Posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 19:16:51
In reply to Re: Katrina - one American's perspective » alexandra_k, posted by Miss Honeychurch on September 13, 2005, at 7:56:46
> Soon all will be equal and everything will be totally fair
I don't think that is possible.
Some people are born inheriting diseases.
Thats not fair.
Some people are born with disabilities.
Thats not fair.
Some people are born with higher intelligence than others.
Thats not fair.
Some people are born with inheritance that means they never have to work.
Thats not fair.Is it really possible to create a level playing field in the first place?
No.
So life is not fair.
But what are we going to do about it?????1) Nothing.
2) Something.Personally... I have to rule out 1 on compassionate grounds. (I'll get back to that).
With respect to 2... Some injustices can be remidied. The injustices that mean that one kid gets health care (in virtue of who their parents are) while another goes without (in virtue of who their parents are).
Do you really want to say that the kid just has to accept its lot in life?
That if you have parents with health insurance then you are entitled to health care
That if you have parents without health insurance then you are not entitled to health care?> and ambition will be frowned upon as that may make you stand out and (gasp!) be more successful monetarily than your neighbor.
Sorry but that doesn't follow. Do you really think that countries who invest more in social welfare end up with citizens who are less ambitious than they would be if they were left to fend for themselves? I'm not saying to level the playing field completely so everybody gets the same money every week to live off. I'm saying that everybody gets a minimum amount which is enough to ensure their basic needs (food shelter healthcare education) are met. If you work then you are better off. We have three tax brackets. The lowest one basically covers people on welfare or very low paying jobs. The middle one (which is slightly higher) covers middle income peoples. The highest one covers the biggest earners. The biggest earners still have more money in the hand than the middle income earners. And the middle income earners still have more money in the hand than the low earners. There is thus still an incentive to work and there is a reward for that. (And thats just talking about the $$$ and to say nothing of the personal satisfaction one can get from being a productive and contributing member of society)
> Oprah Winfrey was born into poverty and is now one of the most powerful women in the world.
And the message is supposed to be what? If Oprah can do it everybody in america can do it? Do you really believe that is true. Yeah there are (what I would consider to be 'token') people who have made their way up. A combination of hard work and luck. But luck has such a huge part to play in america and that is what is frightening to me. I'm sure its a very nice place to live if you strike it lucky, but it concerns me greatly that many people do not.
I do think it is a problem... That you get people like Tiger Woods who become icons for 'see black people can make it in the world'. But how many black people in america would feel at home (or even be able to join) the local country club? I never said it was impossible to make it out - I just feel immense compassion for some peoples struggle. And I don't blame them that they cannot. I think they need a little help.
>I do not buy the notion that we are born into a station in life and are helpless to get out.
Never said we were 'helpless' to get out. My point was that it is that much harder. I'm sure that a person with one hand might be able to win 'Surviver' but don't you think it is much more likely that a person with two hands will have more of an advantage?
Applying to schools in the US...
What struck me were questions like these:
'how many close family members have also attended this institution'
The odds are stacked to preserve the status quo.>The class system is not as relevant in America as it is in other parts of the world.
Yeah. America didn't like the british class system much. Mostly because americans weren't born as highly. In other words: americans were down on their luck in britan so they decided to create their own system...
and it was a system based on personal wealth.
you see... the upper class in britan were indeed the upper class but it was also true that they were running out of money...and some people managed to make some money in america... which enabled them to buy themselves into aristocratic english families.
they brought their way up in the world.
but i think a system that focuses on personal wealth is every bit as unjust as a system that focuses on the class you are born into. and there is also the point that those two things start to amount to the same when you factor in inheritance.
yeah there is some movement. and that is focused on. it is focused on because it presents the american ideal in a favourable light. it serves to preserve the status quo. it serves to make the wealthy people in america feel a little bit better about themselves because clearly they deserve what they have obtained via hard work. and clearly anybody who works as hard as they did would achieve comperable financial status. but thats simply not true. just look at the stats to find out how drug abuse, levels of education, crime etc are best predicted by what the kids parents were up to...
> I am not rich. Far from it in fact. But, I embrace individualism. The less help I receive from the government, and the more I rely upon myself, the better.
If you are able to fend for yourself - yes.
If you are unable to fend for yourself - no.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:553914
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050728/msgs/554784.html