by LFC2007 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:11 am
Taxpayers are entitled to act with dismay at with whatever they like; be it 'genuine' dole dossers (to use the popular vernacular) or costly military interventions.
I would take issue with those who assume those receiving benefits are 'too lazy to work', which seems to be quite a common perception these days. Take the right approach, dig deep enough and you'll almost always find that it isn't actually the case. You'll get those who know no better - stuck in a spiral of dependency if you like, burdened by the unemployment their descendants suffered from - they could certainly appear to be 'too lazy to work' but they've learned to live under those conditions - it forms their very outlook, but with regret that concept doesn't seem to resonate with too many people. If there was no help, there's a fair chance it would be all they ever knew - people raised in very difficult circumstances rarely just transform into model citizens all by themselves; it's often a demanding task rehabilitating someone to return to society proper.
My point then is, if you're prepared to empathise with the man who - through no fault of his own - lost his job in an economic downturn, why should the same standard not apply to those who have suffered similar, if misunderstood, misfortunes? Those born into families with a history of generational unemployment; those born into destitution without the means, privilege or grounding to know how to move forward?
Finally, should we really attach these prejorative tags without a full understanding of a person's circumstances? Without that analysis a moral judgment should not be made, in my opinion.