LEt me start by saying that I am very eco-conscious, and have been so since I was a little boy. I love mother nature because I grew up in a tiny village where birds, trees, rivers were part of my everyday life. So, one can easily imagine that in Florida I feel trapped in all those huge buildings.
However, the reality in tthe Third World is very different from here, when it comes to clearly advocating for the protection of the environment. Let's take for instance deforestation. It is obvious that it causes great dangers for all of us, and threatens our habitat, and consequently ourselves oer time.
Seen through this lens, it is very nice to tell a haitian little farmer not to cut down trees to produce coal, since it is not in our interest as a collectivity to do so. But the thing is, if this little farmer doesn't cut this tree today, he won't be able to feed his family. Which comes first, the survival of his family today, or the future of the world? The answer is obvious.
If the western world really wants to save the world, fight global warming, it must have a comprehensive plan in which the fight against poverty must be included.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Unions
Some people could not imagine a country like the United States without the existence of Unions. However, one who comes from Latin America can have a very different approach when it comes to the relevance of this type of pressure group.
I mus concede that in some cases, unions help workers achieve certain legitimate goals, like raising their wages, keeping their jobs etc.
However, it takes the Latin-American experience to realize how destructive unions can be when they are operating in a weak country. In those countries, unions become so powerful that they end up making all their members lose their jobs because the enterprises where they are operating will eventaully close. In some cases, those enterprises are obligated to keep huge numbers of unproductive employees on their payroll out of fear of the unions who can go as far as planning physical attacks against employers.
My main problem with those union is that they believe that once they are defending the widow and the orphan, they are authorized to use any means necessary, even highly reprehensible practice. Let alone the fact that union leaders enrich themselves more often than not at the expense of their members.
I mus concede that in some cases, unions help workers achieve certain legitimate goals, like raising their wages, keeping their jobs etc.
However, it takes the Latin-American experience to realize how destructive unions can be when they are operating in a weak country. In those countries, unions become so powerful that they end up making all their members lose their jobs because the enterprises where they are operating will eventaully close. In some cases, those enterprises are obligated to keep huge numbers of unproductive employees on their payroll out of fear of the unions who can go as far as planning physical attacks against employers.
My main problem with those union is that they believe that once they are defending the widow and the orphan, they are authorized to use any means necessary, even highly reprehensible practice. Let alone the fact that union leaders enrich themselves more often than not at the expense of their members.
Affirmative Action
The main objective of affirmative action is to reverse some situations of injustice women and Blacks have suffered in the past, so they can make up for opportunities they had been deprived of. However, it’s not obvious that affirmative action always achieve this goal. Sometimes, it just helps perpetuate the very situation it was supposed to fight.
Thanks to some great changes that have occurred in our society, more and more Blacks and women are climbing the social ladder, whereas being White no longer means being privileged. On the basis of affirmative action, being Black or female automatically opens some doors, while being White closes them. As a result, a great number of needy white people are being denied some much needed assistance, while some wealthy Blacks are being treated like poor, enjoying opportunities other people need way more than they do.
I think that the formulation of Affirmative Action must change today, in order to adapt to the new reality of our evolving world where the only thing that doesn’t change is the fact that change affects all aspects of our lives. If it is to be defendable, Affirmative Action must become color and gender blind to focus on the cases of its clientele by taking into account their financial situation rather than their gender or race.
Thanks to some great changes that have occurred in our society, more and more Blacks and women are climbing the social ladder, whereas being White no longer means being privileged. On the basis of affirmative action, being Black or female automatically opens some doors, while being White closes them. As a result, a great number of needy white people are being denied some much needed assistance, while some wealthy Blacks are being treated like poor, enjoying opportunities other people need way more than they do.
I think that the formulation of Affirmative Action must change today, in order to adapt to the new reality of our evolving world where the only thing that doesn’t change is the fact that change affects all aspects of our lives. If it is to be defendable, Affirmative Action must become color and gender blind to focus on the cases of its clientele by taking into account their financial situation rather than their gender or race.
Illegal Drugs
Libertarians in this country have been advocating for the decriminalization of all illegal drugs, their main argument being that when someone does drugs, it doesn’t infringe upon other people’s rights. Some other arguments liken the current war on drugs to the prohibition era when alcohol used to be illegal. They think that when those hallucinogen substances are illegal, it actually increase their use, and causes their traffic to be the sole prerogative of unscrupulous individuals.
There is some truth in those arguments. However, legalizing drugs like cocaine and marijuana would send the wrong signal to our kids. This argument can be found very weak by some people when it comes to Marijuana, because apparently, it is not that more harmful than cigarette. I will concede this point only partially. One the one hand, Marijuana is not too harmful on a long term basis. However, on the very short term, in the aftermath of its consumption, Marijuana seriously impairs people’s judgment and reflexes.
The difference between cigarette and Marijuana is that cigarette smokers decide to put an end prematurely to their own life, if we put aside the isolated cases of second-hand smoking. But a legalization of marijuana would make our roads look like Ali Baba’s case. Yet the number of accidents where alcohol is involved is already alarming.
There is some truth in those arguments. However, legalizing drugs like cocaine and marijuana would send the wrong signal to our kids. This argument can be found very weak by some people when it comes to Marijuana, because apparently, it is not that more harmful than cigarette. I will concede this point only partially. One the one hand, Marijuana is not too harmful on a long term basis. However, on the very short term, in the aftermath of its consumption, Marijuana seriously impairs people’s judgment and reflexes.
The difference between cigarette and Marijuana is that cigarette smokers decide to put an end prematurely to their own life, if we put aside the isolated cases of second-hand smoking. But a legalization of marijuana would make our roads look like Ali Baba’s case. Yet the number of accidents where alcohol is involved is already alarming.
Social Security Benefits
It is a no-brainer that a lot of people are living in abject poverty, with little hope if any, to get out of it. That’s why President Roosevelt created the Social Security Administration of whom one aspect is to prevent people form dying of starvation by supporting them financially.
The Social Security benefits help reduce the asymmetry between those who have too much and those who don’t have at all. In this sense, it is a very positive initiative. However, we are starting to see the limits of such initiative very consistent with socialism. The main problem with the whole move is that in order to redistribute wealth, the nation must first create it. But with more and more people waiting for a paycheck from the State without producing any good, nor providing any service, the economy tends to weaken, and it become more and more difficult to keep the program running.
If the government really wants to help those poor out of poverty, it must associate the aid with some clear conditions. For example, young people with no mental handicap should be required to attend school if they want to receive their check. Other conditions can be explored.
The reason why I bring the conditionality element to this debate is because the system as it is now, promotes laziness, and is unable to help its beneficiaries emancipate. Instead, it keeps them in their underdevelopment and make them become lifetime professional parasites.
The Social Security benefits help reduce the asymmetry between those who have too much and those who don’t have at all. In this sense, it is a very positive initiative. However, we are starting to see the limits of such initiative very consistent with socialism. The main problem with the whole move is that in order to redistribute wealth, the nation must first create it. But with more and more people waiting for a paycheck from the State without producing any good, nor providing any service, the economy tends to weaken, and it become more and more difficult to keep the program running.
If the government really wants to help those poor out of poverty, it must associate the aid with some clear conditions. For example, young people with no mental handicap should be required to attend school if they want to receive their check. Other conditions can be explored.
The reason why I bring the conditionality element to this debate is because the system as it is now, promotes laziness, and is unable to help its beneficiaries emancipate. Instead, it keeps them in their underdevelopment and make them become lifetime professional parasites.
Active Euthanasia
I think that active euthanasia is more challenging than its passive version. In active euthanasia, the patient is asking someone to help them put an end to their day. There are several important factors to be taken into account before one can even think about it.
First, I think that in the case of someone afflicted by an incurable disease and whose suffering is unbearable, one can tend to let oneself be saddened by the situation and help them die. But we must also realize that there are some very efficient painkillers out there, and that usually excruciating pains conduce naturally to death, without the help of a friend or family member.
The other important thing we must ask ourselves is to what extent the patient is really lucid when requesting the help of other people to kill themselves.
Despite the fact that I am usually very sensitive to other people’s suffering, I don’t think I’d be ready to pull the trigger or the plug in order to help them die. However, I would consider helping someone die only if they are dealing with insupportable pain with no hope whatsoever to ever recover. But I would do that only if I have to pull a plug, because I would never use a weapon, poison or whatever means criminal usually use to kill people
First, I think that in the case of someone afflicted by an incurable disease and whose suffering is unbearable, one can tend to let oneself be saddened by the situation and help them die. But we must also realize that there are some very efficient painkillers out there, and that usually excruciating pains conduce naturally to death, without the help of a friend or family member.
The other important thing we must ask ourselves is to what extent the patient is really lucid when requesting the help of other people to kill themselves.
Despite the fact that I am usually very sensitive to other people’s suffering, I don’t think I’d be ready to pull the trigger or the plug in order to help them die. However, I would consider helping someone die only if they are dealing with insupportable pain with no hope whatsoever to ever recover. But I would do that only if I have to pull a plug, because I would never use a weapon, poison or whatever means criminal usually use to kill people
Passive Euthanasia
I would never be in a position to decide about the resort to euthanasia. As you know, there are two types of euthanasia: active and passive. Let’s consider them separately.
Passive euthanasia intervenes when the patient is in such a vegetative state that his/her parents decide to put an end to his/her life without his/her consent which cannot be obtained given his/her unresponsiveness. Such an euthanasia can be a tall order for whoever has to take the decision relative to resorting to it. The main argument to this type of euthanasia is that the patient is in such an irreversible state that they will never recover. But how sure can we be about it? Can we know whether or not the patient is suffering and if yes ,to what extent? If the person could decide his/her own fate, what would be their decision? How can we know whether or not in the next couple of weeks a cure would not be discovered which will allow the patient to resume their life just like us, or at least quite decently?
I think that the aforementioned questions need to be addressed before even thinking about passive euthanasia. But personally, I seriously doubt that I would ever get involved in the perpetration of passive euthanasia which I consider like playing God. However, I mus add that the situation of some patients is so dehumanizing and atrocious that one can tend to think before ruling out euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia intervenes when the patient is in such a vegetative state that his/her parents decide to put an end to his/her life without his/her consent which cannot be obtained given his/her unresponsiveness. Such an euthanasia can be a tall order for whoever has to take the decision relative to resorting to it. The main argument to this type of euthanasia is that the patient is in such an irreversible state that they will never recover. But how sure can we be about it? Can we know whether or not the patient is suffering and if yes ,to what extent? If the person could decide his/her own fate, what would be their decision? How can we know whether or not in the next couple of weeks a cure would not be discovered which will allow the patient to resume their life just like us, or at least quite decently?
I think that the aforementioned questions need to be addressed before even thinking about passive euthanasia. But personally, I seriously doubt that I would ever get involved in the perpetration of passive euthanasia which I consider like playing God. However, I mus add that the situation of some patients is so dehumanizing and atrocious that one can tend to think before ruling out euthanasia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
