The good Samaritan State?? is a wrong view? take a look and give your opinion?
The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help.
The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I’ve probably left out a hundred or so other groups.
Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do.
In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole.
This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn’t matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice.
The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works.
But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice.
He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition.
As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war.
The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others’ expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights.
The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality.
take you meds bud
Not all feel you need to rob from the rich to give to the poor. being a great nation we have a good samaritan state in some ways that work. I look at many of the things the federal government as a type of insurance. If a natural disaster strikes an area the government steps in to help our citizens, the money to do this comes from everyone paying into a fund, it is basically spreading the risk as the insurance companies do. You may never get anything back from your insurance policy but its always there. The same can be said when someone has the misfortune of being born with a handicap, having a disabling injury, the economic backbone af a comunity goes under.
Are you talking about the lame, bent, sick and the crazies? That’s what we always called them. Where I worked everything was mandatory.
seems you’re American. so my answer will come from that view.
i KNOW ( and i mean i KNOW KNOW KNOW!!!!) our government plays too much robin hood with WE THE PEOPLE’s $$$.
it (they?) have lost sight of their charter. what is that? (we may ask…) the preamble to the constitution. as you stated elsewhere, the founders KNEW no man was uncorruptible. and the system, if well thought out enough, could almost be the check to balace that. so i say it’s time to go retro, and WE THE PEOPLE need to go back to the 6 principles OUR constitution says is the purpose of OUR government.
i believe Jefferson said something to the effect of it NOT being the govt’s job to take from anyone with the purpose of benevolence…..
sorry the quotes no good, but i get sooo fried about this stuff….
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
BIOLOGY OF THE BEAST
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/Grossmann/BEAST/BiologyOfBeast_Update3/Biology_of_the_Beast.htm
The Shadows – Secret Lives in Our Midst
By Dr. Stefan Grossmann, http://www.gallerize.com
Is it true that they are different? Does it make sense to put them in a group of their own named the evil human life form?
Bible informs us that the evil beings are the Beast. This article presents, in short, a biology, a zoology of the Beast. We will see that their life activities include, without limitation, a selective socialization (including their common inbreeding) together with an obsession with Satanic rituals and symbols.
This article has five parts:
I. Demon Eyes Tutorial
II. General Introduction
III. Rituals and Symbols
IV. Families and Hierarchies
V. The Treasure Hoard
This is meant as a serious investigative overview over the life of the horror channel, that is the dominant human life form on this planet. With today’s information we get a rather comprehensive panorama of the pyramid from knowledgeable sources.
History vs. Religions…..winner History
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=928518742089256264&hl=en-old one
ZEITGEIST, The Movie – Full Production (must see)
A 5,500-year-old mystery emerges “Without J-E-Ws”
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/chi-0512160188dec16%2C0%2C3957360.story?coll=sfla-news-science
An ancient big city found in modern-day Syria has prompted archeologists to rethink notions of how urban society began, even as they try to figure out who destroyed Hamoukar.
In the shadow of a much more recent war, a five-year excavation on the Syrian-Iraqi border has uncovered an ancient settlement of unexpected sophistication that was suddenly wiped out by invaders 5,500 years ago.
The discovery sheds light on an early stage of human history in a time and place when cities were first emerging, and it suggests a massive battle waged at its walls.
It also poses a mystery: Who destroyed the city, and why?
1- It is sometimes argued that governments exist to enforce the will of the strong and oppress the weak, maintaining and protecting the privilege of a ruling class.
2- Others see the government as a positive force that brings order out of chaos, establishes laws to end the “war of all against all”, encourages moral virtue, while punishing vice, and respects tradition.
3- Still others view, human beings as born with certain natural rights, and governments are established strictly for the purpose of protecting those rights.
It seems that this latest view takes hold in the most advance societies, like western Europe and the USA.
Elements of all three we do find everywhere.
Was this a question? I lost interest after the first three paragraphs.
The good samaritan can only be filled by good men with good intentions and good deeds. I must admit your’re more intelligent than most conservatives but your agenda is the same.
Make Money Online. Get Paid to take Surveys.
Hi, i just found a cost-free on-line Community where many people
talk about their living with back pain. I just began my totally
free account today and would like to invite you.