Here's a scenario I use in class:
Imagine the proverbial group of lemmings running off a cliff, endangering their lives.
You want to help them. What should you do?
A) Treat the lemmings' injuries at the cliff's base.
B) Build a fence at the cliff's edge.
1/ https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1326952915504951300
Imagine the proverbial group of lemmings running off a cliff, endangering their lives.
You want to help them. What should you do?
A) Treat the lemmings' injuries at the cliff's base.
B) Build a fence at the cliff's edge.
1/ https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1326952915504951300
In @mcuban's argument, Option A is donating to food banks - treating the suffering caused by social ills after the fact.
Option B is donating to politicians. Having a progressive majority in the Senate will change policies in order to prevent suffering in the first place.
2/
Option B is donating to politicians. Having a progressive majority in the Senate will change policies in order to prevent suffering in the first place.
2/
And @johnlegend is absolutely right.
We need to treat the symptoms *and* change the structures - the root causes of social injustice.
But while charity is a virtue, it will never have the scale & scope necessary for widespread impact.
That's why we have government.
/end
We need to treat the symptoms *and* change the structures - the root causes of social injustice.
But while charity is a virtue, it will never have the scale & scope necessary for widespread impact.
That's why we have government.
/end
Postscript: Read @AnandWrites's book Winners Take All, which has moved the national conversation on this issue.