Baraka_Guru

jorgelito, we can only assume that the tiny world of your circle of friends is the exception, not the rule. The distribution of wealth within the capitalist system is amoral; however, our acceptance of such a system without the proper redistribution to counteract some of the worst conditions of living would be immoral.

A strong society is one that establishes the most basic of care for people. Looking at the United States, I don't see this happening as much as it should. As a Canadian, I find what happens in some regions of the U.S. quite frightening. There are pockets of people living something close to Third World conditions, and they don't even have access to heath care. Now, I know there are some area of Canada that aren't doing so well—think First Nations. But note that Ottawa has announced this month that they're going to fund First Nations health care to the tune of $3 million. This isn't the first time the Canadian government has done something like this. (And I haven't even addressed how bad things can be outside of North America!)

When you look at the grand scheme of things, you see that (despite the good work you have done) there are many people suffering from a lack of access to health care and nutrition. One might say, "Well, those of us who have it worked for it," but the economic situation of a family isn't always a result of an unwillingness to work. Actually, I would assume a family's unwillingness to work for basic needs is a rare thing. No, economic hardships are a result of a complex system of markets, governments, and international factors. And when things get bad, health is one of the first casualties.

The capitalist system, on its own, doesn't fix things from which it cannot build wealth. It would rather cast it aside.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot