Reference no: EM133319949
An online forum posed the question: Should the Canadian Government guarantee a minimum standard of living for all citizens?
The application of this potential procedure seems positive because it considers those with poverty-stricken families and individuals suffering from detrimental health circumstances. Luckily it is not insinuated from any form of collectivist values such as Karl Marx and his quest for total equality, which seems favourable from my perspective. But rather than taking my words at face value, let us fixate on what these three opinionated citizens have to contribute.
Our first citizen has evaluated this policy as being a fundamental right rather than just some simple guideline, she promotes this due to the unyielding pressure that people face as a means to live an average life. Those within higher-class societies don't suffer from this pressure which feels unfair in comparison. The only plausible issue would be from those within higher class societies because it would prevent further extortion or manipulation of those with impoverished living conditions desperate for money, but that depends on those businessmen's careers and their sources of income. Besides that potential outcome, everything else seems believable to benefit the bulk of our society.
Citizen two asserted defiance, inferring that their government isn't obligated to help those who cannot provide for themselves, clarifying that hard-working contributors towards society should not be condoned to contribute their wealth towards people expecting comfort without earning believing that this increases dependency while decreasing individual initiative, which closely resembles that of classical liberalism and it's egotistical values. Though she provides a powerful incentive to defy this policy, most would probably side with her reasoning, and yet her logic still seems flawed throughout this argument. Many families in poverty were once wealthy or hard-working contributors to society and dealt with unfair outcomes which she undermines by assuming that everyone in poverty is needy and dependent. It is such a condescending approach towards something mostly unavoidable. Developing this program could negate dependency and instead inspire diversity for societal contribution.
Last but not least is citizen three who assumes that the government should guarantee a minimum standard of living only for those who, through circumstances beyond their control, are unable to do so for themselves. The government should only consider providing for the needs of able-bodied adult citizens temporarily while training for high-skilled jobs that are in demand. Once trained, these people should fend for themselves which contributes back to society. This statement honestly has nothing major to dissect. It feels almost impractical to take this at face value but it seems completely justified, to be frank. There is very little that could be argued against. Citizen three almost completely replicates my perspective on this subject.
Overall, the majority of the arguments regarding this policy have been optimistic but with concern for potential downfall. This to me feels like something that should probably be more fine-tuned and descriptive before unveiling to the public, I understand what citizen two had to argue against and why they considered it unprecedented yet both citizen one and three gave equally informative perspectives while hinting towards a potential negative impact. To summarise this discussion, I stand by this policy knowing that it will assist those in need. It feels unjustified to undermine individuals with greater wealth but those people already have equal or even greater influence in our society, sadly anyone suffering from poverty is treated as though they are a burden even though they're human just like us.
Analyze and give edits as to what should be changed, giving as much detail as possible would be most appreciated.