“Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.” Nelson Mandela
People usually feel more inclined to donate to charitable organizations, or volunteer at community centers, during the holiday season. At the thanksgiving feast, family members express their gratitude for the blessings they have received, and look for ways to share their blessings with the less fortunate. Each year as it gets closer to Christmas, donations to charity
increase. Whether people donate because of
guilt, just to get their tax
deductions, or feel obligated to it, charitable giving benefits a great number of people. But as good as charity is, it never has been, nor will it ever be, a sole solution or mechanism for reducing, let alone eliminating, poverty.
Simply considering the distribution of wealth in the US, the proportion of the US population in poverty (15%), and the amounts and distributions of charitable donations, make it obvious that charity is not sufficient to lift people out of poverty, and keep them from falling back into it. Not only is the dollar amount not sufficient, but also the allocation and distribution of the donated monies or resources are not coordinated in a systematic and efficient way to meet the actual needs of the poor. The poor are lacking nutrition, education, safe neighborhoods, jobs, transportation, healthcare, and even housing. There are no charitable organizations that can provide all or even one of those things for all of the poor.
Poverty is a systematic and structural outcome of human society. It exists in not only capitalist economies, but also in any other economic system that exists in the world. It is not, as some people contend, a result of laziness on the part of the poor. Evidence-based social policy should look at data, and consider the lives of actual human beings, not listen to rhetoric.
The "personal responsibility" crowd forgets the difference between a human being living in a civilized society, and a human being living in a natural environment, with all of his/her natural freedoms intact, and with access to whatever resources the immediate environment provides to be utilized with his/her two hands and two feet. A person living in a modern society is not free to grow food anywhere and any time as needed. Land ownership is systematically taken away from the natural human being, and is allocated by various social rules. Even when some try to grow their own food, society interferes with special rules, and heavy-handed enforcement.
A person living in modern society does not have full freedom of movement. Land is turned into roads, buildings, private and public properties, with rules associated with access and use of those areas. How is a fully self-reliant person supposed to move about in such an environment, in order to gain access to food, shelter, to procreate, and keep his/her family out of harms way? Is he/she free to do so at any time and any place?
There are many reasons and purposes for those rules, and why the natural freedoms of people living in modern civilized societies are taken away from them. The basic tenet of those reasons and purposes is clear: mutual benefit of all members of society. If the formation of society is not for the purpose of benefiting all of its members, then why form a society in the first place?
What if some people decide to leave society, and live in isolation? Is that truly an option? Is any person born into a modern society free to leave it? Where would such a person live? There is no piece of land on which a naturally free person could grow food, and live an isolated natural life. All land is owned either by individuals, or by governments. It is clear that a human being who does not have free and open access to all resources and freedoms that nature has granted him/her, cannot be expected to be totally and fully responsible for every aspect of his/her survival; unless we are to return to living in the jungle.
Obviously that is not a desirable or likely choice for any member of a modern civilized society. Given that people living in modern societies are not truly fully free, they cannot be expected to be fully self-reliant. Therefore they are in fact entitled to certain protections from society for their survival, in exchange for the natural freedoms that society has taken away from them. Certain conclusions can be drawn: poverty and inequality are systematic and structural outcome of human society; inequality is a major detrimental factor for the health of society; social policies that do not advocate reducing inequality, have a direct impact on the health and life-expectancy of citizens in those communities, rich and poor alike. A reasonable and just alternative is a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources in society. Some may call it socialism, but those who believe in a dog-eat-dog world should try living with the dogs.
Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 6:41 PM PT: Wow, community spotlight? I'm honored! Thank you!