It doesn't have to be so esoteric. This country is filthy rich. The real problem we have is simply income inequality. We are something like 65th in the world. Think of all the money that little Bush pissed away on large tax cuts for the very rich and two stupid wars. Trillions and trillions of dollars for nothing. Had he simply continued Clintons tax policies the projections where we would have been completely out of debt in 12 years. He gave the tax cuts to the rich saying government should not have too much money.
It never occurred to that sociopathic pea brain to use the money to help society. If you get people educated there does not need to b incentives. Those people are self directed because they understand self actualization.
But the bottom line is that if we had just taken all the money that Bush Threw away, it would've been more than enough to provide public education for everybody at affordable costs, and shore up Medicare. Social security is easy because you just need to lift the cap a bit.
I think the Nordic countries have pretty good social systems figured out already. If we did nothing more than simply copied there systems, we would be 20 years ahead of where we are now. And all the Nordic countries and much of Europe provide affordable public education for their people, recognizing the value of it.
I was born and raised in one of the most dangerous cities in the United States. Richmond California. I know the streets well. Some of us got out because of a local community college. And I saw how the lives were lived between those who didn't get out and those that got out like myself and got educated. It was night and day.
I also noticed that all of my friends that did get educated, had relatively easy lives and were productive members of society. But many of my friends that did not get educated had very hard lives.
I don't think it is possible to spend more on education than a society would get back in production and reduction in crime. Students owe a trillion dollars. We have spent many trillions of dollars on those stupid wars.
The problem is bankrupt politics.
<<
| | Taking care of people who need help is surely a feature of a successful society but hardly the definitive measure of it.
It is to the degree we want a moral society-lol. Indeed, there ARE degrees of morality. And different flavors of morality. If you define success solely in terms of the care foundation of morality, then you are correct, sort of--but only due to circular logic. If maximizing care is a society's overriding measure of success, care would deteriorate over time due to lack of resources. It's self defeating. The ability of a society to provide care at the macro level depends on having the resources to provide. If you put all your energy and incentivess into giving care and not into building resource stores, that is, exercise poor stewardship, your society collapses. Letting your society collapse results in harm rather than care and is thus is immoral. |
|
