If placing blame is necessary, why impose it upon those with the least resources?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

When I see posts about the 'power' and 'free will' of those in OBVIOUS positions of lesser power, either ecomically or otherwise, I wonder whether folks are trying to inspire the catalyst of masses OR whether folks are trying to divert from the obvious.

The obvious is this: people who have accumulated wealth and power over money/resources CLEARLY have a HUGE ADVANTAGE over the rest of us.

So, I am thinking, IF IMPROVING THE HUMAN CONDITION is the motivation behind the "power" and "free will" posts, why not focus upon those who hold the wealth and influence to change the ills and injustices and inequality this world's people and this globe's living resources suffer? Why put the burden upon those entities less able to control the environment than those who clearly have the power to do so?

[ThomCat]

1. Well said.

Those who gain wealth and power should be forced to take responsibility for how they gained that wealth and what they do with that power.

Blaming the victims is dispicable! If they've made some bad decisions, but it was because of marketting, salesmanship, and fraud then we should be looking at the salespeople, and the companies they work for.

Being a victim of fraud makes you a sucker, but not the criminal.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

2. Criminals aside, why "blame" the least among us.

There are those who participate in "the game" who have committed no crimes yet justify (in their own minds in spite of betraying their own hearts and souls), a perpetuation of inhumane and unequal and predatory behavior.

Blame is EASY. Responsibility is burdensome. The weakest take more responsibility than those who have the wealth and influence to be BOTH responsible and impactful.

It's shameful how responsibility is sifted into a blame stake in those who have less resources to make a difference.

Again, why focus upon the "will" of the disaffected rather than the "power" of the resourceful?

[kineneb]

3. "Scrooge syndrome"

=the attitude of those who blame the poor for their own plight. I think back to Scrooge's lines regarding prisons and workhouses, and how the poor/disabled/etc. should just die and decrease the surplus population.

Despite the failings of main-stream religions, most emphasize charity and caring for the "least of these, my brethren". It may surprise some, but the Koran says that those who can afford it should give 10% of their wealth each year to help others.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

4. Actually, most all 'religions' favor charity. Christian tithing is 10%. This has nothing to do,...

,..with religion, though.

What I am asking is outside 'religion'.

What I ask is:

Why focus upon the "will" of the poor rather than the "power" of the wealthy?

That is my question.

If a higher being MUST be brought into the question, let us assume that, the higher power NEVER REQUIRED CHECKING IN REASON AND COMPASSION AT THE GATES OF NIRVANA OR HEAVEN OR "WHATEVER".

Okay?

[kineneb]

5. didn't mean it that way at all

Altruism is not inborn. And in most societies today, money IS power. The wealthy blame the will of the poor because it is easy to beat up on those who have no power (money). That is why I call it the Scrooge Syndrome. "Oh, those poor people, they don't really want to work, they are lazy, shiftless, have too many children, etc." Blame is so easy for those who have power, and they frame the dialog. It is a form of classism. Notice the same ideas and terms were used against minorities of various kinds (replace "poor" with "blacks", "Jews", "Catholics", whatever fits for the time and place).

Without some kind of external input or motivation, usually religion of some sort, many people are just plain greedy "me-first" types. They require a threat (hell) or motivator (heaven, forgiveness of sins, etc.) to get them to part with their money. Yes, there are some who realize that sharing is good for all, but left to their own devices, most people would ignore the poor, etc. and let them die off, as nuisances to society. That tendency is why various religions and philosophies emphasize charity. Otherwise, the wealthy would just keep all their money, and society would rot from the bottom up.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

7. If you observe, wholly,...altruism is a necessary element of our survival.

Yes, wisdom dictates selflessness can and will enable destructive behavior.

Altruism is seperate from the common human empathy most two-year-olds show,...as natural as a a momma wren sitting on her eggs and the poppa feeding her while she warms them.

What is UN-NATURAL is the human created scumming off any and every thing to BE POWERFUL without any wit about consuming their own and this earth.

Everthing on this earth would be better off without such thoughtlessly consuming creatures.

If only I were a doctor who could cure this earth of diseases destroying the best of life. I'm not.

[stillcool]

6. blame and shame...

I've had my fill...never got me anywhere. I have blamed others for my plight for a good part of my life. I know now that my father could not alter the effects of war that ended his life. I know now that my mother could not alter the disease that ended her life. I know now that those that were trusted to care for me, did not consciously set out to fuck up my life through abuse and neglect. I understand cause and effect, human nature, and human limitations.
On the other hand... I do not understand how those with the power to initiate and enact the policies that promote or destroy the fabric of entire societies....can not be anything but fully aware of the consequences of their decisions. I do not understand...and now there is no face...no name..that I have left to blame.