A question of social ethics.

The question of whether any particular group within society should be excluded from the social network is a contentious one. Distinctions are often drawn along ethnic or religious lines, notwithstanding the issue of social class or income. However, some things tend to be uniform, and those excluded are usually poor, socially mal-adjusted, and often badly educated. The Roma population of Italy, and indeed most of Europe, would fall within these parameters. When any given society looks to tackle social ills, it is almost inevitable that the majority of the population will search for easily identifiable causes, and when it comes to crime, violence, and a lack of commitment to the “social contract”, then the poor, the disenfranchised, and the isolated are an obvious choice. As with all predetermined conclusions, it is never hard to find a reason to hate someone if you are just willing to look hard enough. Even in societies that are ethnically uniform, and lack the easy finger pointing available with fresh immigrant populations, the same need to identify the “bad element” exists. This sub-culture is always the same, whether they are called “white trash”, degenerates, the criminal element, or any other of the labels applied to the lowest echelons of society. A lack of opportunity, combined with a lack of education and the squalid living conditions associated with poverty, results in a disproportionate amount of violence, crime, and ill health. This in turn is then taken to be “proof” of the undesirable nature of the population in question.

The fallacy in this kind of scapegoating is easily apparent once you step back from looking to apportion blame, and start to try and tackle social problems at their root. As with all issues related to the idea of a common social contract, affording protection and responsibility to all includes the need to provide services to the folks living below the poverty line. The issues of healthcare should be viewed in the same light as that of education. How can a society flourish unless it continuously bolsters the young, encouraging them to develop and mature? Education is the foundation of citizenship, and the only hope for the continued evolution and life of the whole. Similarly, a healthy population is a pre-requisite for survival. No politician would think to deny a ghetto child from obtaining a basic education, and yet many feel it is okay to allow that same child to be stunted and warped through inadequate healthcare. The madness of this position is cruelly apparent to all, surely?

Ultimately, the need to have a strong social contract that includes all of society is an absolutely undeniable aspect of any modern democratic state. With that in mind, the initial question becomes less of a debate about the exclusion of any one section of society, and evolves into a national dialog on exactly how much society is willing to invest in its future.