The purpose for social programs is not to provide freedom, but to provide security against loss of health, life and a bare minimum of dignity, the latter of whi

The purpose for social programs is not to provide freedom, but to provide security against loss of health, life and a bare minimum of dignity, the latter of which is even maintained on death row... let us remember poor people die every day without a last meal. I hope I don’t sound disrespectful, but your ongoing insistance that governments in the abstract are inherently dysfunctional seems to underwrite most of your last comment and this is just such an ignorant roadblock. It’s not a matter of opinion. I take immense issue with many businesses, and most American business traditions, but I would never be so ignorant as to refuse acknowledgement of what they do well or to misrepresent their role in all civilized societies. Why insist such a limitation on your own understanding? Governments are essentially for the people. They serve to facilitate a common civility. Feudalism was born of the necessity to protect the farmers and their crops with a military. It’s legacy was diminished by a long period of failing to prioritize the people. Democracy + capitalism is not a perfect match; but some of Europe has had the courage to face it’s failures and inches closer to actualizing governments which are for the people. When you criticize America’s government, you’ll want to be careful. “Business” is probably a more accurate descriptor of what you’re actually criticizing. It’s no secret, either. So when you insist on discounting the configuration of a particular “government”, you’re devolving what could otherwise be a productive conversation. Therefore, I’m going to ignore most of these assaults on proven successes and the potential for future innovation. Without criticality, we an go ahead and just agree we are fucked. This is not meant as a straw man but it deserves a word or two: When it comes to who should speak for the needs of poor people, how do you reason that you are qualified? Of course, poor people are not always* their best spokes people, but they do have a type first-hand experience unlike any other. I’ve been economically lucky compared with many people I know but there were periods in my childhood when my family would benefit and a significant one as an adult. It’s hard to imagine our different experiences are not causal to my position, but the nature of that relationship is far from obvious. For you, capitalism has consistently meant freedom. For me, it has meant moments of awe for the wonders of capitalism soon to be fraught with sudden peril and lasting threat. I don’t think guilt on either end is necessarily useful, but the dreadfulness of the poverty experience in America is reason alone that it’s not easily shared. Some films have tried, like Kelly Reichardt’s Wendy and Lucy. The lack of natural story arc is a problem, but the real dealbreaker is invoking what it is to be robbed of one’s dignity. Dignity is complex, but the day-to-day of poverty in America leaves no doubt of it’s fragility. The dizzying network effect of ever-more-tangling dependencies intercut with penny counting, truth-stretching, psychological escape, false hope, begging, crime, self-doubt, and the many flavors of shame have a way of defining it’s importance. This can’t be said enough: The purpose for social programs is not to provide freedom, but to provide security against loss of health, life and dignity. Freedom is fallacious. The limits to one’s freedom are defined by their relative power over others. It’s risky and has many exterior dependencies. It’s unnecessary but nice to have. Security and dignity are far more meager and far more important. Loss of these defined by one’s means for survival and health. Loss of security and dignity has tremendous direct physical and mental health consequences, and is the most common gateway to violence, crime, and suicide. Poor people know not to fuck with the latter. Poor people have cutting experience with the countless ways that money’s value is dependent on those who have more of it. >I don’t want a new government agency deciding where poor people live, what they are given to eat, and what clothes they are given to wear. In a life of poverty, the difference between a government deciding and nobody deciding incredibly often the difference between sickness and health, hunger and nourishment, or life and death. Direct commodity distribution done well (by an educated, compassionate, and civically engaged population) is drastically more efficient, drastically more effective, and drastically more humane. Of course, it might require a little innovation. Hopefully you don’t hate innovation.