In response to Joe Z's remarks on Universal Health Care.
Insert whatever religion or philosophy has humanistic elements. The question really becomes...should we look out for ourselves or our neighbors? And who are we defining as our neighbors? Who are we bound to? Our country, in its fear of communism and socialism, not having a major crisis, and become economically prosperous overall has forgotten about the connection to the people around us. We either continue to go in the direction of Darwin, that each man should hoard as many resources as possible in the effort to pass on his genes and leave all others to suffer at his gain or we can begin to be bound again. I think that Universe tries to balance itself out and right now, people are beginning to realize the disadvantages of aligning oneself too much with the individual. For centuries, we slowly allowed too much power to the whole (community or state), but now we've allowed too much power to the State. I am part of the movement not to move us back to authoritarianism (which it seems many of you fear) but a return to the local community and to more States power. I think that health care would be better served at those levels, but right now we are a very national government and the people of this country need affordable health care. I think that more public transportation should have been the first step, but it's not a sexy choice and would piss off many voters who work for Ford or GM, not to mention deals from abroad. However, we need a return to public goods, and while a few of you may have a gnashing of teeth, I see it an inevitable movement happening. What would you do if you didn't have proper health insurance or someone you loved really needed treatment? Go bankrupt - that's what you would do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Whoa Joe!
You've got like, 10 different topics all crammed into one post! I'm going to focus on that you titled the post with.
First of all it is kind of falicous to call Social Darwinism, Darwinism. Darwin had a lot of kids but he never espoused the selfish ideology that people came up with later.
Secondly, no microbe is an island and niether is man. Hoarding at the expense of others sparks enemity and brings the wrath of the community that the individual lives in. Another stragety is to be generous and promote the well being of one's community. Community support and health can increase the likelyhood of survival and reproduction. This idea is most broadly expanded to the human race or all sentient life. Evolution creates altruism!
Thirdly, all of these philosophies aren't neccessary incompatable with Christianity. Christianity has been used to justify both good deeds (love thy neighbor) and social stratification (Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 1 Peter 2:11)
The only time conflict is unaviodable is when a Christian has a literal interpritation of genesis and argues against science.
I do tend to rant and I was just throwing around ideas left and right here. I did abuse the ideas of Darwin. I just didn't know quite how to explain the idea so I just laid out the first thing that came to mind. I probably should have crafted this more carefully. As for Chrisitianity...it is the most well known philosophy to me. I need to expand my knowledge of philosophies and at least view Christianity from the outside. I know Chrisitianity has had some bad interpreters. It hurts to know that people acted in the name of God in such a way. Given, all that I like your response. I thought it well formulated and you have helped me sort of some of the ideas I've been kicking around.
Post a Comment