# How to look after the vulnerable?



## emma42

I am often struck by, when listening to conservatives talking about wanting less government interference in their lives (and, in particular, fewer taxes)  how there never seems to be offered a sensible solution as to how a society should look after its vulnerable - the poor, the old, the abused, the mentally/physically ill, the mentally/physically handicapped, the unemployed etc etc.  

It may well be that governments interfere too much in people's lives (Cuchu mentioned relationships in another thread), but if all the talk is about individual responsibility, where does that leave those who are unable to look after themselves?

I have heard conservatives say at this point, "Well, of course we must look after the old/sick etc", but this is nearly always an afterthought, or the question has to be asked, rather than volunteered as a very important issue.  Also, it seems to me, that when a conservative government is in power, despite promises to the contrary, what actually happens is that the poor/sick etc _do_ suffer.

An example:  state (old-age) pensions in this country are generally accepted to be inadequate.  The conservative response is usually, "Well, people should save for their retirement and not rely on the state to look after them".  OK.  But what if a person has never earned enough money in his/her life to be able to save anything like an amount that will make a difference?  What if a person has been ill for a long time and unable to work?  

I wonder what forer@s  think.  I should point out that when I say "conservative" I am not wholly referring to the English/British Conservative Party.


----------



## Etcetera

Of course, the society must look after the vulnerable, and it's the state's responsibility to provide them with money and all that is necessary. 



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> An example: state (old-age) pensions in this country are generally accepted to be inadequate. The conservative response is usually, "Well, people should save for their retirement and not rely on the state to look after them". OK. But what if a person has never earned enough money in his/her life to be able to save anything like an amount that will make a difference? What if a person has been ill for a long time and unable to work?


 
That's the problem, indeed. It seems to me that low pensions are a common problem nowadays. I just can't think of a country in Europe where old people would have as much money as they need. 
Such responses as the one you've adduced as an example are just offensive, I think, because most people have been working for the state for all their lives, and then the state just cast them out! 
Here in Russia the government also supposed once that _children_ should look after their parents when they grow old and can work no longer. Well, people were really angry to hear that. It's so difficult for a young person, even a University graduate, to find a well-paid job.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> I have heard conservatives say at this point, "Well, of course we must look after the old/sick etc", but this is nearly always an afterthought, or the question has to be asked, rather than volunteered as a very important issue.  Also, it seems to me, that when a conservative government is in power, despite promises to the contrary, what actually happens is that the poor/sick etc _do_ suffer.



Bearing in mind your "health-warning" that you weren't talking about British Conservatives, I would point out that it was they who devised "care in the community" as an approach to mental health. This was a disaster. It was followed here.
I acknowledge that closing the asylums was a "good thing", but not everyone who was released into the community was (a) suitable for release, or (b) had someone in the community willing to care for them.

It would appear that many charitable organisations began to really feel the pinch when this happened, in the 80s under Margaret Thatcher! Then came the launch of the National Lottery, which with its proportion going to "good causes" hit the charities even harder.
Those "chuggers" who bedevil one on the highways and byways are a direct result of both of those onslaughts on the resources of the charities.

A society must be judged not on how the "average" citizen is - emotionally, financially, medically, etc - but on how it treats its underprivileged, and a society which leaves that treatment in the hands of private organisations - be they churches or charities or private citizens - is a failing society. It's not enough to end the horrendous and negative "lock 'em up out of sight", society needs to do something positive. Under-funded charities cannot do this.


----------



## emma42

I could not agree more with the two above posts, particularly Maxiogee's comment about how a society should be judged.  I am awaiting "conservative" responses.  And I will listen respectfully.


----------



## cuchuflete

Before commenting on how to look after the vulnerable, it might be useful to offer a few words about 'conservatives', some of whom are fine people, and others good for sport (clay pigeons come to mind.).

I live in a very conservative place.  Town records show that in the 1600s, the local town government budgeted money to help the poorest citizens make ends meet.  This was either in lieue of, or in addition to, any help those people might have received from relatives, neighbors, or their churches.  Helping to care for the poor is not contrary to any conservative principle.

In my country, a lot of people have claimed the label 'conservative' without having any idea what the word meant or means.  They cry out for smaller government, while supporting a regime of self-styled conservatives that has created massive deficits (absolutely against true conservative thinking), and intruded federal government into areas once left to the localities.  

Today, the self-proclaimed 'conservatives' snicker at environmentalists as 'tree-huggers' while overlooking the plain fact that conservation of the environment was begun by true conservatives.  There are many more examples of the abuse of the word conservative by those who do not deserve to wear it. 

I would ask that, for this conversation, the word 'conservative' be replaced by something more accurate. 

*How to look after the vulnerable?*

I had a mini-debate with a friend, a much admired member of the state legislature who was running for re-election.  He was quite far to the left in his politics...a person called "ultra-liberal" in this region, meaning far distant from the 'conservatives'.  I stated that I think government is usually terribly inefficient, and should perform the most limited role possible and necessary.

He surprised me with his answers--
"Yes, government usually is pretty damned inefficient.  The private sector can generally do a better job."  (I began to smile at his candor and common sense.)  He continued...

"But there are things the private sector has little desire or incentive to do, like help the mentally ill.  For those areas, I'd rather have some inefficient government help than nothing at all."

He was correct.


----------



## diegodbs

I don't like that "sauve qui peut" kind of society favoured by  conservative parties all over the world, and I don't know either, aside from benefit and money, their reasons to justify their point of view. They certainly disguise benefit and money with a lot of nice words "freedom, responsibility, improvement, etc".

So I'm not really interested in what they may say about that issue, as long as they remain where they are: in the opposition (I'm talking about Spain).

This is, in short, their moral point of view: "ande yo caliente y ríase la gente".


----------



## emma42

Cuchu. I do not think I have misrepresented conservatism. I have said that conservatives generally want less government interference, lower taxes and favour individual responsibility. I just want to know how conservatives square that with looking after the needy? You haven't answered my question, mate. Or was the answer implicit in your (interesting) 1600s town records story?


----------



## cuchuflete

Emma,
I think it might be interesting to skip the anecdotes and opinions about what conservatives--if there are such--do to look after the needy while lowering taxes, and have a look at a few facts instead.

In the US, under a pseudo-conservative regime, taxes have been lowered, deficits increased, thereby putting the burden off for the next regime or generation to deal with.  In the meantime, federal government spending for social programs has gone up, and down, depending on the program. In some cases the absolute increases in spending have been less than the increase in inflation, or less than the costs imposed by the federal government on localities.

In short, the "conservative" way of addressing the needs of the vulnerable has been incoherent and inconsistent, driven more by ideology than ideals or budgetary realities.  

Now I'll sit back and wait for a conservative to drift along, and tell us all how wonderful things are.


----------



## cuchuflete

In the interest of skewering both sides of an endless argument, I must note that your first post assumes that caring for the needy is a government responsibility. It may be. I'd like to know why that is so.  A government is a social organization.  So is a family. So is a neighborhood. So is a religious or civic group.

Why is it better for one such social organization to attend to the real needs of the vulnerable, rather than one or more of the other social organizations?   Larger organization are usually less efficient than smaller ones.  Might there be another answer than "Government must do more!" as the left often declare, or "Government should do less!" as we hear from the right?


----------



## maxiogee

The government shouldn't be the "organisation", cuchu, it should just be the funding authority!


----------



## diegodbs

> Might there be another answer than "Government must do more!" as the left often declare, or "Government should do less!" as we hear from the right?


 
Maybe because according to my left wing and candid point of view, when I say "Govenment must do more" I mean "in the benefit of all", and when conservative parties say "Government should do less", I suspect they mean "so that I can do what I like and let the others do what they can, it's none of my business".


----------



## emma42

Cuchu.  I wanted to know what conservatives (given the small definition above) had to say about the issue.  I actually wanted to retitle the thread "How to look after the vulnerable and needy - the conservative perspective", but didn't know how to.  I don't see what is wrong with asking this question.  I agree that we have to define what we mean by "conservative", for the purposes of this debate, but I thought we'd done that.  Have we not?


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The government shouldn't be the "organisation", cuchu, it should just be the funding authority!


  That seems sensible.  Unfortunately, as Bush and Cia. have dealt with some social needs, government has funded religious organization to be the 'delivery mechanism', and they have delivered help wrapped in proselytizing.

That may be a matter of bad mechanics, rather than bad ideology.  I think it is.

What I was pointing to, and what your reply states clearly, is that government should recycle tax monies to help the needy, but that government should often get the hell out of the way of those who can do a better job of actually doing the needed work.  

I'm sure that kind of answer will make both liberals and conservatives squirm, but squirm abatement is not a valid government task.


----------



## cuchuflete

We are still awaiting a conservative perspective.


----------



## Fernando

Maybe mine is a conservative perspective. In Spain you would be a terrible right-winger, Cuchu.

I think there is a little (and often) misunderstanding.

The political right usually have two groups:

1) Liberals (European terminology) or libertarians (US terminology): little State, as little as possible. The important thing is freedom, specially economic freedom.

2) Conservatives: The State should have a good size (specially but not only, in the militar sense) and it does not exclude at all social expenditure. Take "Rheinanian capitalism", as an example.

By the way, libertarians hate Bush.

I heard (but my knowledge of US politics is negligible) that Gore had proposed to repay US Federal debt through fiscal superavits. That would be impossible to hear from European right. And Bush has raised the tax burden and the debt (correct me if otherwise). Of course economic cycle has something to say, but I think it is useful to be recalled.

All in all it is possible that political right pays less attention to poors but it depends on the country: Chrirac or Kohl would be big spenders for US "left" and Blair would be a libertarian for continental right. I would not say that in any country governed by the right poors are starving.

In my personal opinion it is a question of balancing priorities:

- State is extremely inefficient.

- People should have the right to choose: if they want to pay less attention to money (working less or studying less) or they take too many risks or whatsoever they will result with less money, period.

- People should start from similar positions: State should guarantee education at the basic level.

- People should have a net: According to the country's possibilities they would be entitled to arrive at a minimum standard of life regardless they have done.

A long post for this forum and a short post for a difficult topic.


----------



## french4beth

Be careful what you wish for, emma  : http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=151392
Foxfirebrand 'Flamed' me with a capital "F".

I think that as maxiogee put it so eloquently, a society is judged by how well it takes care of those who are least able to care for themselves.  The word 'society' includes government as well as individuals, so it's up to all of us to take care of each other.

When I looked http://www.conservative.org/about/default.asp, http://www.townhall.com/, http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html, I found no mention of how to care for those who are least able to do so.

This site http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/oh-well-boys-will-be-girls-essential-problems-of-boys-and-girls/ even talks about something called 'gender feminists' - I still don't know what that one means (nor will I ever, I imagine...)

Here, http://www.liberal-international.org/, however, I found the following:


> Liberal International (LI) is the world federation of liberal and progressive democratic political parties... founded in 1947 to strengthen liberal protection from totalitarianism, facism and communism... has since become the pre-eminent network for promoting liberalism, individual freedom, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, equality of opportunity, social justice, free trade and a market economy.


OK, I'm a liberal, and I'm therefore biased - no flaming, please!


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Fernando. (Did I just say thanks? Hmmmmm maybe I should re-think that.)



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Maybe mine is a conservative perspective. In Spain you would be a terrible right-winger, Cuchu. Oh, has the European right adopted the idea that homosexuals have the right to marry, that a woman has the right right to decide what happens with her own body, that immigrants are not evil, that.........?
> 
> I think there is a little (and often) misunderstanding.
> 
> The political right usually have two groups:
> 
> 1) Liberals (European terminology) or libertarians (US terminology): little State, as little as possible. The important thing is freedom, specially economic freedom. Libertarians, in US terminology, usually think government is terribly inefficient. I agree with that part.  However, in the US, they are often undecided what else they stand for, or are very right wing.  I disagree with those positions usually.
> 
> 2) Conservatives: The State should have a good size (specially but not only, in the militar sense) and it does not exclude at all social expenditure. Take "Rheinanian capitalism", as an example.
> 
> By the way, libertarians hate Bush.
> 
> I heard (but my knowledge of US politics is negligible) that Gore had proposed to repay US Federal debt through fiscal superavits. That would be impossible to hear from European right. And Bush has raised the tax burden He has reduced it  in the short term, thus creating a future need for large tax increases, after he has left office ! True Conservatives hate him for that. and the debt (correct me if otherwise). Of course economic cycle has something to say, but I think it is useful to be recalled.
> 
> All in all it is possible that political right pays less attention to poors but it depends on the country: Chrirac or Kohl would be big spenders for US "left" and Blair would be a libertarian for continental right. I would not say that in any country governed by the right poors are starving.
> 
> In my personal opinion it is a question of balancing priorities:
> 
> - State is extremely inefficient.
> 
> - People should have the right to choose: if they want to pay less attention to money (working less or studying less) or they take too many risks or whatsoever they will result with less money, period.
> 
> - People should start from similar positions: State should guarantee education at the basic level.
> 
> - People should have a net: According to the country's possibilities they would be entitled to arrive at a minimum standard of life regardless they have done.
> 
> A long post for this forum and a short post for a difficult topic.


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Oh, has the European right adopted the idea that homosexuals have the right to marry, that a woman has the right right to decide what happens with her own body, that immigrants are not evil, that.........?



I was referring to your economic views, not in the social topics.

"homosexuals have the right to marry, " It depends. Mostly not (along with much of European left).

"that a woman has the right right to decide what happens with her own body" As you are aware we have a little discussion about what "her own body" is, but if you refer to abortion, most European right parties admit it or even support it (most unfortunate, but it is).

"that immigrants are not evil," Except Le Pen, some Belgian and Austrian parties I would say they do not think they are evil. PP in Spain has stayed far from performing a massive deportation policy. And they have not built two nice walls in Ceuta and Melilla.


----------



## djchak

WARNING: I am not a conservative, so I could be wrong on this,.... 

"when listening to conservatives talking about wanting less government interference in their lives (and, in particular, fewer taxes) how there never seems to be offered a sensible solution as to how a society should look after its vulnerable - the poor, the old, the abused, the mentally/physically ill, the mentally/physically handicapped, the unemployed etc etc."

Ok, "the unemployed" does not count as much in this case...you could be unemployed and have a 300K house and 20 grand in the bank...but if you generally mean the poor (plus all of the above).....

It's that (USA) conservatives have no faith in GOVERNMENT offering a sensible solution..... they would PREFER that a private organization took care of most of it, since here they tend to do a better job. At the same time they want these organisations to receive government funding....

So you have the answer to the question. Most conservatives have no faith in the government performing these functions. Compare our welfare section 8 projects with council estates in the UK....

Let's talk about what the government can do....in my sweet home chicago... Ever heard of Cabrini Green?

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=hc741q8d1n9e?tname=cabrini-green&sbid=lc01a


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> "that a woman has the right right to decide what happens with her own body" As you are aware we have a little discussion about what "her own body" is,



No we don't. We have a discussion on abortion. At no point has anybody mentioned who's body is involved. 
Some might like to follow me thinking on "her own body" over to the thread in question where I will take this further.

Okay, moving on - as a bleedin' heart lib'rul (ex-card carrying) I would like to posit a conservative type scenario, and one I am both familiar with and on the side of:-

What is to be done with the OAP types who are offloaded onto state care by children who don't, won't or can't look after them themselves - while they eagerly await the inheritance windfall from the sale of said OAP's home and assests?
And not just the OAPs, but the mentally infirm, or the physically in need of long-term care, whose family could see to them, but decline to spend the money doing so?
At what point does it become alright to cede a responsibility which we could meet, even if that meeting causes us hardships, for our kith and kin to the care of outside agencies?


----------



## Fernando

Maxiogee, I do not understand a word of your post. What is OAP?

who's or whose?


----------



## cuchuflete

Many of those whose eyes glaze over at the thought of political discourse may have considered the friendly banter between Fernando and myself to have been written in Martian.  Please just take from all of it that the definition of "conservative" has many, many flavors.  

Thus, when someone suggests that "conservatives" don't want to have government do anything/enough for the 'vulnerable', it is essential to first define "conservative" and even "vulnerable".  If that isn't done, the conversations will usually just end up going nowhere.  

I like Tony's suggestion that government provide funding, and not be the delivery mechanism.  That can easily appeal to both left and right, and they can argue about how much funding is appropriate.  

The most useful-for me-comment in this thread was made by French4beth:



> The word 'society' includes government as well as individuals, so it's up to all of us to take care of each other.


----------



## french4beth

Thanks, cuchu!


And I believe OAP is "Old Age Pensioner"...


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What is to be done with the OAP types who are offloaded onto state care by children who don't, won't or can't look after them themselves - while they eagerly await the inheritance windfall from the sale of said OAP's home and assests?
> And not just the OAPs, but the mentally infirm, or the physically in need of long-term care, whose family could see to them, but decline to spend the money doing so?
> At what point does it become alright to cede a responsibility which we could meet, even if that meeting causes us hardships, for our kith and kin to the care of outside agencies?



Thank you, french. I do not know, Maxiogee. In your example the family has failed and the State is no help since the money is going to be swallow for the nice children. Am I understanding your example?


----------



## wintercrow

emma42:
 many years ago (1978?)I read an inteview with Gore Vidal famous novelist,  if he was a Democrat or  a Republican or a Libertatian.  His answer was
" Neithe they are all the same, there is no real difference among them. They all go to the same shools, live in the same neighbohoods and their children marry each other, there is but  and only One political party really".
 am paraphrasing but you get the idea. fdor 25v years I havve been watching them, how true.
  wintercrow


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> Thank you, french. I do not know, Maxiogee. In your example the family has failed and the State is no help since the money is going to be swallow for the nice children. Am I understanding your example?



"is no help"? I, in turn Fernando, do not understand your English here?

In my example the family is declining to help, so society must, but should it be incumbent on the family to prove that it cannot help, and if it cannot prove that should it be charged for the care of its "loved" one?

Whose = of whom, belonging to whom.
Who's = who is.


----------



## Fernando

I have not a solution for every problem (well, I have but I would have to charge you the time). In this particular case:

- In most European RICH countries the State would provide the old guy a residence. I assume he can not afford one. I can not see many differences here among a conservative or a leftist (US liberal) would do.

- It is unclear to me where the pension of the pensioner goes. Is he mentally disabled? 

- How many old people should the State support? I do not know. To most people I know (not all) your case is strange. Most of them prefer to be cared by their families rather than by the State. 

Anyway he should disinherit their "loved" ones.


----------



## Tatzingo

emma42 said:
			
		

> had to say about the issue.  I actually wanted to retitle the thread "How to look after the vulnerable and needy - the conservative perspective", but didn't know how to.



Hi,

If i remember correctly, the title changing option lies within Edit/advanced options. 

Tatz.


----------

