The story is touching and reveals an intolerable reality.
Kids without future that live adult like experiences without experiencing childhood. Kids that are not kids (Serrat), which vive ceniciento (Miguel Hernández), who come to the world to grief. “Les misérables” described by Victor Hugo weren’t extinguished in 1862. On the contrary, they still exist and there are more of them and they are not only children, but also teenagers and adults.
There are tons of people that are out of the system, that don’t have jobs or proper housing and that end up living in shelters or in the streets. They live under permanent risk because they are victims of kidnapping networks, drug trafficking, group fights and violence.
Sociology has defined them as sectors of extreme poverty, which means that it is a poverty without dignity or future. Safety, stability, social uprising, education, work and progress are strange to them.
In critical situations, they are helped out with assistance and social assisting programs which are useful if they are transitory. However, when they last too long, they not only not help, but also perpetuate the situation.
Public policies have to focus urgently on their issues in a different way.
Firstly, because they are not just numbers, they are people, with names, stories, grieves and pain.
Secondly, because they are vulnerable. They can’t solve their problems by themselves and their environment define their fate.
Thirdly, because no society can be organized over this base. John Rawls used to teach that we need to stablish rules without knowing which place we would occupy (ignorance veil). Would we be willing to enter a society if we were living in extreme poverty? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to stablish a basic rule that allowed us all to have similar opportunities?
From this point of view, is not about assistance, but equality.
The problem requires a solution because unequal societies generate individual and collective frustrations, as well as tensions that give birth to serious conflicts. We have enough historical experience for us to know that no one can fully develop in a system that allows systemic inequality.
Equality must be a protected value, politically sought and must be a constant governability aspiration.
That is why the Constitution stablishes equal opportunities for all. Equality, whether it is given from the starting point or given through resources for each of us to live our life to the fullest, is a feasible goal from an economic and social point of view.
People have different natural resources in what refers to capacity and intellect and their distribution are not, at least for now, for sale. But the impersonal resources, goods in general, obey to rational criteria. Equality of resources refers to everyone counting with the same amount of resources, as a starting point, despite the fact there might exist differences based on the better or worst use of those tools, in accordance to their natural capacities.
The Constitution’s definition in relation to equal opportunities implies that, as we’ve said before in several Court rulings, it is necessary to ensure a minimum number of primary goods. Each person has the equal right to have the fullest and widest system of basic liberties, compatible with a similar freedom system for all.
That also means that a good policy destined to achieve equal opportunities must be complemented with education because the use of resources and capacities depend fundamentally on knowledge and capacitation. That is why systemic poverty isn’t part of a personal decision. When someone is born in a context of ostracism is very difficult to move on and progress.
Public policies aiming to equality are very well studied. There are tons of examples from different countries. Equality doesn’t mean giving away the same amount of money to all. It’s about human development, the expansion of liberties in order to have a life (Amartya Sen). That is why it’s about fundamental effective rights.