How do you judge a society?

[bcl05]

This thread is an offshoot from an conversation I had recently with a libertarian friend of mine (full disclosure – I consider myself very liberal.) I suspect it may generate some interesting and illuminating discussion here in the tailgate.

The central question is how one judges a society. I’ll go first. For me, there are two criteria that are most important, and most distinguishing about our country. The first is how a society treats the most vulnerable of its members. Every country/society has “haves and have-nots. “ How much do the have-nots suffer for their situation? I am very proud of how the most vulnerable members of our society are treated in the US. For example. we have the finest services in the world for those with intellectual disabilities, we have essentially universal healthcare for our elderly, nearly all children go to school, and our poor are mostly not as desperately poor as in many parts of the world. The systems that ensure these things are far from perfect (of course), but they are, in my mind, fundamentally good institutions of which we should all be proud.

The second measure by which I measure society is how much it fosters innovation and creativity. Historically, we have rewarded and supported innovation in business/technology/art, and I would argue that this is what has primarily lead to our superpower status. In the area closest to my professional interests (medical/genetic research), we have lapped the field. I recently visited China to help with their newborn screening for metabolic disease program. They have quite a bit of work to do to catch up with where we were 25 years ago. I don’t doubt that they will get there, but I was struck by just how far ahead we are, and how much we take for granted.

I ask this now because I think both of these pillars of our success are in some danger. The current debates in the government are really about how much to reduce social protections, not how to expand them. Governmental support for arts and basic science research is waning (driven by the budget crisis) and we were recently burned by “innovation” in the financial industry.

I was struck by my friend’s opinion that our “welfare state” (his words) is a problem – thinking that it is too much of an imposition on the wealthy and “coddles” the masses into an acceptance of mediocrity. He also has incredibly little faith in our government’s ability to do nearly anything well. He is strongly in favor of the current GOP-lead move to reduce/dismantle many of the protections that I would champion. He is one of the most moral, well-read, and generous people I know (and I hope he would say the same of me), so our fundamental difference on these things was striking.

Anyways, I am just hoping to start some cordial conversation about how people judge societies. I think if we understand each other better in this area, some of the political discussions we have will be less virulent and more informed about each other’s points of view.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I was struck by my friend’s opinion that our “welfare state” (his words) is a problem – thinking that it is too much of an imposition on the wealthy and “coddles” the masses into an acceptance of mediocrity. He also has incredibly little faith in our government’s ability to do nearly anything well. He is strongly in favor of the current GOP-lead move to reduce/dismantle many of the protections that I would champion. He is one of the most moral, well-read, and generous people I know (and I hope he would say the same of me), so our fundamental difference on these things was striking.

Sounds like your friend and I would get along. While I think you can judge a society on how they help those that are "weaker" if you will, that doesn't mean that you are a productive society just because you protect and coddle those weaker. Now I am not suggesting that we provide absolutely no help to anyone. But every other species recognizes that for their kind to grow stronger, some of the weaker ones need to be cast aside. Now everyone can argue that this is what makes us different from animals and I agree. But I think we go TO FAR in helping those that can't/won't help themselves.

[polywog999]

I think the current system to "help" people, only makes a bigger problem, that keeps people needing "help."

[The 12th Commandment]

First and foremost how does it treat me. Pretty well overall though I have a few gripes. Though it may seem a little self-centered I don't think I'm alone in using that specific a judgment.

I'm glad that we take care of the people that need it and my opinion, of both government and the poor, is a whole lot better than some folks'. I've worked in government enough to know that the perception of the general public about their low level of competency is way overblown and I've known enough poor people on assistance to know that most don't like it and work hard to get off it asap. There are exceptions to both my assumptions, without question, but the vast majority are not lazy bums in either group. If a few losers must profit for the majority in need to be helped, that's part of the cost and though it may rankle me, I don't hesitate to accept it.

[SnyderShrugged]

These days, I tend to judge a society on it's level of real equality, and not the old "some are more equal than others" approach that we seem to be immersed in.

[Burgold]

Innovation. Compassion. Improvement. Arts.

Those are how I judge a society.

Does it allow the freedom to innovate. Philosophically, economically, and materially. Are its people inventors, makers? Do they produce ideas and stuff worth having?

Compassion: Is it a just society? Is it a fair society? Does it give an equal opportunity for everyone to succeed and does it protect the little guy from the bully? Can it give tough love as well? Sometimes you need a kick instead of a hand? Are people more important than stuff or status?

Improvement: Does it recognize its flaws and try to fix them or is it stuck in a cycle of "exceptionalism" where it puts blinders on and ignores its problems. Is each succeeding generation better? Are the hands dirty and the efforts sincere?

Art: Do they create stuff that's lasting, beautiful, thought provoking, stirring. Do they feed the soul as well as the pocketbook and the stomach?

Those are my four major criteria.