When you see the picture above, what do you think? Do you wish that you could give the boy some bread? Maybe a full meal? What about an education, a future? Maybe some healthcare? What drives you to want to help this child? Pity? Empathy? Or, are you just a really nice person? I am curious. Tell me what touches you.
What about this? What do you think of this place? Do you feel the same as the above photo? What solutions do you think would fix this place up? Could we make it more livable, and could it become economically prosperous? I am interested in your solutions.
What about the above image? Terrible right? Are situations like this (i.e. The Holocaust) preventable? Why do they happen? Envy? Hate -if so, where does it come from?
Does this woman deserve her lifestyle? Is this a fair state of affairs? Should she give some of it up (the gold doors maybe?)? Why should she?
There is a different ill in each one of these photos and I am not sure there is a unifying theory (i.e. social string theory) which could answer all of them.
Photo #1: the child is very thin. But, he may suffer from some sort of genetic disorder like krohn’s disease. Also, it is important to look at that child and see that he seems to be happy.
Photo #2: the shanty town is in disrepair. But, what are the alternatives? Are those people choosing to live near an industrial center? Is the shanty town the equivlent of tenanment buildings near New York? If so, it is less of a catastrophe than if they are say, the luxury apartments of the area. If the same people could choose to live among their family in the country and live off the land, I would argue they made a poor choice to live in the shanties.
Photo #3: That is an abomination, I don’t have any context to add to this.
Photo #4: The woman chose to squander her wealth. But, it is not my place to say what people should or should not do with their money.
The problem is one of human condition. In many circumstances these travesties have been committed by strong centralized governments, who have diverted the resources to the rich and middle-class leaving the poor to starve. However, this is not necessaryily true. Imagine a society with no central government. Now imagine a maurading madman gaining enough support from his neighbors to take what belongs to others and only distribute it to his supporters. Even in the state of nature (the state of ultimate liberty, a totally stateless society) these events can still take place, without the need of a central government.
Alternatively, look at societies that won the support of those opposed to their rule by being just. I am referring to the Byzantine Empire, they presided over one of the most prosperous empires of all time. Many nations voluntarily joined their rule because they wanted the benefits. So, strong Central Governance is not always a bad thing. It is a qualitative over a quantitative issue. The things that made the Byzantine empire so appealing, also made their empire fall. Because they were so popular, their empire became too large to manage and lots of political infighting lead to fragmentation. Ultimately. the wish to control the empire had damaged the empire so much, that the Ottomans overthrew them fairly handily.
Societies need strong leaders. However, the leaders need to be just and create an environment which will enable societies to flourish. Obviously, in the above pictures societies are not flourishing. But that is not to say that society cannot cure these same ills. Strong leaders, rule of law, limits on government power is a step in the right direction from allowing these ills to surface.
Nice comment. I wonder about your last paragraph; I would ask what do you mean, Nick, by “strong”? You know that I would argue that society only needs objective law, and no leaders.