View Feedback | Send this Article | Published 3/21/03

Graphic By: Jonelle Thackston

See, I don't feel that enough is done to ensure that the lower class gets a fair shot. The immediate response from middle- and upper-class citizens is that these people did indeed receive a fair shot and they blew it. Either they were lazy, stupid, or simply out of luck.

My uncle does not believe that these people should be left behind to suffer the consequences of their own misfortune. My uncle feels that it is up to the family, community, and the church, not the government, to be responsible for taking care of the individual. He believes it should be voluntary, not mandatory.

However noble this concept might be, it is obvious that voluntary efforts to help the underprivileged are not working, and more steps need to be taken in order to ensure that they get a fair shot in life. In a modern society like our own, the family, community, and church become much less dominating factors in our lives. Therefore, putting the responsibility of helping the less privilaged on those people can actually be conceived as being irresponsible. Granted, they should conduct their efforts to do so, but it has not worked out for the best.

In a Social Democracy, people give up a some of their economic freedoms, but the society as a whole becomes much more capable and equal. The rich get taxed heavily, and the poor are taxed, but they receive a rebate in order to help them more. There is little homelessness, no slums, and everyone enjoys an upper-middle class lifestyle.

However, in America, the gap between the rich and the poor is the greatest in the world of modern societies, and it is only getting wider. I am not calling for a socialist revolution, but we can incorporate certain ideas from the socialist philosophy. If Americans were more apt to heavily regulate businesses, we wouldn't see the Enron and other corporate scandals of the past year. Airlines wouldn't be tanking, the stock market wouldn't plummet. Jobs would be far, far more secure than they are now.

One of the biggest arguments about social democracy is that those poor and lazy people who are receiving tax money from the rich and hardworking people will remain lazy, since they can live a good lifestyle on little work. Granted, they might stay lazy, but is that not the same in any culture? We already pay to support the poor...its called welfare, and some people--even though it is a rather minute percentage--stay lazy on welfare. No matter what the society, you will always have ambitious people who will work for anything, and you will have lazy people who will not work no matter what. The idea that receiving money will keep someone from working just proves that the Liberal Democratic philosophy thinks that a person works to receive material goods and money and nothing else. Whatever happened to satisfaction of labor?

Personally, I would be willing to be taxed a higher percentage of my earni ngs if I could see free college for those qualified for entry, free nationalized health care to protect everyone, have no slums, no poor people, great services, and then still be able to live an upper-middle class lifestyle. Tell me, what seems so wrong with being able to do that?