Watch Penn Jillette talk about self-government and charity, with Glenn Beck...
Libertarianism, volunteerism, and taking care of the crack babies....these men cover various branches of my favorite topic: personal responsibility.
Jillette: Even if you aren't a dope smoker, having it legal is better...it will save you money, and--
Beck: Yeah, but here's the problem with that. Because, I agree with you, but you would have to conquer something else... You would have to convince people who are trying to save the world to take a step over the body of the guy who is killing himself with drugs. You have to be able to say...to butcher Franklin..."You have to allow people to fail."
Several times now, I've asked "What is the root of neediness?" and "Where's the line between meeting those needs and enabling poor choices?" At some point, we must allow people to fail--which will be better for them in the long run than endlessly cushioning the consequences. However, the government isn't good at tough love. Uncle Sam only invests piles and piles money of money he doesn't have, to save the people who won't even save themselves.
But what about those who can't save themselves? What about the crack babies?
Jillette: I have a good friend in Las Vegas... He wants to be a Libertarian, but he says to me, "Who's going to take care of the crack babies?" And my answer is: you.
Beck: Right.
Jillette: Not someone like you. The guy I'm talking to, it's actually you. You have the money to take care of the crack babies in Vegas. You're a philanthropist. You do it. And he goes, "Well, you know, other people wouldn't do it..." No! But you would!
---
These guys cover "service" on both sides of the Responsibility Spectrum. What happens when someone self-destructs? We must expect him to take responsibility for himself, and step over him if he won't. What's to be done about _(the disabled, the very young, the very old...)_who cannot take care of themselves?
I'll do it.
Will you?
I think you'd need to learn more about addiction and how addiction actually works to truly discuss this issue. People turn to drugs for a lot of reasons, often because of uncontrolled mental illness and because they have a genetic predisposition toward addiction. (Read Crazy in America - it's a great book that gives a lot of insight about mental illness and the prison system.) The idea that people with these issues want to fail or have the same ability to exercise personal responsibility is to ignore vast amounts of research. So, I think the more interesting question is: Who are the "truly" needy? How are you, as someone with little knowledge or training, really in the position to decide who "needs" help? And isn't this an inherent problem with a libertarian system? Are the wealthy really the most knowledgeable about how to solve problems?
ReplyDeleteHere are my two most tangible issues with the system being presented:
1) Current rates of charity simply are not enough. For example, a total of $308 billion was donated to charity in 2008. Medicaid alone cost $340 billion in 2008. Even if you feel that the government is inefficient, this demonstrates a HUGE gap. Also, note that the Medicaid fraud rate is only estimated to be around 4% (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2008).
2) Wealthier people are worse about giving to charity than people in lower income brackets. Most reasons poorer people gave for their donations was that they had either received charity or they were around people who they knew needed help. We live in a very divided society. Again, do wealthy people know that much about social problems? How are wealthy people going to fix social problems if there is no requirement for them to be educated on them? The perks of having professionals (social workers, etc) is that they have a) a Code of Ethics and b) licensing/training.
Hi, Nony.
ReplyDeleteIf I may point out, you sound exactly like Penn's friend from his story. "Well, you know, everybody won't do it..." No, but YOU will.
Your example about medicaid, charity statistics, and mental illness in America are too BROAD-minded. Those are national-level problems. I'm asking individuals to address issues in their own backyard. Do you know someone who needs help? Then it's your responsibility to do something...and passing the buck to Uncle Sam doesn't cut it. It's a moral cop-out to say "someone else needs to handle this. Someone with more money, more time, or more knowledge. I'll just support it with my vote."
I don't mean to sound preachy. :)
I'm absolutely talking to myself as much as anyone, because I'm equally guilty of giving up before I even start. It's overwhelming to see the trouble on my block, roll up my sleeves, and get busy. But, at the end of the day, I don't give a rat's-you-know-what how much the "wealthy" give to the poor. I'm wealthier than SOMEBODY, and there are still things *I* can give. No excuses.
Every nonprofit I've ever researched began when some crazy ACTION-oriented person stopped blaming others and actually tackled a problem in his/her neighborhood. If demand grew, that meant the organization was meeting a need, which often inspires the wealthy community (including people like you and me) to pitch in...
Look, I'm not going to argue about whether the government should have the power to confiscate our money, just in case we won't "do the right thing" ourselves. But, if you believe in Washington's ability to handle problems, go ahead and make an extra donation this tax season. Maybe organize a fundraiser to convince others to join with you--empowering those big-hearted politicians able to solve everything with top-down orders from a central location...if only they had the cash.
But, I beg you, please don't vote away my freedom and/or bankrupt the country before I get the chance to change a life or two, and hopefully recruit a few crazy action-oriented people to do the same in THEIR community. Again, no disrespect. I only want to challenge you (and others) the way I've been challenged lately: am I doing *everything* I can?
P.S. This is an eye-opening video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned charitable donations are "not enough" even to cover Medicaid. But, do you know what we'd need to fund the 2011 U.S. budget for a year? Forget donations. Even taking EVERY BIT OF CASH from the biggest money-makers in the nation wouldn't cover it. The government isn't just "inefficient." As a charity, it's downright incompetent.
Just to let you know, you are preaching to the choir. I have done tons of community work. I worked for less than minimum wage for two years doing a national service program. I ran a student-led community program in college, volunteered with about 8 non-profits over the years, and now I'm in social work school (which involves a 20 hr/week unpaid internship). So yes, I know something about personal responsibility to my community. I wish others believed in that too, and I think a movement to invest more in our communities would be awesome. But I also know quite a bit about social policy, and I've also seen first hand the huge benefits that TANF (ie welfare) and other government programs can have in the lives of many people.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, personal perspectives set aside, here are my two points:
1. Of course you do not want to look at the big picture, because you do not have a counterargument. That's pretty convenient. Whether or not you want to admit it or talk about it, the big picture does exist. And it's full of many suffering people who would be woefully under-served if government human service programs were slashed. You have the privilege of choosing to deal with those people. You do not live that life every day. It's much easier for you to be OK with services being slashed when it's not really part of your reality. Of course I want more people to volunteer. I think that's a great message. The problem I have with your message is the second half of it, which says in addition to encouraging volunteerism, we slash pre-existing services. The stats involving charitable donations and Medicaid demonstrates that charity would have to be greatly increased to even begin to address the huge social issues our country faces.
2. Volunteers are awesome. We need more. But they are not always well educated in social issues. Social problems are systemic (ie they do not just randomly occur). Therefore, we need systemic solutions. We need strategy, research, training, etc. Volunteers cannot always provide this. As good-hearted as you may be, you would not walk into an ER and start treating patients. You do not have the training and you might hurt someone. You may think you know how to help your neighbor addicted to cocaine, but really you probably don't know a lot about addiction. (This is just an example, I have no idea how much you know about cocaine addiction.) We need professionals who have a lot of training and knowledge to help create systems in which volunteers can make the most effective and ethical impact.
[Side note on the 2011 Budget: The 2011 US budget includes a lot of dumb policy, that's for sure. Half the reason Social Security is falling apart is that we didn't tax (wealthy) people enough because politicians were too cowardly and companies stopped providing the pensions they used to. (Did you know that there is a limit on how much income can be taxed for SS? It's around $100,000. Talk about a regressive tax.) Let's not even get into the multiple wars and outrageous military industrial complex we're fueling, much less prisons which again benefit corporate interest over the people. We could spend SO MUCH LESS in our government, without slashing human service programs.]
Once again, I think I'll need to decide ahead of time to make this my last post, so we don't wander too far away. :)
ReplyDeleteMy point about individual responsibility does address your "big picture"--only it doesn't place all its hope in that powerful, wasteful Washington-charity. If each one reached one, there wouldn't be national-level problems anymore. I never mentioned slashing programs. I'm asking community-minded individuals to rethink the way we "help" each other--and suggesting that the government's version of help...well, sucks. The key to fixing big problems is starting small.
Again, people look at national issues and get scared. It's overwhelming because there are millions of people in the United States, which makes it VERY obvious I can't personally help them all. You're right, I can't walk into an E.R. and set a bone. I'm not a professional drug counselor. But there ARE nurses (like my husband) and counselors (like those on my referral sheet) willing to help in those areas.
As a control freak, I wish I could do-it-all, or at least hack into the brains (or wallets) of my fellow Americans and force them to join me. But, all God requires is for me to do what *I* can; not spending so much time worrying about where wealthy folks fail, until NONE of us fulfills our purpose.
I believe service works best when done intimately. Like Mother Teresa, servers are supposed to talk with the served...to *touch* the served. It sounds like you're an action-oriented person, and that inspires me. But is it radical enough? Have you gotten your fill of helping, yet? I don't know about you, but as I serve, I want to do more and more... And I want to share the new of how rewarding a Life of Service is, until others do the same.
P.S. This video talks about "the blame game," and how a refocus on personal responsibility could transform the country.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3xuPNvUeL8&feature=related
1. The video you featured was specifically about libertarianism. Thus it seemed safe to assume your support of public programs is limited.
ReplyDelete2. But who pays for nurses, counselors, and other helping professionals? a) Charity b) Government or c) For-profit entities. My entire point is that charity, at current levels, would not fund what is needed to train and hire professionals to care for and work with people in the community.
3. You spend plenty of time talking about what others should do: What disadvantaged people are doing wrong, what people are morally obligated to do, etc. Also, policy and action are two sides of the same coin. What *you* can do also involves advocating for responsible policy. I am sure you advocate against abortion and other things you do not believe in. So, claiming that advocacy somehow negates individual contribution vastly oversimplifies things, and honestly sounds like a cop-out to me.
4. People look at big issues and get scared. Well, duh. That doesn't mean that ignoring big problems and hoping that a non-existent strategy of individual charity will do enough to help. Your post on Eat, Pray, Love specifically makes the point that we can't make ethical decisions entirely based on our feelings - we need to be analytical about it.
5. Oh good grief the blame game. Another, less loaded, word for "blame" is "cause." What is the underlying reason a social trend is occurring? You are blaming poor people for being poor, and I am blaming complex societal factors for poor people being poor. I would say we are both "blaming" it's just a matter of who/what.