Add a Comment
Email This
When the Amish "care for each other when they can't care for themselves", that is government intervention.
Aren't you splitting hairs a bit fine there Scott? We the people (non-Amish) have nothing to do with taking care of those who belong to the Anabaptist enclaves. If they choose to reject many of the trappings of the modern world, so be it, that's their choice. They harm no one by doing so, and in fact, contribute their goods to the world--food, quilts, and and other goods. Also remember, it's not just the Amish, but also their are Mennonite groups as well who reject the trappings of the modern world. They live in the middle of the country because they are an agrarian society; the border with Mexico would do them no good. In a sense, it's government intervention--but their own government; not us.
The welfare system is intended to be exactly the society at large helping to care for the individuals who can't care for themselves.
Exactly--but many *are* able to care for themselves, they simply find it easier to let the rest of us care for them.
but that's the American ideal, the self-indulgent fantasy world of the Amish is not.
Self-indulgent? That's a bit harsh, don't you think? It's no more self-indulgent than the ethnic communities in larger cities who band together as groups.
We at least agree on one point: Our welfare system is pretty screwed up. And while you are right in your saying that Amish wouldn't support non-Amish (actually they do--they DO pay taxes after all), I think the rest of us could learn from that--care for our communities. Let the person in Central Iowa care for another Central Iowan; and the poor black Muslim woman in East LA be cared for by the community in East LA.
In one sense, Hillary Clinton was right back in the 90's--it does take a village.
Aren't you splitting hairs a bit fine there Scott? We the people (non-Amish) have nothing to do with taking care of those who belong to the Anabaptist enclaves.
No, I'm not. You've missed my point.
The Amish, in rejecting the larger culture, haven't eliminated government. The "government" in their enclaves is their church leadership. Furthermore, my guess is that there's relatively little effort for the membership of one Ordnung to support those in another when they've fallen on hard times - certainly far less than there would be for one of the "in" group.
So to characterize their "solution" to the welfare problem as being accomplished "all without government intervention", is simply incorrect. They've substituted their own internal government intervention for that of the larger society, but it's their government that organizes and delivers the aid. No different than in the larger society. We just have a more difficult logistical problem.
They harm no one by doing so, and in fact, contribute their goods to the world--food, quilts, and and other goods.
Those farms would be dozens of times more efficient if they were worked as modern farms instead. The market for Amish goods just isn't significant - it would hardly be missed if it went away entirely.
They live in the middle of the country because they are an agrarian society; the border with Mexico would do them no good.
Again, not my point. If the arable land they lived on wasn't trivially easy to protect - who the hell would invade Pennsylvania first? - their rejection of American society simply wouldn't be tolerated. If they were on the perimeter of the country, instead of in its heartland, we'd have ejected their sorry asses years ago.
Exactly--but many *are* able to care for themselves, they simply find it easier to let the rest of us care for them.
Easy to assert, but hard to prove. What fraction of the people dependent the welfare system are actually able to care for themselves? I doubt you can lay your hands on any meaningful number - you're working from anecdotal evidence. Elsewhere on the site, Occam has asserted that in actually working for organizations that distribute the welfare assistance, he's seen anecdotal evidence to the contrary - and at least his is a first-hand report.
It may be that the number who are "cheating" the system is so small that eliminating them costs more than the cheating does.
Self-indulgent? That's a bit harsh, don't you think? It's no more self-indulgent than the ethnic communities in larger cities who band together as groups.
Nope. Those ethnic communities still interact with the larger culture - they have to, as their communities are typically only a few blocks across. The Amish cite Bible verses (2 Cor 6:14, 2 Cor 6:16, and Rom 2:12) as an excuse specifically to avoid such interaction wherever possible, and they can actually accomplish it to a much larger degree.
And I don't think self-indulgent is too harsh at all. Instead of living in the real world, they've chosen to live in a fantasy world.
Nor do I much like many aspects of those ethnic communities. As I've said before, if you want to come to America, fine - but you left home for a reason, so quit trying to turn America into a copy of your old home. But that's a different issue.
And while you are right in your saying that Amish wouldn't support non-Amish (actually they do--they DO pay taxes after all)
I didn't mean through taxes. I meant that if a Yankee on a neighboring farm was going through an economic hard time, he couldn't look to his Amish neighbors to support him the way you've characterized their approach to social welfare.
I think the rest of us could learn from that--care for our communities. Let the person in Central Iowa care for another Central Iowan; and the poor black Muslim woman in East LA be cared for by the community in East LA.
Doesn't that beg the question as to whether the community in East LA can care for her? The distribution of wealth in the country is uneven - East LA is poverty ridden, with more than a quarter of its residents below the poverty line.
Hurricane Katrina wiped out the homes and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, and all across America people offered aid (forgetting for the moment how badly that aid was managed). But there are ten times that many people who were already living in poverty. There are at again that many who were already homeless. Where's the mass outreach for them? That's why we have a welfare system.
Bland aphorisms about banding together to help our neighbors are meaningless noise. At least the welfare system does help some folks. Sure, there are some who are "helped" who shouldn't be, but there are almost certainly others who aren't getting help who should.
We at least agree on one point: Our welfare system is pretty screwed up.
Well, I actually have a proposal.
I think we should have government-run soup kitchens (presumably contracted out). Anyone who wanted to could show up and get fed. The food would be far from gourmet - the only goal being that you'd be able to get the 2000 nutritionally balanced kilocalories you need to live on, and we do it as cheaply as possible. Soup, bread, cheese, a few veggies, that sort of thing.
But here's the gimmick - absolutely anybody can go. From the beggar on the street to Bill Gates. We don't even try to ensure that only the "needy" take advantage. If you want good food, go to a real restaurant, but if any food will do, welcome. View it as simply a right we think Americans should have - every American has the right not to starve to death. Not the right to steak and lobster - if you want those things, get a job.
I think it would be an interesting idea, and I don't see any really obvious reason we couldn't do it for a cost roughly similar to what we're already paying people not to work. (Though I admit, I don't really have any way to judge either of those numbers.)
Those farms would be dozens of times more efficient if they were worked as modern farms instead. The market for Amish goods just isn't significant - it would hardly be missed if it went away entirely.
And just as much contributors to global warming as other 'modern' farms. As you have said, you believe man has caused global warming---and farming is one of the biggest contributors. Are you also aware that agricultural runoff from 'modern' farms is the number one watershed pollutant?
Personally if the Amish (or any other group of people for that matter) want to live their lives away from the modern world, let them. It's their choice, and how they find their happiness.
The market for Amish goods just isn't significant - it would hardly be missed if it went away entirely.
Yup..and it would completely destroy the economy of Lancaster County, PA if it did. Already, large numbers of Amish have been moving to Ohio, selling their lands to developers and buying much larger tracts in Ohio. There has been a measurable loss to the economy of Lancaster County, which depends on tourism and a couple of outlet malls.
Well, I actually have a proposal.
An interesting proposal--and with it, you've addressed the food issue..what about housing? or are you saying you'd build dormitories for them as well--how would you handle family units? how about clothing? or would you put them in jeans and t-shirts?
But here's the gimmick - absolutely anybody can go. From the beggar on the street to Bill Gates. We don't even try to ensure that only the "needy" take advantage.
There is actually a program much like this---though there is a 'cost' involved. It's called' Angel Food Ministries. There is no income guideline for participating; for $25.00, you get food enough for an average family of four for one week. It's also not 'old' or 'dented' can food, either. They also offer frozen meat packages as well. Oh, but it's usually run by a local church.
As to your Katrina comment--there was a LOT of failure there at all levels. There still is. There was a lot of NIMBY attitude about the housing trailers by some of the people in the more affluent areas too. Katrina is a major embarassment to us. We cleaned up Charleston, SC after Hugo faster than we have with Louisiana and Mississippi.
And just as much contributors to global warming as other 'modern' farms. As you have said, you believe man has caused global warming---and farming is one of the biggest contributors.
I've also said that I don't believe that trying to return to some kind of pre-industrial world is any kind of meaningful solution.
It's their choice, and how they find their happiness.
Yep. Same with monks. But they don't deserve praise for it, and they're not getting it from me.
An interesting proposal--and with it, you've addressed the food issue..what about housing? or are you saying you'd build dormitories for them as well--how would you handle family units? how about clothing? or would you put them in jeans and t-shirts?
Hey - it's a concrete, cheater-proof proposal to address a significant part of the problem. Shelter is another problem, and it, admittedly, doesn't address that - it wasn't intended to do so. I don't see clothing as a particularly substantial issue - it doesn't appear to be an existing problem that homeless people are wandering around naked. Though I suppose the same sources we use to supply the military with fatigues would probably address the issue, if necessary.
I'm not even sure that shelter - for nights, and inclement weather, and such - is that insurmountable an obstacle, if we really wanted to address the problem. As I see it, the main difficulty is that whatever space you use for it will be pretty much trashed. Ensuring that those who use the space don't abuse it (litter, graffiti, urination and the like - not unauthorized use) is the hard part.
My goal here isn't to do anything more than to try to meet minimum needs. Food and shelter seem to be the primary problems. I don't see the goal as trying to "improve" their lot in life - that's their responsibility. I see it as improving the society in which I live.
It's called' Angel Food Ministries.
It's not possible they could scale it up to be anything more than the usual meaningless sop to religious conscience - more useful as a recruiting tool than for actually addressing a social problem.
It needs to be available to everybody, or it doesn't work.
It needs to be available to everybody, or it doesn't work.
It is available to everyone.
No it isn't. It may be that nobody is prohibited from participating, but the program doesn't exist in every town and city in the country.
Point taken, but even our welfare system requires you to travel some distance to get to the office. There is no office in the town where I live; it's about 10 miles away in York.
However, Angel Food Ministries shows that a system like yours *could* work. Serve good, solid food--nothing fancy.
Of course, the US Welfare system is more than food. It encompasses programs for Women, Infants, and Children (commonly called WIC), HUD payments for housing, help for utility bills, child care, etc. etc. etc. It's an all-encompassing system, noble in cause, but poorly administered--much like many programs where you have the government involved, sadly.
Also, you're correct on the subject of system abuse--for every one person I can cite that is a system 'abuser', I can also probably point to 3-4 more who aren't. I wish there were a way to eliminate all of the abuse, but your assertion that it would probably not be cost effective rings true.
We both agree there is a problem--and you provided one facet of a solution; but I think it would be better as a community-run program rather than a government run program. Funding and oversight on the part of the government, but run by non-government entities.
Point taken, but even our welfare system requires you to travel some distance to get to the office. There is no office in the town where I live; it's about 10 miles away in York.
I don't think it could really work unless people (on average) don't have to travel much more than, say, twice as far as it is to the nearest post office.
Fortunately, the demand for the service in small towns is correspondingly tiny. If there are only a handful of meals to be served, almost anybody could handle the subcontract.
However, Angel Food Ministries shows that a system like yours *could* work. Serve good, solid food--nothing fancy.
My guess is that their food is probably even better that what I'd propose. The only requirement for my system is that the food be nutritious. It doesn't have to be anything anybody would otherwise seek to eat, since the whole thing is intended as a last resort. Nor does it require any variety - it can be the same vegetable soup and bread every day.
but I think it would be better as a community-run program rather than a government run program. Funding and oversight on the part of the government, but run by non-government entities.
The government has historically done it, and effectively, feeding the military. But today's government doesn't seem to run that way. My guess is that it would be contracted out - the government specifies nutritional standards and such that have to be met, and then lets the lowest bidder do the actual work.
RSS
RE: Anabaptist Culture
All without government intervention.
I think that one sentence (fragment) sizes up a central point you've missed.
When the Amish "care for each other when they can't care for themselves", that is government intervention. The point you miss is that the US government is us. This isn't a monarchy, where the government chooses to bestow its benevolence on the miserable poor - that's not what our welfare system is, though that's how detractors like to portray it.
The welfare system is intended to be exactly the society at large helping to care for the individuals who can't care for themselves. The Amish reject the real world in favor of living in a self-induced delusion of a sixteenth century idyll - that's not a virtue, it's a failing.
Society is about humans living together. We have neighbors, and we have wants and needs that are going to come into conflict. Governments - especially democratic governments - are the "executive" arm of society. They're how societies get things done. The Amish are simply saying "fuck you" to the larger society - they refuse to participate whenever they can get away with it.
The only reason they can get away with it is that they live in the middle of the country. If they lived on the border with Mexico, they'd probably be extinct - long overrun by bandits while we "English" "respected their wishes" to remain apart.
I think our welfare system is pretty screwed up. But the "effectiveness" of the Amish system only comes because of their extreme xenophobia. It's easy to care for someone who believes exactly the same things you do - because you'd throw them out in the cold if they didn't. It's much harder to care for a wealthy white Christian man in central Iowa to care for a poor black Muslim woman in east LA - but that's the American ideal, the self-indulgent fantasy world of the Amish is not.
View Full Discussion