The Case for Institutions
Aug. 21st, 2013 02:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lydy(And me an anarchist. Sheesh. Ok, kind of a badly failed anarchist, in all honest truth.)
I said this in the long Farm Bill thread, but I wanted to promote it because it says some things I think are important:
I would never denigrate the great power of individual kindness. Random acts of charity are wonderful and important. But they cannot do what food stamps did for me. They gave me back my future.
When you are that low on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, when you don't know when or even if you will eat again, you stop planning for the future. It's not that you, or at least I, spent all my time wondering about where my next meal was coming from. In general, I tried not to think about it at all. I had done all the things I knew how to do to arrange for food to happen on a regular basis. It had all failed. So now everything was in the wind. It was all up to chance. Maybe a friend would buy me dinner. Maybe I'd find a dollar bill in the street. Maybe I wouldn't eat. But planning, there was no planning. Once I had a guaranteed amount per month coming in, once I _knew_ with certainty I could eat, suddenly, I had my life back. I could access my future again. I could plan.
In point of fact, as our economic system is currently constituted, this type of stability is best supplied by institutions. Typically, by a corporation paying something at least resembling a living wage in exchange for labor. Less commonly, the government stepping in to provide this function for people who are unable to access that part of economic system. There are still some people who are entirely dependent on an individual for their daily needs. But the most common sort, housewives (and househusbands) who do not work outside the home, still most usually have a contract to help provide some stability. We call this marriage, but it is at its root a civil contract. The exact nature of that contract is changing as the economic roles of women change. Most of these changes are for the good. But there is still a very real, contractual relationship. The other type of person most commonly entirely dependent upon the largesse of a private party are children. However, again, there is strong law which requires that their daily needs be met daily. All children are at least theoretically attached, legally, so some parent or guardian who is, by law, required to provide food, shelter, education, and health care.
Some people do thrive in less certain circumstances. But the truth is, they are rare. Most people in uncertain circumstances, dependent upon random acts of charity, have that uncertainty ricochet through their lives causing chaos. A dependable source of food provides a floor, a place to stand, a way forward. If a kind man on the street had given me $70 it would not have had anything like the same effect. Yes, I would have been able to eat for a month. But it is just the problem of the two cans of soup writ large. It puts the end a little farther away, but it doesn't resolve the issue. It doesn't offer a way forward. At best, it provides a holding pattern over the sea of chaos.
I said this in the long Farm Bill thread, but I wanted to promote it because it says some things I think are important:
I would never denigrate the great power of individual kindness. Random acts of charity are wonderful and important. But they cannot do what food stamps did for me. They gave me back my future.
When you are that low on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, when you don't know when or even if you will eat again, you stop planning for the future. It's not that you, or at least I, spent all my time wondering about where my next meal was coming from. In general, I tried not to think about it at all. I had done all the things I knew how to do to arrange for food to happen on a regular basis. It had all failed. So now everything was in the wind. It was all up to chance. Maybe a friend would buy me dinner. Maybe I'd find a dollar bill in the street. Maybe I wouldn't eat. But planning, there was no planning. Once I had a guaranteed amount per month coming in, once I _knew_ with certainty I could eat, suddenly, I had my life back. I could access my future again. I could plan.
In point of fact, as our economic system is currently constituted, this type of stability is best supplied by institutions. Typically, by a corporation paying something at least resembling a living wage in exchange for labor. Less commonly, the government stepping in to provide this function for people who are unable to access that part of economic system. There are still some people who are entirely dependent on an individual for their daily needs. But the most common sort, housewives (and househusbands) who do not work outside the home, still most usually have a contract to help provide some stability. We call this marriage, but it is at its root a civil contract. The exact nature of that contract is changing as the economic roles of women change. Most of these changes are for the good. But there is still a very real, contractual relationship. The other type of person most commonly entirely dependent upon the largesse of a private party are children. However, again, there is strong law which requires that their daily needs be met daily. All children are at least theoretically attached, legally, so some parent or guardian who is, by law, required to provide food, shelter, education, and health care.
Some people do thrive in less certain circumstances. But the truth is, they are rare. Most people in uncertain circumstances, dependent upon random acts of charity, have that uncertainty ricochet through their lives causing chaos. A dependable source of food provides a floor, a place to stand, a way forward. If a kind man on the street had given me $70 it would not have had anything like the same effect. Yes, I would have been able to eat for a month. But it is just the problem of the two cans of soup writ large. It puts the end a little farther away, but it doesn't resolve the issue. It doesn't offer a way forward. At best, it provides a holding pattern over the sea of chaos.
