Liberal: Helpful or Helpless?

A society dependent on its government for sustenance is weaker than one that is more self-reliant. As Fred Thompson once said, "A government that is big enough to do everything for us is powerful enough to do anything to us." As someone else wiser than I once said (in Proverbs 27:7): "He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry, even what is bitter tastes sweet." I think people of the more liberal persuasion are willing to "help" the poor by giving them the bitter scraps, and the suffering love them for it. There is no question that we should help those less fortunate. But does a welfare state really help like we are led to believe, or does it simply string society along?

Good article by my main man, Thomas Sowell called Perfect Storm. I appreciate the part where he says: "Higher taxes to 'spread the wealth around,' as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives."

You actually have to do stuff other than take from wealthy people and dole it out to failing institutions and programs. Supporting failing systems and protecting unions that are failing to compete doesn't raise the standard of living. Helping people is what actually helps people.

When you tax the product of a person's labor too much, you remove incentive for them to produce for others, hire new workers, and even pay more taxes via a higher income. I think people who really care about others are easily suckered into thinking that the government should go Robin Hood. But I would argue that when we cast our votes for the government to take all the people's problems away, we are merely attempting to diffuse responsibility away from ourselves and onto our neighbor. Obama would like to diffuse responsibility such that everyone is responsible for everyone else which will translate into no one being responsible for anything. Many Obama (ie liberal mindset) supporters think they won't have to pay their contractual obligations anymore and won't have to be responsible for their decisions like making babies, getting loans, failing in school. The diffusion of responsibility will carry them and catch them when they fall thus removing risk of failure and incentive to improve.

See this speech by Huey Long from 1934. It's a good summary of the mindset I'm talking about, and it almost makes logical sense except for one assumption he makes which crumbles the argument. He assumes the world is zero-sum. In other words, that it can only grow to a predetermined size and that the piece of the pie that you get decreases the availability of pie for everyone else. He says that in order for you to have something, someone else must not have it. This is simply a childish, over simplistic, and unrealistic view of the economy and of free markets. We can go on about that in more detail later if you wish.

You know...this is a bit of an aside, but people speak now as if the government is some untouchable entity that runs the world for us, and there's nothing you can do about it. That too, is imply untrue. The government is YOU. It represents YOU. It works for and exists for YOU. And it does what YOU tell it to. That's why we are not still in Great Britain taking orders from a new King George (although we may soon have a new King George known as King Husein). So remember to tell that government what you want and what you expect from it with your vote and your voice. And don't make the mistake of thinking your representative government is your mother or father or your boss. I believe that we do have a responsibility to obey the law, but it is important to remember the purpose of law. That purpose is to protect you, not impose limitations on you or infringe upon your rights with the preferred rights of someone else that the government suddenly prefers to "protect".