October 31, 2012 § 1 Comment
Liberals often argue that we need to tax the rich more, and give to the poor. We should be our brothers keepers. We need to take care of those who wont or cant.
There is no fine line, in fact, there is a very clear difference between being charitable because you want to and can, and being charitable because of the forceful hand of government.
There is a disconnect with the latter. Liberals like to say they are “charitable and kind,” and look at how “bleeding heart” I am! I want to take from the rich because they can afford it, and give to the poor. I care for my fellow man!
There is nothing moral about forcing one man, by the use of intimidation, and coercion to give up what properly belongs to him, and he rightly earned via his hard work, time, smart investments and/or efforts, to giving to another.
The moral, charitable, “Jesus” thing to do is for YOU get off that couch, and get out there and help your fellow man. You go help that homeless man on the street. Take him in, get him cleaned up, clothe him, feed him. You do this. Don’t claim to be charitable, and caring for your fellow man because you voted for government to do this for you.
There is nothing moral about this stance. If anything it is IMMORAL to forcefully, by the use of government intimidation and coercion, take another man’s property. Fundamentally, what we are doing is reaching into the pockets of those who could and would, taking it, and giving it to those who can’t or won’t.
Those who can, more than likely will. And because we as humans are naturally and instinctively caring and social creatures, we will by natural instinct care for those around us. Each to our own abilities. Where the working man who earns just enough to get by, might volunteer his time at a local soup kitchen, or just care for himself and family, and the wealthy CEO might give a small percentage of his fortune to start or fund a charitable organization that will benefit many. THIS is how the social human spirit should and would work if given the opportunity.
In our society, where the genuine, compassionate nature of humans should be in place, it is not allowed to flourish because in its place is the forceful hand of government. We have voted ourselves into a state of numbness. Where once upon a time we might have stopped on the side of the road, realizing that a fellow man needs care, we would have helped him. Now we default to the reasoning that government will care for him.
Every one of us, when faced with a beggar at the freeway off ramp, thinks to themselves, “poor man.” Our system has squashed that emotion, and made it irrelevant. We now may think and feel that emotion for a split second, but it is quickly replaced with apathy and displacement of responsibility. “The police will take care of him.” “He will just go to the shelter.”
We, as a society struggle to take personal responsibility for ourselves, let alone those around us. With government safety nets in place to catch all those who can’t or won’t, the moral responsibility to care for your fellow man is no longer yours. It’s the governments. And that is the issue with centralized social programs.
Nobody is saying cut all social safety nets, I’ve got mine and screw everyone else. Contrary to liberal belief; conservatives are usually truly compassionate, libertarians don’t want to screw everyone else because they’ve got theirs… The general understanding is beginning to take hold that these social programs do nothing for the betterment of our fellow man. On the contrary, they help breed dependence, and encourages apathy. Why get a job when you know you can make more on unemployment? For up to 99 WEEKS in some states! The crooked liberal politicians like it because they get to earmark the spending with waste, fraud and abusive programs that benefit them and their special interests.
It is also important to note that there is MOST definitely a wrinkle in our capitalist system. The system is no longer fair, and in fact, it is well known as I’ve made mentioned in the past, that the system is blatantly rigged in the other direction. It is no longer for the people, but for the banks and corporations. This is a bigger issue unto itself.
Nobody is advocating for an undisputed elimination of all federally funded social programs, but the understanding is begging to take root that maybe what we are doing is not working. Maybe we need to re-evaluate how we handle these social safety nets. Maybe a centralized system is not the best answer. The more people become aware of this reality, the closer we will get to arriving at a logical and sensible solution to our social issues. A solution that doesn’t involve federal government coercion, and benefits all citizens equally.