- 28 Jul 2014 13:40
#14444293
There's a certain elegant simplicity to invoking 'poverty' as a major factor in evaluating a society. The problem here is that it's a sliding scale. Those in the upper portion of the lowest 5th percentile of income in the US might well look at the lives of those in the lower middle classes of the Great Depression era with pity. [Ed.: The writer came from that precise background. He didn't consider himself as poor, nor did his parents. His world was rich with the friendship of neighbors.]
Beyond a certain minimum level [sufficient food, clothing, shelter and access to health services,] other factors take pride of place in determining the 'goodness' of a society for average people living in it. Many of these are social, in the non-governmental sense. The emotional support of one's family and community looms large.
Rich socialists present no problem whatever in such an environment.
Beyond a certain minimum level [sufficient food, clothing, shelter and access to health services,] other factors take pride of place in determining the 'goodness' of a society for average people living in it. Many of these are social, in the non-governmental sense. The emotional support of one's family and community looms large.
Rich socialists present no problem whatever in such an environment.
"And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." Geoffrey Chaucer