|
|
|
|
8/30/03 Welfare Follies, Liberal Style Sometimes I ponder the big questions: What do liberals believe and why do they believe it? Today I concern myself only with the question of what they believe and where that belief would lead us if we gave it free reign. Let me start with what SoothSeeker and, I presume, most libertarians and conservatives believe: There is no economic, political, legal, or social system in which someone at some time will not fall through the cracks and suffer some hardship through no fault of his own. I think it is that concession that so offends the liberal mindset that they rebel against it and accuse anyone making the concession of not caring about those poor unfortunates who suffer so unjustly. I will defend myself by saying that I act in such a way as to fight that truth in every way I can. If I see someone falling through the cracks, so to speak, I take or advocate taking action to help that person climb back up and avoid such pitfalls in the future. But can I guarantee that my efforts and the efforts of everyone else who feels the same way will succeed in preventing all suffering? Of course not. Liberals admit that some will always fall through the cracks. What they advocate is a safety net that will catch all of them. But let us not rely on that simple analogy, as it can be deceptive. We view a safety net as something that will prevent us from falling too far ever to return. Our view assumes that once we are caught we will climb out again and resume walking the tightrope of life. The liberal welfare state does not quite function that way. Except for the welfare reform signed by Bill Clinton (viewed by liberals as his greatest betrayal of their support for him, by the way), the safety net is a dwelling place for any of those who fall into it who either cannot, will not, wish not to, or simply do not climb back up to the tightrope. And the safety net is provided by sapping the productivity of those who are on the tightrope keeping their balance, and takes more proportionately from those who are better at it. To put it more simply, the liberals believe that it is the obligation of those who earn more to contribute to a fund that supports (notice I did not say "assists") those who earn very little or nothing. By implication, they must also believe that it is practical to run a system this way, and this is where SoothSeeker parts ways with them. Liberals must believe that there will always be enough earners to support the non-earners. The problem with that view is this: if non-earners can live any kind of tolerable existence (and let us remember that human nature is such that we tend to adjust our expectations to the situation we face) this lowers the incentive to become earners (by definition this requires some kind of effort, often very strenuous). Furthermore, by stripping away the earnings of those who earn, we reduce the incentive to be an earner or to strive to become a better earner. The effect on both sides of the equation is to erode the work ethic and slowly move more people from the earning to the non-earning side of the ledger. It doesn't take an economist (much less a rocket scientist) to figure out that unless something else exists to counteract that effect, there will eventually come a breaking point at which there will not be enough earning power in society to support both the earners and the non-earners. But by that point there will be so many non-earners that the likeliest outcome will be anarchy, and depending on other factors (geopolitical and technological) such a hypothetical collapse might be irreversible, or, at best, might simply plunge humanity into a new dark age. At a minimum this would have the effect of killing off a large proportion, if not the majority, of the world's human population which depends on the economic infrastructure that is supported by earners and eroded by non-earners.. Liberals must claim that there are other factors that counteract this effect. I concede that there is one, but it is also being eroded by the proliferation of the liberal attitude. The main force that acts to counteract it is usually viewed (especially by liberals) as an evil: Greed. I could live on welfare and with housing assistance and food stamps I could keep my family alive and probably even manage to get some kind of television service. But I prefer to have more comforts and luxuries, not because they are necessary to life, but because I aspire to enjoy life. I am greedy. So I strive to earn more, and more, and more so that I can provide ever increasing benefits to myself and my family. But liberals consider greed evil, and the pursuit of luxuries is to them (it seems) merely another inducement to the raping and pillaging of the environment. My desire for a new, more comfortable, safer, more powerful SUV is driven by evil, selfish impulses that they strive to discourage and, if possible, to punish by taxation or regulation. Their environmental and economic views, taken together, tend to suppress or subvert greed, which is the only force acting against their other policies which, as I said earlier, erode the work ethic. Their views, then, constitute an attack on three fronts, the effect of which is to move us, one small step at a time, in the direction of a precipice. Once we see it, we will be too close to stop before at least some of us are pushed over the edge by the crowd moving in behind us. The old adage tells us that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. If we are a thousand miles from our own destruction, I say we should not take the first, the second, or any other step in that direction. Let's concede that life is not fair, and do our best through more reasonable means to try to help everyone find a way to become a contributing member of society. But let's make it our business to discourage laziness and complacency and encourage diligence and self-reliance. Every step along that road leads us closer to a world where more of us can live better for a much greater span of time. Modified: 08/30/2003 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|