care of his kids. He also used government assistance to get a Bachelor's degree in Information Technology. He became my boss after 4 years of schooling and 6 years of work experience. Yes, I said QUADriplegic. But he can move one arm at a small angle which made the difference in his life. Because of that small angle, he can slap his velcro-wrapped hand on top of a pen so he can grip it and use it to punch the keyboard of a computer. Because of that angle, he can rotate this small wheel on his van so he can drive! He leans on the gas button situated under his unmoving elbow. The brakes are right next to it. He turns on lights, turn signals, wipers, honk the horn by hitting the buttons situated on a special headrest with the back of his head. Yes, he made more money than me. But because I sat next to his cubicle, I get to go through special training to get him out of the building on fire drills. When we go to lunch, I get to cut up his food into bite-sized pieces so he can stab it with his fork stuck to his velcro.

Another one is my quadriplegic's super higher boss. Actually, he was the Chief Information Officer reporting directly to the CEO. He is blind. He goes to work with his dog. So, if you want to set up a meeting with him, you have to invite his dog too. This is because there are people who are allergic to dogs, so they have to be aware that the dog is going to be there. Okay, how can a blind person be the Chief of the entire IT Department - dealing with computers... he can't see the computer. Well, his monitor is actually this pad of some sort that plugs to the back of the computer and translates everything to Braille. Including graphics! Needless to say, he makes a lot more money than my quadriplegic boss.

And lastly, I had a neighbor who is paraplegic. He was born when he was only 21 weeks in gestation. He was only 2 pounds. He has some learning disabilities including severe dyslexia. He lives on his own in his own home. He can't drive, so the city picks him up every weekday to take him to his job at the University. Interestingly, he works in the University's guidance office - helping college kids graduate. He did not graduate college himself... he could barely finish high school as it is. He knocks on our door every once in a while to ask for help - changing lightbulbs usually or filling out some form to request the audio version of some research material.

All 3 of them benefited from existing government programs that give them the opportunity to rise above their disability. But, most of all, they had family and friends - a circle of support - that provides them the environment to thrive.

Edited October 23, 2012 by anatess

[Guest]

I want to thank all those that have responded. My goal in beginning this thread was to point out that poverty is not just about money. There are many needy people - sometime we call all needy people poor. But that is not true. The Book of Mormon tells us that we are all needy people and we are all in need.

The real question is - how do we help people. I admit I stacked the cards and played a trick. The truth is that our efforts should have the same goal weather we are helping the poor or the wealthy. If we are helping the sick or those spiritually in need.

But the other side of the coin is our willingness to accept help in our need. My father was the greatest man I have known. But accepting help was his greatest difficulty and challenge in life. He was stricken by age and despite his great wealth he required help in the most simple things like eating and going to the bathroom. I must admit it was most difficult for me to get over the stigma concerning certain privacy issues and condensed to helping my father go the the bathroom and clean himself afterwords.

But I learned something - my father has passed from this life and I can honestly say I have no regrets. There is nothing I wish I had done or said. I helped when I really did not have to.

But my biggest goal as to bring to light that helping the poor is not a government program - it is an individual program. It is one one one doing for those what they cannot do for themselves.

I would like to say that we deal with addicts differently but the truth is that for many poor addictions are just another cog in their wheel of poverty - many addicts are also mentally and physically broken. And finely the truth is that if we live long enough we will all be poor and dependent and there will be no cure - no step up and we can function on our own. Many of us will die following months of dependence and unable to take care of ourselves.

The Traveler

I would like to underline your point that just because somebody has great wealth doesn't mean that he is not in need. It is relatively easy to see the poor and be moved to charity. It is also relatively easy to see the wealthy and be moved to apathy and even hate.

[Backroads]

I think the war on poverty will be won individually. We need to see what we can do to help our brothers and sisters reach the goals set for them pre-mortally, and it's much easier to achieve them when we have full bellies and warm clothes. I believe government assistance is necessary when we fail to do our part. And since we are all human with human failings, gov't is needed many times more than is comfortable, to pick up our slack.

I think it is our responsibility to do what we can to make the burden for our fellow beings lighter, and that includes doing what we can to be as light a burden as possible. Helping in the DI or cleaning the church building when we get help from the bishop's storehouse, making baby quilts if we can't stand up long to work, mowing lawns or volunteering in classrooms if we can't find employment, these and many more can help everyone involved! I think we need to evolve past this 'I am a hardy pioneer island' way of thinking. All it does is make people on all sides of the issue angry with each other, and we all know who likes contention.

While I idealogically prefer that government programs be 100% wiped away (and thus completely agree with your post here) in the practical world I do see a need for government programs. Until each of us have truly left the "hardy pioneer island" mentality and can truly give and receive pure charity, government help is good and necessary.

I was in a similar conversation on another forum, and a person believed charities should be illegal. His reasoning was sad and I don't know his own experiences that would contribute to his mind view, but he said he generally saw people as evil, wicked, and selfish, people that would never on their own help others--therefore, make charities illegal and government welfare the only help. It truly saddened me that any sense of love and goodwill could be taken out of the "helping the poor and needy" equation.

[Traveler]

While I idealogically prefer that government programs be 100% wiped away (and thus completely agree with your post here) in the practical world I do see a need for government programs. Until each of us have truly left the "hardy pioneer island" mentality and can truly give and receive pure charity, government help is good and necessary.

I was in a similar conversation on another forum, and a person believed charities should be illegal. His reasoning was sad and I don't know his own experiences that would contribute to his mind view, but he said he generally saw people as evil, wicked, and selfish, people that would never on their own help others--therefore, make charities illegal and government welfare the only help. It truly saddened me that any sense of love and goodwill could be taken out of the "helping the poor and needy" equation.

Wow - I do not know of any shining examples of governments acting without "Political" motivations so much better than charities acting because of selfish motivations. You must be connecting with a pseudo intellectual ultra liberal student that has extremely limited life experience and explains why so many academic liberals in general are not charitable at all. Interesting - because higher education is considered a legal charity - I wonder if your antagonist includes education in their attitude of illegal charity.

In addition, I believe the assessing of need should be at the lowest levels of the community social structure possible. Federal bureaucrats and policy makers have demonstrated that they cannot ascertain any difference between substance addicts, sever handicapped, the lazy freeloader, scamers and the temporarily down on their luck needing partial assistance individuals.

The Traveler

[MattS]

Some people are born into privilege, that privilege can go back generations.

You can't say that people are born equal when 150 years ago an aristocrat was granted a plot of stolen land from which to build their wealth, which in turn benefited future generations.

Class does exist.

[Just_A_Guy]

Some people are born into privilege, that privilege can go back generations.

You can't say that people are born equal when 150 years ago an aristocrat was granted a plot of stolen land from which to build their wealth, which in turn benefited future generations.

Class does exist.

It's hard to have this kind of discussion across international boundaries, because different societies will have different mobility rates. In the US, for example, it is easy (and true) to say that "the rich are getting richer" as a class. However, the identities of the members of that class are in a constant state of flux. We've lost a staggering number of millionaires in this most recent recession, for example.

[MattS]

It's hard to have this kind of discussion across international boundaries, because different societies will have different mobility rates. In the US, for example, it is easy (and true) to say that "the rich are getting richer" as a class. However, the identities of the members of that class are in a constant state of flux. We've lost a staggering number of millionaires in this most recent recession, for example.

I think it is the same in all societies to be completely honest.

People who are well off and who have done their family history (in a lot of cases) will find at some stage their ancestors were granted land or some sort of title which essentially has allowed future generations to live comfortably.

The United States, just like Australia, Canada and so forth, have very similar "colonial" histories. They're different in some aspects, but land was stolen and given (granted) to people who had no legitimate claim to it.

I am not some woodstock hippy though, so I am not advocating that people give up their property rights or title deeds. What was done was done, our nations are now independent, based on constitutional systems and run by the rule of law.

But lets not fool ourselves that everyone is born equal, with the same privilege and influence... because that is false and just a way people who have grown up with privilege and influence (bestowed upon them generations ago) can feel good and justify their position in society, without feeling they should have some sort of social conscience.

However, in saying this, I do not believe people are victims, and believe people should take control over their own destiny.

It is my belief that education is one of the great equalizers in modern societies and the way to bridge the divide between those who have been the "haves" for generations (based essentially on historic theft) and those whose ancestors were never granted property rights over anything, and therefore the have nots.

Me personally, I was raised in a single parent home, my mother was abused by my father (whom I have nothing to do with). She instilled in me that I must work hard and get an education so that I could control my own destiny and not be a slave of the social security system.

I have done that, I did it through education, and thank goodness a fair and equitable education system has been available to me.

In my current job, I am in contact with extremely wealthy people who have a massive amount of influence in society. They have always told me that with privilege and wealth comes great responsibility to society. That is how I live my life.

Edited October 25, 2012 by MattS

[Guest]

But lets not fool ourselves that everyone is born equal, with the same privilege and influence... because that is false and just a way people who have grown up with privilege and influence (bestowed upon them generations ago) can feel good and justify their position in society, without feeling they should have some sort of social conscience.

Nobody is born equal. The child of millionaire A is not born equal with the child of millionaire B. One has 2 legs and 2 arms, the other a vegetable by virtue of cerebral palsy.

The child of destitute A is not born equal with the child of destitute B either. One is born with an IQ of 10, the other with 1000.

The good thing about either millionaire A, millionare B, destitute A, and destitute B living in the US is that at least the system of society and rule of law try to give all 4 of them the environment for all 4 children to grow up and pursue liberty and happiness to the best of their respective abilities. The results, of course, are not guaranteed equal just like they were not born equal, but it is a society where the objective is to provide every individual with opportunity so that the limit is found merely on one's nature and his determination to break through barriers.

But, of course, a parent's desire is always to pave the way for their children. If it was not for my 2 children, I would be content to live the nomadic existence, living off the fruits of the land. My grandfather was of meager means. He lived in such a way as to give all of his many children as much opportunity so that all of his children achieved professional careers. My father grew up in this environment of meager means and achieved much more than his father. His objective is to pave the way for his children so that they can make the most of the opportunity that he missed out on. All his children are much more than he had. And I'm doing the same to my children and so on and so forth. In this cycle, none of the children ever think that their "privilege" is due them. They recognize the sacrifices made by their fathers and the fathers before them that made them who they are. My children's destiny, therefore, are in their hands. They have the chance to be more, or they can blow that chance and live the rest of their lives struggling to just feed themselves. I am so grateful to my father for the things he has accomplished for my sake that now that he is struggling with cancer we are doing everything in our power to provide my father with what he needs to maintain his quality of life. So, the cycle goes back as well.

This is completely different from the olden days of England and Australia where "privilege" is truly by virtue of birth - where nobility is God-given through lineage and commoners are born to serve the noble. In that system, there's not much a commoner can do to improve his station and not much a noble can do to bring him down to commoner level. The differences in opportunities are stark.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it is the same in all societies to be completely honest.

I'm not sure the data actually bears that assertion out. Will have to do some Googling later today if my schedule permits. :)

People who are well off and who have done their family history (in a lot of cases) will find at some stage their ancestors were granted land or some sort of title which essentially has allowed future generations to live comfortably.

The United States, just like Australia, Canada and so forth, have very similar "colonial" histories. They're different in some aspects, but land was stolen and given (granted) to people who had no legitimate claim to it.

I don't see how the way Europeans took land from the indigenous peoples makes any direct, significant difference in the here-and-now with regard to class distribution generally. Indirectly, it led to the rise of subcultures that unfortunately tend to shun their members as traitors if the members "act white". That's why, while I whole-heartedly agree with your assessment of education, I think it's important to acknowledge its limits. I can divert millions of dollars to schools in inner-city Chicago, but if each student there knows he's going to be pounded to a pulp if word gets out that he got an "A" on that last test - funding the school is pouring money down the drain, if we can't change the subculture that punishes academic success. That's why I view the American left's "community organizing" strategy of "fund, blame, and keep electing Democrats" to be not only useless, but counterproductive - you get the satisfaction of knowing that your elected leaders "care", but rather than implementing positive change they just keep reinforcing the attitudes and stigmas that perpetuate the problem.

But lets not fool ourselves that everyone is born equal, with the same privilege and influence...

I don't think anyone here has made that argument.

...because that is false and just a way people who have grown up with privilege and influence (bestowed upon them generations ago) can feel good and justify their position in society, without feeling they should have some sort of social conscience.

Lets not get into the "liberalism equals moral superiority" trap. The relative generosity of American conservatives versus liberals is well documented.

It is my belief that education is one of the great equalizers in modern societies and the way to bridge the divide between those who have been the "haves" for generations (based essentially on historic theft) and those whose ancestors were never granted property rights over anything, and therefore the have nots.

Hear, hear!

In my current job, I am in contact with extremely wealthy people who have a massive amount of influence in society. They have always told me that with privilege and wealth comes great responsibility to society. That is how I live my life.

Amen.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[MattS]

This is completely different from the olden days of England and Australia where "privilege" is truly by virtue of birth - where nobility is God-given through lineage and commoners are born to serve the noble. In that system, there's not much a commoner can do to improve his station and not much a noble can do to bring him down to commoner level. The differences in opportunities are stark.

Australia was never a class society, if anything the people that ended up here had one of two choices: execution or transportation to Australia (although, that was not what we were called back then).

When someone became free, they were granted land if they agreed to stay in Australia.

Out of the 6 colonies (now States), only one of them was established by free settlers, that being the Colony of South Australia. If you ever visit Adelaide (the capital), you'll see that this is the case, its nickname is the city of churches. Even the accent of South Australians is different, it is more posh, upper class.

When the constitution was written, the official name of Australia was decided to be the Commonwealth of Australia, which back then meant independent, republic. There was a lot of argument, but it was settled. The name Commonwealth of Australia has no historic links to what is now known as the British Commonwealth. We were using it before that organisation was even established.

So on the whole, there was no real class system, it was rejected from the start. However, there was land theft, the whole Australian continent was stolen from the original inhabitants, and in terms of poverty and lack of privilege, these people (the aboriginal people) are the worst off. As a society, we owe them, and we owe them big time.

This song "I Am Australian" (the lyrics) are a fantastic chronology of Australian history, and our rejection of the class system:

.

[Guest]

Australia was never a class society, if anything the people that ended up here had one of two choices: execution or transportation to Australia (although, that was not what we were called back then).

When someone became free, they were granted land if they agreed to stay in Australia.

Out of the 6 colonies (now States), only one of them was established by free settlers, that being the Colony of South Australia. If you ever visit Adelaide (the capital), you'll see that this is the case, its nickname is the city of churches. Even the accent of South Australians is different, it is more posh, upper class.

When the constitution was written, the official name of Australia was decided to be the Commonwealth of Australia, which back then meant independent, republic. There was a lot of argument, but it was settled. The name Commonwealth of Australia has no historic links to what is now known as the British Commonwealth. We were using it before that organisation was even established.

So on the whole, there was no real class system, it was rejected from the start. However, there was land theft, the whole Australian continent was stolen from the original inhabitants, and in terms of poverty and lack of privilege, these people (the aboriginal people) are the worst off. As a society, we owe them, and we owe them big time.

This song "I Am Australian" (the lyrics) are a fantastic chronology of Australian history, and our rejection of the class system:

.

I understand your sentiment of feeling that you "owe" indegenous people something. I don't see it this way though.

Let's go to something I'm more familiar with: Philippines. The Philippines was originally inhabited by Negritos. Throughout history you'll see that a migration of aborigines from the Polynesian and Asian islands set foot in the Philippines and started building hunter-gatherer tribes there. These tribes enlarged into Kingdoms and edged out the Negritos who were not as "advanced". The Negritos had no choice but to either flee to the remotest of mountains or blend into the new society.

What happened after this? The civilization in these islands advanced which then provided for a more robust society with the ability to make better use of the abundant natural resources available. But these kingdoms fought brutal wars to maintain their civilization.

The first European "discoverer" of these islands was Ferdinand Magellan - under the Spanish Flag - who called the islands Philippines. He brought Christianity with him and was killed by a tribe and failed in his quest to circumnavigate the world. But, he already planted seeds of Christianity in the islands which improved the moral compass of the civilization in those areas.

He was followed 50 years later by another Spanish fleet. This time, the Spanish fleet succeeded in establishing a footprint in the islands and brought the kingdoms together under the Spanish flag. This drastically reduced the tribal wars occuring in the islands.

Over 3 centuries later, the tribes banded together to oust Spain - giving the tribes a common voice. The Americans took over who contributed in giving the tribes a common language, the Japanese took over after that who triggered the building of a strong Philippine military with the help of the Americans that was able stand against Japan ... and so on and so forth until the Philippine Independence of 1946 when the Philippines was able to stand strong enough to establish their own Constitution.

Now, who owes who what?

In my view... nobody. Because, for every aborigine that got supplanted by another civilization, advancements in that society occured. Therefore, aborigines adapted with the change and made themselves better.

You will see the same story unfold in every corner of the world until today you will find that war has become a relatively rare occurence, human injustice is spotlighted and shunned, people are more connected globally, as civilization advances to be what we are today.

Edited October 26, 2012 by anatess

[RMGuy]

Must

Resist

Being

Snarky

-RM

[Bini]

It makes a lot more sense to just put them on an an ice floe but then Jesus seemed to be opposed to that idea. Did you know that in biblical times 1/10th of your field was to be left for gleaning by the poor? Every 7 years all debts were to be forgiven?

My opinion is that we are an imperfect society if we do not care for the poor, the widowed and the disabled. It astounds me to see people give watery spinach to the poor at Christmas under the guise of charity. Didnt the Lord tell us somewhere that we are to give our best not our worst? Didnt He say we were to do it in His name? What difference does it make if we do it as a nation or if we do it as a group of neighbors or as an individual. The purpose is to care for the needy, as Christ, Himself has told us to do.

I have been reading in Helaman, mostly, today. If you have the Gospel Library app downloaded go type in Gadianton. We read all the references in the Book of Mormon, mostly in Helaman. It has some good scriptures relating to this.

I wish I could RT this. Which is "Re-tweet" for those not in the know. Great post. Unfortunately, Twitter only gives you 140 characters to express oneself.