Being charitable is admirable. We help those who are victims because they need help and we, out of the goodness of our hearts, want to help without asking for anything in return. But what I've been thinking about lately is the fact that some people put themselves in situations in which they'll be more likely to need help. If they keep doing that repeatedly, should we keep helping? It depends, but there are many examples in which it shouldn't be expected. Sometimes people can afford health insurance, choose not to buy it, and then end up needing hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. The same applies to renter's or homeowner's insurance and fires. Others put their homes in flood plains or areas where forest fires typically strike. Hurricanes for that matter tend to strike the same parts of the world, but when residents are struck by such storms, help is expected year after year.
The issue du jour is debt assistance for all those people that bought crazy adjustable rate mortgages and didn't have the mathematical sense to know that their payments could double one day. Should the government step in and help at taxpayer expense? Or is this financial Darwinism? Some of these people were living it up on borrowed money, others were being greedy and trying to flip condos for quick cash. Those people can pay for their situation with all the money they made on prior flips. It's not fair that those of us who spend within our means should have to help those that didn't. Maybe the unscrupulous mortgage companies can start pitching in to help.
This logic can even be extended to people who don't take care of their own health, but that gets a little hazy. Is their affliction genetic? Then you can't blame them. Perhaps the propensity to overeat or even the lack of willingness to exercise stems from this. But then people that are unhealthy don't usually plead for our help. If being unfit makes them miss work more often, then the rest of the people have to pull the load. That's not so fair either.
I don't agree with how the new laws makes it harder for individuals to claim bankruptcy when it seems no harder for corporations to do so anymore, but prevention of the need for charity should be explored. Some tragedies happen to people through no fault of their own and it's hard to draw a line in some cases. Children don't deserve the consequences of the stupidity of their parents. But certain things make you want to say to adults "tough luck", or "you should have known better". People who keep themselves from getting into such situations get no credit or bonuses for intelligence, but maybe they should.
It may not sound like it, but I am actually a bleeding heart liberal. Some people hit hard times and we need to take care of them. It's hard to get a job when you don't have a home, an address or a suit. I just wish people were smarter and didn't repeatedly come to others for help over the same issue. That is quite a wish.
+ Atul
Dickens wrote about this situation a lot, it used to be called "debtor's prison".
No, I don't think we should necessarily help the repeatedly stupid, but I also think that the children of stupid people shouldn't suffer uncessarily. Usually, they had nothign to do with their parents' mistakes.
fwiw, one reason the corporation exists as a legal entity is that it allows investors to make stupid decisions repeatedly while limiting their personal liability. The US has often rescued major companies in many forms.
Posted by: chancelucky | October 15, 2007 at 07:14 PM
CL,
I need to read more of the classics. Some of my thoughts are not so original. I did mention that we should help children no matter what. And yes, if the government can help corporations, then it can help individuals, (perhaps more so). It just shouldn't help put people back in situations where they'll need more help and then help them. Building homes on flood plains is one example I can think of.
Atul
Posted by: Atul | October 16, 2007 at 10:33 PM
I think you make a good point in this blog. But at the same time, are we expected to sit back and watch others suffer without making an effort to help them? Yes, some people bring on their suffering and play up being the victim. People do stupid things everyday. But we can't just stand by and watch them make mistakes and not help. When we make a mistake, we would hope people would come to our rescue and not sit back and say "They had it coming."
People who do not require help as much are not necessiarly smarter. Maybe their just luckier. In the end, we need to help our fellow human beings, whatever the circumstances are.
Posted by: Julie | November 08, 2007 at 07:31 PM
Julie,
You make some great points. Anybody in such a situation would hope that somebody would help regardless of blame. "They had it coming " is a mean thing to say and I guess I did (in different words). Some of it is a matter of luck as certain people in catastrophic events see no damage. We should help each other in times of need but I think we should also help each other have fewer times of need.
Posted by: Atul | November 08, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Hi, Antel I agree with you somewhat. Some people do put themselves in situations that can be avoided. I think that at least 90% of all are problems are caused by are own doing. Things like hurricanes or wild fires are a cause of nature and can not be prevented. If everyone chose to live in states/citys these events are unlikely to happen then certain states/citys will be over populated. As far as people eating habits some people are less fortunate to eat healthier because some people feel eating healthier cost more.
Posted by: Tamica Ellis | November 12, 2007 at 07:40 AM
I would have to agree, to an extent anyway. I have always been a pretty firm believer in you get what you give and you should be helping yourself before asking for everyones elses help although I'am very much for charity as some people, of course can not help themselves.
Posted by: Marva | November 13, 2007 at 08:29 AM