Below are some posts I made on our class discussion board. I won't post anything anybody else put up, but someone started a thread about Ayn Rand's Ethical Egoism ideas, which fits in nicely with a book I just finished by John Stossell. Here goes:
Post 1 - "Someone in my group had really great and empassioned comments about 'levelling the playing field' and alluded to systemic obstructions that prevent people from advancing themselves. Most of this was in the context of growing up in the projects. Several of us believed that the government has bungled in trying to help people by providing government welfare--a program with great intentions that in the long run creates dependence on those monthly checks, and prevents people form ever getting out of the system.
My concept of a level playing field is where no one gets checks from the government (including farmers who don't grow crops) and people, like Ayn suggests, must duke it out for themselves. Any government intervention only exacerbates the problem of dependence and should be avoided.
Having that said, I think government should encourage volunteerism. Big government can't help specific problems anywhere near as well as individuals in and around local communities can. Who is Uncle Sam to say what is needed in Chattanooga's projects? Shouldn't Chattanoogans have a stronger say in the matter?
Government (federal and perhaps state) can help more people by butting out altogether, but fostering a community spirit in which locals come together to serve each other. Faith-based organizations should be more involved. As I understand it, Christians should be serving their fellow man and helping the poor, as well as Muslims and Jews and most other faiths(including humanism, but maybe not Buddhists?). Why do we want to let the government try to fulfill our mission?
That was my thinking last night, but then I started thinking today about India, where I saw extreme poverty on such a massive scale, where their government could obviously help its people better than it has. Leprosy is still a major disease, whereas everywhere else in the world it has been eradicated. That's where Rand's ethic falls apart. When no one has anything to share, when there are no means to produce, it leaves a hellish, body-strewn landscape where begging is a sought after profession.
Ethical Egoism is an extreme view and I think not to be followed completely, but it seems like a great set of lenses to look at big approaches to solving a problem, and considering, Are we doing more harm than good?"
post 2 - (oh yeah, my prof said he liked that last question) "I take offense at being classified as belonging to any political party (he called me a libertarian). I HATE politics and believe their current state is keeping our nation in a quagmire. I believe STRONGLY in the power of individuals, that people make a difference.
School Reform--good teachers. Getting out of the projects--role models. Senseless war--activism. Poverty--selling everything you own. You decide what is important to you and YOU go out and do something about it. Not George Bush, not John Kerry, not Nader or Badnarik, but you. Political parties suck the resources, zeal, and willingness to act from huge chunks of our population.
Government is a necessary evil (which makes me somewhat libertarian to say I know) but just like we say don't let anybody else do your dirty work, I say don't let them do your good deeds either."
Posted by cmwillis at June 22, 2005 11:01 PM | TrackBackThanks. I think I intended to sound more proactive and less reactive.
I believe I will start each new entry from now on with, Dearest Dale. since you seem to be my only audience.
Posted by: cmwillis at June 25, 2005 9:05 PMI agree with your idea about individuals doing the real work. It seems like the responsible way to hold onto that rebellious, anti-establishment attitude. Not that that's why I like it . . .
I'd take your idea even farther, though. I think individuals need to be causing the good things in society and not necessarily "fixing" the problems. We're called to BE the right kind of people, which means BEING loving, merciful, sharing, etc. When we try to just "fix" problems, our focus is on the wrong thing.
Christ calls us to BE the right people, but He also calls us to share in the experiences of others. Whether it's suffering, joy, poverty, or riches we're expected to share with, live with, and love all people.
With the government and the church we have a tendency to miss this. We want other people to just "fix" problems in society, which we hope will free us from our obligation to BE the body of Christ.
Christ and His apostles didn't seem so concerned about eradicating poverty, disease, slavery, and all forms of injustice. They did however call on christians everywhere to BE the body of Christ and stand against these things in their lives.
Posted by: Dale at June 23, 2005 4:34 PM