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 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on May 05, 2005
How so Guy? She was a bulemic who had the blood cut off from her brain because of binging and purging.
on May 05, 2005
by the way, thatoneguy...the line about "tired, poor, huddled masses" was not in the Constitution, but a line froma POEM by Emma Lazarus.

Just thought you might like to know that.
on May 05, 2005
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.


They only give LIP SERVICE...Who do you think passed "No Child Left Behind"? PLEASE tell me how that's "smaller government". Just because they SAY they're for smaller government doesn't mean it's true, especially when their actions CONSISTENTLY refute it (US Patriot Act....want me to go on?)

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!"


And what statistics do you base this belief on? I am basing my conclusion that most poor are willingly caught in a cycle of dependence on 35 years of experience...While I have always worked for a better living I have seen much of it leached away by those around me who will not (and before you start blaming me, I don't think I bear responsibility for those who will steal my stuff simply because I couldn't afford an ALARM SYSTEM).

The poor prey on the poor in this country, thatoneguy...that is not speculation, that is FACT. And they show up for every handout they can get. I still contend that someone smart enough to figure out how to fence food stamps to buy meth is smart enough to figure out how to make an HONEST living.
on May 05, 2005

How so Guy? She was a bulemic who had the blood cut off from her brain because of binging and purging.

They checked and found out she was not bulemic (blood chemistry test).  If you had been following the case, then you would have known that theory was disproved long ago.

on May 05, 2005
Interestingly enough, why do libs insist that what happened to Terri Schiavo was her own fault while they led the charge in suing tobacco companies? (hints: there are WARNINGS on the side of cigarette packs?)

Thanks for tangentially helping to prove my point!
on May 05, 2005
Guy, they havent released the autopsy report yet. If you had followed the case a little closer, you would know that!

Gid, i dunno about the tobacco issue. Like i said many times, i'm no liberal. I may be a dem but that doesn't mean i agree with everything they do. I only know that i think we need to take care of some of the less fortunate who truly deserve the help. Not subsidize the lifestyles of those who choose not to work. I also agree with you on the lip service thingie. When i made that comment it was meant to be a little sarcastic. I personally think NCLB is a crock in general with a few good intentions behind it.

I also agree with you on the poor feeding on the poor. I've seen that first hand many times. But, there has got to be a way to tighten it up to drastically reduce it from happening. The GOP? They just want to turn the tap back into their own pockets.

I would never blame you for being victimized. That's like saying its a rape victims fault for being raped. It's nonsensical and unfair to the victims. What i do know is if we had a better way to enforce the existing laws and punish those in an effective manner we might just be able to do some good for the less fortunate. Things like job training, Meds for the homeless, Nutritious meals for low income children instead of the dreck they give them now. Common sense assistance with a ultimate goal of self sufficiency. Not some grand socialist scheme to equal everybody out. This is America after all, and we all have the right to make the best living we can and keep the largest percentage for ourselves and our loved ones. We could finance it by AUDITING the federal government and cutting out the pork. I was watching the news yesterday (FOX news for the record Guy) saw a report about how 100 MILLION dollars of reconstruction money has vanished. This is the kind of pork i am talking about.

Life will never be completely even for all in America on the financial side of it. And only a fool would think that Converting our economy over to some grand social experiment is the right path for us to choose. All we havr to do is look north to see a good example of what can go wrong with wholesale socialization. All i'm saying is that we can pull this off if someone actually can get everybody on the same page. I just don't see anyone from the GOP, or your party doing it with only the religious community doing the work.

It just can't be done. Only the federal government can pull it off.
on May 05, 2005
Only the federal government can pull it off.


100 MILLION dollars of reconstruction money has vanished.
on May 05, 2005
"We have an OBLIGATATION to better our fellow man."


Wasn't that why Hitler annexed Poland? "Better" is pretty damned relative. I have no doubt in my mind that I would differ with what 90% of the people here consider "better". I know for a fact that the standards of my community concerning housing and lifestyle are in no way "better" to me, and I flee them whenever possible...

I think you have the obligation to butt the hell out and not impose yourself on your fellow man. You also have the right to help them when they ask, IF you so choose.


" Only the federal government can pull it off."


Given our almost total lack of success so far, I think you have a lot of faith in a failure. We haven't improved much of anyone, we've just made them serfs to the federal government; basically keeping them in the poverty-ridden state they were in to begin with.
on May 05, 2005
I guess its the side of me that wants to think we can make our country a better place Baker. I do agree with you to a certain extent about butting out. But if we all butt out where does that leave us when it comes to the desperatley needy? I'll tell you, in a world of shit is where! (sorry for the profanity Gid) When we deny the next generation of what they need (IE: food, and a fair shot at bettering themselves) we erode our own infrastructure. We raise yet another generation of folks who rely on the system to get them through life without putting any effort into bettering themselves.

FYI baker...Hitler was a rightie. National Socalism was just a name. It was the furthest right of right wing euopean politics at the time.
on May 05, 2005
Guy, they havent released the autopsy report yet. If you had followed the case a little closer, you would know that!


Now would be too late to test for bulemia! She was tested shortly after being admitted, and the results were inconclusive. Since there was no friends or family that ever witnessed the episodes, that cast the allegations of bulemia into the most negative light. And left them at best innuendo, and at worst an out right lie.

See, I have been followig the case very closely!

Glad to see you are your old spunky self again!
on May 05, 2005
Guy, they can tell by the damage done to her Gastrointestinal system. I have a sister who is bulemic and thats how they diagnosed her. The damage is permanent as well. It doesn't heal over. I'll see if i can find some info about it and post in a seperate thread.
on May 05, 2005
It just can't be done. Only the federal government can pull it off.


No, only the federal government can spend over 6 trillion of our money to fix a problem and make absolutely no progress in 40 years.

But charities work a lot better and more effectively. They dont have leeches (there are exceptions) siphoning off 75% of the money for their own nefarious desires.

The government is only good at 2 things. Self Defense and promoting domestic peace. They suck at everything else.
on May 05, 2005
Uhm.....Guy? It has been proven that charities have overhead. UP to 60% in fact. And i do agree with you on the two things. I just think that a third is a noble undertaking.
on May 05, 2005
"But if we all butt out where does that leave us when it comes to the desperatley needy?"


Somewhere only slightly worse than turning them into serfs or reservation natives. If you build enough government programs and government housing and government benefits, eventually you'll have a whole class of people who function outside of the economy. Oop, too late.

"FYI baker...Hitler was a rightie."


Neh, that's a popular misconception. The Nazi Party was officially the "National Socialist German Workers". It's no surprise that he ended up where we think of as "Right". Hitler and Stalin are just examples of the enevitable evolution of socialism. In the end, someone takes the hopes and dreams of the naive and bludgeons them to death with them.

He was an authoritarian who used the state to impose his ideals on those he thought didn't know any better, and crush the ideals of those who did. You know, like most Lefties...


"It has been proven that charities have overhead. UP to 60% in fact. "


Ever looked at the overhead of the Federal government? A large percent of our cash in the US never ventures out of it...
on May 05, 2005
Uhm.....Guy? It has been proven that charities have overhead. UP to 60% in fact. And i do agree with you on the two things. I just think that a third is a noble undertaking.


hence the disclaimer of exceptions. Anyone that has over a 15% overhead is not a charity, it is a scam. But then I can pick and choose which ones I donate to. I cant do that when the government gets on its horse and decides to fix a problem and fails, now can I?
4 Pages1 2 3 4