| I don't think it is possible to talk about these issue for precisely the reason you mention. You can't argue about basic frames for how people see the world. You see things the way you have been raised, and with the frames that fit the way you want the world to be- you might be able to understand the way others frame issues- but I don't think argumentation can change our basic approach to the world. I see social programs for the poor as for me, as much as they are for the poor. I would have a very hard time living in a society that had people starving in the streets. One of the things I remember about a visit to Hong Kong and Thailand in the early 70's when I was a child, were the crippled and diseased people lying in the streets begging, or the elderly begging. When we put social programs in place it isn't just "charity"- it's also social insurance for the wealthy and the middle class, that they can live in a society where the streets aren't littered with ill people, or starving people. I think we all want different things out of life, and I don't want to live in a country that doesn't support people to a certain level- because I find it unpleasant to see the consequences of a "free market" that lets people sink as far as possible. I have to count the kind of society I want to see as something for me, and not for the poor- it has value to me, as a middle class person- it isn't charity, it's a combination of security and aesthetics (security, because the hungry poor are more dangerous than the somewhat placated poor, and the desperate poor are an unaesthetic sight, as I learned in my childhood.) |
