The Whole Catastrophe (wild_root_fruit) wrote in thequestionclub,
The Whole Catastrophe

Have a potato, here's a load.

"An article in the Washington Post yesterday. It was written by a powerful man who chartered a large food bank. His assertion was that by feeding the poor, private charities are doing more harm than good to society. Instead of investing time and money into the never-ending problem of daily hunger among the poor, advocates should instead be channeling that money and effort 100% into harassing and lobbying the federal government for social reforms such as minimum wage increases, education system improvements and universal healthcare which (the author believes) will end poverty and therefore hunger permanently. He goes on to say that the band-aid treatment of actually helping the poor meet their daily needs for sustenance masks the true depth of the problem because we don't see people actually starving. If we *did* see people actually starving then as a nation we would be outraged and the federal government would be forced to act."


I found this line of thinking too expansive for my to wrap my head around enough to form an opinion. I don't know enough about all of this but the man's assertation does feel wrong to me. I can see his point but it seem backwards and not efficient and kind of ...more angry and defiant than loving and truly caring about these people. 

So, two questions:

1. What are your thoughts on this?
2. Would you join a community where questions like this were asked and discussed - as well as fun questions? (Do you know of a good one that already exists?)

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded