Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Anabaptist Culture
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.)
RSS
RE: Anabaptist Culture
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.
View Full Discussion