“Umkehren, immer umkehren-Invert, always invert.” “Don’t just keep asking the same old question over and over: turn it upside down and ask the opposite question. The answer you get then may not be the one you want, but it may throw useful light on the question you started with.”
This is an insightful statement to say the least. It relates to the question I asked myself so many times over and over while witnessing the one person that I love deteriorate. It’s an open ended statement that picks up with the idea that a person has to want to help him or herself first before that person can be treated. On the other hand, there are those that cannot help themselves.
The crisis analysis treats the needy to a certain extent. Obviously the people being treated have adequately adjusted to a level where no more help is needed thus being self-sufficient. A person that loses their home because of weather damage or a person who loses their home because they couldn’t pay their mortgage and have to sleep in their car is, what I feel, an example of the crisis analysis. Once they get the major help they need it is more than likely they won’t need help, at least in those same areas as before. Some people are able to catapult themselves out of a rough time or in a crisis. “Survival is possible under several different politico-economic systems-but not under the system of the commons.”
Crunch analysis seems to withhold the idea that no matter how much help you give this certain group of people it’s never going to be enough. They (the needy or the commons) will always need more and the needy therefore increase in size. “The need has not gone away…it is evidently a permanent crunch…” I feel this applies to the needy that are mentally ill and or drug addicts. Because a mentally ill person needs treatment in order to function properly their condition constantly faces a permanent crisis or crunch and because a drug addict needs treatment as well for the same purposes their condition also constantly faces a permanent crisis. There is always a chance of relapse whether one wants to admit it or not. There is always a chance that a mentally ill person is not going to be able to receive the adequate medication they need because pharmaceutical companies raise the cost of medication, treatment centers keep shutting down because of “budget cuts” and many of the needy, actually one-fifth of the homeless population are veterans that are not being adequately taken care of. I would like to state that VA does take care of homeless veterans however only to a certain extent. I highly suggest that everyone take a look at this site (National Coalition for Homeless Veterans) as it has shocking details as to how many of our veterans need assistance. Many veterans suffer from PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) which could in fact be the main reason why they need help. Many who suffer from PTSD develop other disorders which include: substance abuse, mood disorders and psychotic disorders. 8 out of 10 service people are likely to have PTSD. This is not to say that PTSD is limited to just veterans. The same treatment used for PTSD patients is also the same used for sexual assault victims.
Is the idea that many of the needy fall within the crunch analysis a bad thing and should we help? My answer is not exactly cut and dry. I tend to agree with a more rights approach to this issue rather than an individualistic view. Also the utilitarianism view seems to overlook the rights of the minority, in this case the minority being the homeless, needy the commons.
Veterans need to come first and foremost when it pertains to taking care of the needy. These men and women sacrificed their lives (whether one agrees with war or not) and deserve to live the rest of their lives as peaceful as possible and without financial burden. The government needs to step up to take much better care of those that have sacrificed their lives for our country. 58,267 names are carved into “The Wall”. 107,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. This should not be happening nor allowed by our government. In a time where there is much turmoil in the world our first obligation should be to take care of the needy in our own country.
When the needy are drug addicts do we have an ethical responsibility to help? How do we know they’re not drug addicts? Does it even matter?
I believe that everyone has an ethical responsibility to help because one doesn’t know what everyone’s situation is. However, for a person to help, like how I explained in the beginning, all of the time- is not going to help their situation any. Because they, the needy have a fundamental right to live how they want, whether they choose to live homeless or not, our society should help although I believe the correct way in helping would be to establish more homeless shelters with treatment facilities as to reduce the “they” size and control the permanent problem. There is one homeless shelter where I live and the funding is rocky. This is ludicrous as there are many who need shelter yet are turned away because of a full house. This leaves me and the rest of society to handle the situation of which we are not equipped to do so. I don’t believe that one person who is unequipped to handle a homeless person’s drug, alcohol or mental problem is going to be able to “help” their situation. Merely giving hand-outs is not assessing the situation in my eyes and only skirting the true issues at play. I have known individuals who enable certain behaviors to continue which is like adding fuel to the fire. It is inhumane to me to feed and clothe a needy person and then send them right back out to where they started from. How is this solving the problem? By giving money to a needy person is only putting a bandage on the scar. If one wants to truly help…try to find guidance for them whether spiritual or not…take them to a community health center where they have to be seen…there are many other ways to help yet people don’t want to get involved…people generally like to think they’re helping because they like to feel good about themselves…”I gave a homeless man some money today…yea, he probably is going to go out and buy alcohol with it but I just could NOT not do anything.” I challenge you to ask yourself what your motives are as to giving your help in a monetary form to a person who clearly needs something that doesn’t come in the form of money. Our society and government loves to pacify situations.
Our government not only has an ethical responsibility to homeless veterans, it also has an ethical responsibility to others in our society that are not self-sufficient because of mental illnesses or addictions. They are not disposable and we should not treat them as such. This is only assuming the needy individual wants and recognizes they need help as all efforts to help that person would be forced or imposed. All needy people have rights to live as they wish- all needy people need to have specialized treatment available in a living facility available to them if they wish to receive help to control this issue within our country. By leaving it up to people who are unequipped to help, our country is slapping the biggest bandage over a scar that has not and will not heal on its own.
The objection to this might be to say that the needy would abuse the services offered to them. This would be eliminated through the caring capacity of the facility lead by licensed therapists, doctors and psychologists. “Tragedy is the price of freedom in the commons…we have however, a choice in the freedom to be sacrificed.” The tragedy is that some needy people do not want to be helped even if the help is there for the taking. We cannot force a person to change. Change comes from within. I feel that one cannot compare a person in line who ran out of cash to pay for groceries yet has a home, car etc. to a person who sleeps in the park and has none of that. Obviously there is a drastic difference between needs and how to attain them. I feel it the individual’s motives at hand that are necessary to establish a solution to their problem. Obviously, if a woman or man’s food stamp card is declined when making a purchase the good will of people (hopefully) will come through to help the young woman or man out. This is not actually giving the person money because the money is going to the store for food. Although I would lend help to a needy individual in a situation like this I would not lend them actual money as I do not know what their motives are with it. I would lend help to a homeless individual in the form of seeking treatment and shelter and possibly some spiritual guidance if they were willing because I feel that it is unethical to not address the root of their problem by merely covering up the issues. This is, “a growing disaster”. If there are no homeless shelters available most churches (Salvation Army for an example) are willing to help in assessing the problem. My outlook is to never give up on someone who wants to change and is willing to put forth the effort to make that change.
The Libertarian theory will not help with those that are needy. “Maximum Freedom, Limited Government” is the motto. Sounds good on paper yet bad when implemented. I say this because this ideology has resulted in mass genocide. Under the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush revolution they used the idea that “Government is the problem” (Reagan), Bush used tax cuts strictly for the rich in order to “starve the beast” and my personal favorite, “Give the park police more ammo” (Gingrich’s response to a reporter who asked what to do about the homeless a few days after the police shot a homeless man in front of the White House.). Libertarians have a huge influence on the Republican party…and for the record, I am not siding with the Democrats as I think all politicians are liars to some degree (some more than others). Libertarian theories seem to all have 4 steps.
- Position new underpinnings
- Devalue human life
3.Purge the “lower ones”
- Impact
Purging the “lower ones” I would like to better describe as Mass Genocide:
Genocide is defined as “the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group”, and goes on to state, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life”.
Libertarianism contributes to the destruction of groups of people or in other words contributes to mass genocide because after all, the most common form of genocide in our society today is institutionalized by those that hold more wealth and more power; those that feel either their race, economic or religious background is superior to any others. If you give a group of people the freedom to do what they want with their property, money or goods isn’t this like playing Russian Roulette? I realize that tyranny would be non-acceptable however when looking back in history, tyranny doesn’t start with someone waving a sword around- it starts out very subtle. I believe The Holocaust started out this way…
Everyone has a right to not help another individual. This is not to say that one ought not to help. Since some feel that Libertarianism is best for our country, I think we need to address some key issues within our country so that I can attempt to explain why Libertarianism is so dangerous. I must admit, the definition for Libertarian is quite contradictory as to their so called, “rules” which are often misleading.
Libertarians want to supposedly “help” people be in charge of their own lives. I challenge this view as my argument solely rests on the fact that some people cannot “help” themselves for reasons such as mental illnesses and oppression. Statistically there are around 7.7 million adult Americans that have PTSD. Roughly 7%-8% of people will more than likely develop PTSD within their lifetime. The percentage of rape victims ranges from 10%-30%. Over 40% of children and teens have experienced some type of traumatic event which has resulted in PTSD (up to 15% girls, 6% boys).
One more thing I would like to mention regarding PTSD is that other disorders accompany PTSD which include alcohol or other substance abuse and other anxiety disorders.
If one has PTSD they are essentially part of the common as this is an emotional illness and along with emotional illness there is a lack of self sufficiency as their illness takes over every aspect of their life. PTSD not only affects a person’s life it also affects economics. According to Medicinenet.com, “As of 2005, more than 200,000 veterans were receiving disability compensation for this illness, for a cost of $4.3 billion.” This represents an 80% increase in the number of military people receiving disability benefits for PTSD and an increase of 149% in the amount of disability benefits paid compared to those numbers five years earlier.”
It’s bad enough the government has taken a more libertarian approach to handling this matter by not giving 107,000 veterans a place to sleep every night. They are, tragically, homeless and unfortunately the National Coalition for Veterans reports, “Over the course of a year, approximately twice that many experience homelessness.” So why don’t they just help themselves one might ask? Because a great number are displaced and cannot get the help they so desperately need. I guess that basic human rights take the back seat once again.
Who will take care of these people who suffer from PTSD in a Libertarian world? Not the government…hypothetically speaking, we are to say now…there is no government. Oh wait…since the Libertarian view holds that, “it has no obligation to provide aid for the needy…poverty is the fault of the poor…anyone who is poor is either lazy or defective, and in either case he should feel shame and should not ask for handouts,” we should just dispose of “these commons”, let them die because they’re no good to us. Well, isn’t this somewhat already like how our government’s system works? Yes, probably because the Libertarian Party is the third largest party within the U.S. Is this working for us? I think not.
Are Libertarians ready to help 7.7 million adults and over 40% children learn to live their lives with PTSD? Because in fact- PTSD is an ongoing problem and people with PTSD need help and assistance for the duration of their life- it requires people who are equipped at dealing with PTSD, funding for those who cannot sufficiently support themselves, funding for medication and more importantly counseling for those who have endured the trauma as well as family members who are affected.
To completely dissolve the idea that people are not greedy and do not worship money as their GOD is comedic to say the least. At any rate, granted privatization would cover these types of services this in fact has lead to capitalism (corporate greed) which has proven to be one of the major downfalls within our society. Taking a Libertarian approach to this issue one has to take into account capitalization and exploitation will be implemented.
Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
I suggest checking out the documentary, “The Corporation” to give you an idea of how corporate America has exploited millions of Americans based off a capitalistic ideology.
We have already seen what privatization can do to a corporation and how our monetary system has failed to meet basic human needs.
My final thoughts regarding a Libertarian approach to this issue (the mentally ill) is this:
Mass genocide is happening at this very moment by our government implementing a Libertarian view on homelessness and the mentally ill. Because of lack of housing, deinstitutionalization of hospitals and mental health facilities the “commons” are being disposed. Every 53 minutes an American child dies from poverty. I ask you this…is this not genocide?
Moving forward, to say that a Libertarian society would be a better solution regarding “the war on drugs” I highly disagree with the notion to legalize all drugs. How would a Libertarian society still enforce laws such as driving while intoxicated or carrying a gun under the influence of drugs with only a small police squad patrolling the area and because everyone would be entitled to carry a gun I’m sure that the outcome of a police chase would ensue with some sort of shoot-out which is just oh so civilized. We would be doing a disservice to society by taking many steps backward into a time many don’t want to relive. And forget about national defense…everyone would have their own weapons so that they can fight off terrorists. Is this rational, logical thinking?
Funding for art would be cut, all borders would be open because most Libertarians believe that immigrants are only interested in our welfare system and tax funded education would be cut because remember…there are no taxes anymore! Privatization would take over and a little thing called racism would put us right back into the seat that Rosa Parks sat at over 50 years ago.
Do you really think this can’t happen? It has happened. By allowing groups of individuals to maximize their individual freedom and liberty this would only set up systems of privatizations, create an even bigger social gap and disservice the individuals in our society by displacing the mentally ill or in other words, disposing of them altogether. This is already happening in our society so how is this working for us?
Although there are those that do not want to be helped there are those that do want to be helped and in a Libertarian society the chances of them receiving adequate help would be slim to none as the wealthiest would, “not help them out since this would merely make their problems worse” The social Darwinism of the nineteenth-century philosophy also resembles Libertarianism. One could even argue how social Darwinism relates to the Nazi idea of racial purity…”free competition in human societies ensures that only the best people succeed.” Some would say since Blacks, Latinos and Mexicans are statistically undereducated they would more than likely be viewed in a Libertarian society as worthless and dumb. But hey, the borders are open now so more Mexicans can come over to work at private corporations and who cares about exploitation? The working conditions will be a little better than those nasty sweat shops. This would only be a state of nature- an uncivilized society where the survival of the fittest would prevail and anarchy would be the result. This would be like playing Russian Roulette- the game of chance or quantum suicide. Even as our government dismantles itself in this Libertarian fashion, slowly the human condition will also slowly dismantle, leaving more helpless than helped.
(ER)
Sources: . http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism
http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
Velasquez, and Cynthia Rostankowski. ETHICS: Theory and practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985. Print.
That She's Really Into Politics GIrl 