The journey from there to here
Published on May 5, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

An interesting comment I found on the response to another blogger:

It is the government’s job to ensure that people have jobs and a place to live.

That is an excelent summation of the mindset of many of the left in America. And it is horrendously untrue. Add to that that it shows the hypocrisy of the left, yet again, in light of one of our more current controversies.

The argument from the left in the Terri Schiavo case centered heavily on Ms. Schiavo's inability to feed herself or provide her own self care. Because Ms. Schiavo was unable to do so, liberal pundits decreed, all sustenance must be withheld from her.

When that logic is applied to the situation of the poor in this country (expecting them to provide for themselves), the left quickly switches sides. The government, they demand, should create jobs even for the people unwilling to work for them, the government should provide housing for those unwilling to find their own.

The problem is, the government HAS no such liability. To add to that, neither do we have a MORAL responsibility to provide for people who are COMPLETELY unwilling to provide for themselves. Should food banks be required to deliver food, since some people don't want to get off their asses and go to the food banks? Should people be given a nominal job when all they're going to do is sit at a table staring at the wall?

I could take this argument further and argue that it's simply a matter of survival of the fittest, but that would assume that all leftists are Darwinists; experience has told me this is far from the case (although it's a compelling argument for those who ARE). I could further state that the "Protestant work ethic" does revolve around a standard of doing SOMETHING to provide for yourself, but that would equally assume that all leftists are Protestant Christians; again, experience refutes me on this, although again, the argument is equally compelling.

I WILL, however, state that individual responsibility is essential for individual freedoms. If we wish to have a socialist society where every need is provided by the government, we cannot have liberty. And if we are to have liberty, we must have individual responsibility. Benjamin Franklin said it well in an almost overquoted statement that "he who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserves and receives neither" (a paraphrase). Insisting that the government provide homes and jobs is a sacrifice of liberty for security. Sadly, for most of the American left, it is demanding the sacrifice come from OTHERS without sacrificing your own comforts.

We must eradicate the mindset that we are responsible for providing a living for others. Until we return to a nation of individual accountability and responsibility, we will all continue to suffer, and we will be weaker for it.


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on May 05, 2005
Good luck on having the liberals have a single stance on anything.
on May 05, 2005
I wonder. If the government conceded to these ideas and said "yes, we will provide homes and jobs for all who need them, and we will heavily tax those who believe we should do this in order to pay for it" how many of these vocal people would switch sides to protect their own assets and lifestyle?

It's easy to say "this should be done" and "that should be done" until the time comes to pay for it to be done. As long as it's other people's money, that's ok.
on May 05, 2005
Mason,

You get an insightful. I wonder how many working class Americans would sacrifice a majority of their wages for a government provided apartment, car, and all the food and clothing they need (in theory anyway).

Here's a hint, though: it was tried, and failed in the USSR. Let's not repeat that experiment, as human lives and liberties are the casualty.
on May 05, 2005
So if i understand this correctly, you are saying that we shouldn't be obligated to better the world around us and help our fellow man? I am all for reducing the welfare rolls as much as the next guy, But if we offer no assistance to those who desperately need it we are no better than a third world country.

This is why i'm a dem guys. We have an OBLIGATATION to better our fellow man. If we do not, we are all screwed.

The trick i guess it to find a way to insure the system isnt abused. We have been wrestling with that little nugget for 60 years now.
on May 05, 2005
"It is the government’s job to ensure that people have jobs and a place to live......
That is an excelent summation of the mindset of many of the left in America. And it is horrendously untrue"
You''re arguing that it's not the duty of a responsible governement to do all it can to provide the necessary conditions for it's people to live as well and as comfortable as they can? The same government that claims to be acting for equality and justice all over the world? It's not untrue. It's their job to ensure their people live well.
on May 05, 2005

We have an OBLIGATATION to better our fellow man. If we do not, we are all screwed.

I have been over this many times. We have a MORAL obligation, yes...NOT a legal one.

Moral obligations are the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL, not the government.

Back to the main article, thatoneguy....why was it not the government's responsibility to continue to feed Ms. Schiavo?

on May 05, 2005

This is why i'm a dem guys. We have an OBLIGATATION to better our fellow man. If we do not, we are all screwed.

If we have an oblilgation, then let us fulfill it.  But the democrats do not allow you to fulfill your obligation.  Forced compliance, via confiscatory taxation, is not fulfilling an obligation.  it is Socialism, and removes the issue of responsibility from all individuals.

 

on May 05, 2005
we shouldn't be obligated to better the world around us and help our fellow man?

As individuals making that choice, absolutely. That is on the conscience of the individual. To force others to do so because we feel it's the right thing to do? Absolutely not.

It isn't the role of the government to provide homes and jobs for everyone and force everyone to fund that through taxation.

Every individual is free to contribute to charity either financially or by giving of their time if it's their inclination to do so. I have done so myself when I had the resources.

It's their job to ensure their people live well.


No it isn't. It's not the "job" of the government to hand-hold it's citizens and make sure they have a job and a home. It's the role of the government to defend it's citizens from foreign aggression, attend to diplomatic relations with other states, and provide legislation in order to defend it citizens domestically, as well as act in economic matters in the best interest of it's citizens.

Only in a Socialist nation is it the responsibility of the government to provide all things for it's citizens. Last time I checked, the United States hadn't adopted a Socialist economy or political structure. I also haven't seen any examples of a large scale Socialist society that actually worked in accomplishing these things effectively.

Yes, as human beings we each, individually, have a responsibility to our fellow man and should act accordingly, but the government's responsibilities lie elsewhere.
on May 05, 2005
Only in a Socialist nation is it the responsibility of the government to provide all things for it's citizens.


Nail on the head award, Mason.
on May 05, 2005
Well then Gid, is our whole basis of this country a lie then? Remember tired, poor huddled masses?

I'm not saying that it should be a law that we pay everybodies rent and fill their pockets. Ive been to socialized countries where that is the standard, and i don't like it. The thought of giving 60% of my income to support others doesn't sit well with me. But if we allow the far right to dictate terms that disallows any government assistance, we create a western black hole of Calcutta.

Let's face it. The right only cares about putting money back in their pockets. This is one of the basic philosophies of the GOP. Smaller Federal government is another (although you wouldnt know it nowadays). I support these two beliefs to a certain extent. But i think as the richest country in the hemisphere, If we do not take care of those who actually need the help, our whle system comes off as hypocritical. As far as Moral obligation goes, yes we do have a moral obligation to take care of the less fortunate. The problem is that GREED gets in the way. We are so obsessed with getting rich as a whole that the cash goes back into the pocket, and into a new car, house, PC, Remote control vacuum cleaners that feed our materalistic society. If we do not set aside a portion of tax revenue and manage it correctly, we create the black hole.

Our culture is more rapidly becoming about ME. Mine mine mine. As long as this is the standard, we will continue to feed the downward spiral of poverty, and despair. We have to do something about it besides trying to pawn off the responsibility via "Faith based inititaves". The problem is too widespread for that. There is only one entity that can handle it. And that my friends is the US Government. We desperately need welfare reform that goes beyond the changes made in the past few years to insure those who need assistance actually get it. I just don't see the current administration caring enough to do anything about it. They seem too caught up in making sure corporate America gets their payback for putting them behind the wheel. They are actually contributing to the problen via allowing outsourcing, roadblocking liveable wage legislation, and welfare reform.

As fare as Terri goes. She put herself in that bed. And i'm a little disappointed in you for suggesting that it is a welfare issue. I guess in a sense it is, but the majority of people that need help do NOT choose to live a reckless lifestyle and put themselves in the position she got herself in. (this really is another thread altogether)

And Guy? I would rather see my tax dollars go to feed a starving child on our side of the ocean rather than to kill a child somewhere else.
on May 05, 2005
It is the government’s job to ensure that people have jobs and a place to live.


Could you link to the article that the response was in, please?

I have a feeling that what was meant by the statement was that it is a governments responsibility to provide jobs for people (that is, make sure there is a job market that people can go out and find work in).
on May 05, 2005

Remember tired, poor huddled masses?

Yes, and they're all free to immigrate to this country to WORK for a better life.

As fare as Terri goes. She put herself in that bed. And i'm a little disappointed in you for suggesting that it is a welfare issue. I guess in a sense it is, but the majority of people that need help do NOT choose to live a reckless lifestyle and put themselves in the position she got herself in. (this really is another thread altogether)

And the majority of Americans are impoverished because of choices they MADE. The reason Terri Schiavo came into this is because of YOUR OWN rationalization for why starving her to death was ethical; the fact that she was unable to feed herself. It IS a hypocrisy, the concept of survival of the fittest demands that some will NOT survive; and in fact, to offer false hope to those who will not survive is more cruel than letting them starve to death in the first place. But I digress...

Let's face it. The right only cares about putting money back in their pockets. This is one of the basic philosophies of the GOP. Smaller Federal government is another (although you wouldnt know it nowadays

There's a difference between "putting money back in your pockets" and "keeping money you have EARNED". And the GOP in fact NEVER was about smaller government (in fact, it was FOUNDED on the principle of destroying smaller government), that has just been a good catchphrase. The Libertarians are the only true standardbearers of smaller government.

Well, if you want to legislate morality, thatoneguy, be prepared to legislate ALL of it. The standards of the majority of Americans on abortion, sexuality, and other personal beliefs systems are just as enforceable if you insist on enforcing moral standards of compassion. It is NOT the government's responsibility to legislate morality, nor can it effectively do so. We DO have a MORAL responsibility to these causes, and that is a platform I have never abandoned. But the federalization of these programs does NOT help aid recipients (as I am all too painfully aware), and private charities can distribute money FAR more efficiently.

I respect your opinions as always, thatoneguy, but I wish you would see the dangers of socialism on a massive scale. Otherwise, the Cold War was for NOTHING.

 

on May 05, 2005

Let's face it. The right only cares about putting money back in their pockets.

When you say that you seriously mis understand the right.  For it is conservatives who voluntarily give more of their income to charities that do not have the overhead of the feds, to do what you advocate. But we want to give that money ourselves, not be forced to give to a government program.

And unless you are talking about pedophiles, your money does not go to kill children abroad.  But I will be sure to tell the next GI I see you said that.

on May 05, 2005

As fare as Terri goes. She put herself in that bed. And i'm a little disappointed in you for suggesting that it is a welfare issue. I guess in a sense it is, but the majority of people that need help do NOT choose to live a reckless lifestyle and put themselves in the position she got herself in. (this really is another thread altogether)

And that is wrong.  You should research more before writing innuendos and lies.

on May 05, 2005
I'm sorry Gid, I just don't buy your arguement here...I also take issue with your classification of the GOP. go to their site and read their basic tenets. They ARE for smaller federal government and more state control.

As far as your point of KEEPING vs Putting it back in your pockets. That's 6 of one, half a dozen of another.

I believe that the vast majority of those needing assistance do not want to be in the position to ask for it. I think they would rather work for it like the rest of us. I do not believe they wake up one day and say "hey, i'm gonna screw my life up to the point that i need to get some of that sweet federal cake!" I think they are put into that position for any number of reasons. Maily economically based. Maybe somebody was incapacitated to the point where they cannot work. do we let them sit on the curb and beg for it?

HELL NO!

I have little or no faith in religion taking on the awesome responsability of morer assistance wothout furthering their own agendas in the precess. Also, there is a world of difference between offering someone temporary assitance and the cold war.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last