I've done a lot of thinking on LW's article on "Self Sufficiency, or Abuse?" Not so much on her article itself, but on many of the responses that followed. In the article, LW related a documentary she had seen on "hidden homeless" women, and on the fact that the women chose to raise their children in a van despite knowing they were eligible for various forms of public assistance.

Now, it's no secret I'm frugal. In fact, I've written more on it than anyone else has. But I found a couple of responses rather telling, as it's not hard to read between the lines on a few comments to realize that some of my readers have a problem with why I personally don't receive public aid, despite the perception that I'm eligible for a number of the programs (I'm actually not eligible for a whole lot of them, though many may not realize it).

Now I'm going to digress a bit because I really don't want to write two or three separate articles in response to the single article. So, I hope you'll indulge me for a few.

I was taken aback by the quite direct suggestions that I should accept food stamps and medical care at the taxpayer's expense, so that I could allocate my funds towards a better car, especially in light of recent comments by the individuals in question, which indicate their attitude towards other people who've done the same. In one case, the respondent had several anecdotal tales of people who would buy food with food stamps and then step into a brand new SUV. It is quite possible that those people, of whom the individual spoke critically, could have been doing the exact same thing that they had suggested I do (if you LEASE a vehicle like that, you don't technically OWN it, so it can't be counted against you as an asset). I have to wonder why it is right for me to do what is wrong for these other individuals. In the other case, only a couple days prior, the individual had told the tale of a family receiving government medical care for the birth of their child who had gone out and purchased a $5K diamond for the wife. In this case, too, it is almost certain that the mindset of the family was that they should not spend personal assets on things that the government could provide, so they could enjoy the material trappings of their own earnings without the "burden" of paying the medical care. Both cases are, in my opinion, cases of de facto, if not legally enforcable, fraud, and are one of the reasons our government is in the financial mess that they are in. Now, having detoured long enough, let me get the article back on topic.

The suggestion that any family should possess a definitive amount of material goods to raise their children "properly" or "safely", is essentially, a suggestion that materialism should be mandatory. It is well and good to ask how much is too much on the one end (living out of a van? A tent?), but it is just as important to ask how much is too much on the other end ($5K diamonds? A brand new Hummer?). The fact is, a definition of how much material goods we can and should have is simply not the government's role to create.

Now, we don't need to even look past the headlines to find a story of a family whose push against materialism did come to an extreme. I would point to the case of Rusty and Andrea Yates, where the controlling husband put his family into an impossibly demanding situation, and the wife's mental instability caused the deaths of five innocent children. But the truth is, up until the murder of those five innocents, no crime had been committed, or should have even been charged against the family (extremely foolish judgement is another matter entirely).

But I refuse to believe that I am harming my children if we don't take twice yearly trips to amusement parks, or if they don't eat Oreos more than once or twice a month. In fact, I believe I'm benefitting them even more, because the way we live, Oreos become a treat to anticipate rather than a daily staple. I refuse even to believe that I would be harming them even if I removed the "junk food allotment" entirely from their diet (which I would never do...I'm much too fond of it myself).

I DO believe, though, that the most valuable lesson I can teach my children is the lesson Draginol stated recently: that their personal wealth is tied directly to the amount of wealth they create. That they can have all the material things they want (and entirely without guilt) if they are willing to work for and earn those things. But they should always attempt to live within their means rather than depend on the assistance of others who will eventually grow weary of providing such assistance.

The title suggestion, that materialism should be mandatory, is obviously ludicrous and was said with an extremely high dose of sarcasm. I do not believe we should feel the need to dictate our standards of living to others anymore than we should feel the need to dictate our religious beliefs or sexual preferences to others. And while I realize that the author of the article in question essentially feels the same way, I feel that questioning the decisions of others who choose to live differently, we are effectively opening the door to the government asking those questions...and providing us with answers that reflect the views of the majority. In doing so, we effectively tyrranize the minority, something we should take pains to avoid doing.