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 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on May 06, 2005
that being the case, all laws and customs which recognize the right of a spouse to assert his or her partner's wishes to decline life support should be repealed, rejected and disregarded in the absence of a signed and duly witnessed document executed by the incompetent person just prior to the onset of a medical emergency.


Frankly? Yes. Without a written directive I see no reason to take the word of a spouse. In addition, I think "food" shouldn't be considered life support. The combination of the two simply presents too many ways to dispose of unwanted people.
on May 06, 2005
Isn't it ironic that the same people who scream "you can't legislate morality" insist that the government make laws requiring us to help each other?

To me there is NOTHING altruistic about people who do nothing to help others, but still sit fat and happy on their virtues because they support government programs.

The fact is, the only reason government assistance helps is because not enough people seem willing to help each other without a law requiring it.

So, all you libs out there, while you are espousing a moral responsibility to help others, are you putting your rhetoric where you mouth is, or are you just happy the government does it for you, so you don't have to bother?
on May 06, 2005

So, all you libs out there, while you are espousing a moral responsibility to help others, are you putting your rhetoric where you mouth is, or are you just happy the government does it for you, so you don't have to bother?

I think we have seen, at least with the liberal leadership, that they do not.  IN fact someone did a study of the most giving states in terms of percentage of income given to charities.  8 of the top 10 were red states, and 20 of the top 25 were red as well.  That means that 80% of the top givers supported republicans in the last 2 elections.  Not a very good indication of the 'giving' nature of liberals.

on May 06, 2005

The GOP? They just want to turn the tap back into their own pockets.

OK, let's get back on topic by reminding you I'm NOT a Republican...

on May 06, 2005

hence the disclaimer of exceptions. Anyone that has over a 15% overhead is not a charity, it is a scam.

Personally, I don't donate to anyone with over 10% overhead, with very few exceptions.

on May 06, 2005

I would be all for supporting such an organization if it could prove it's overhead was the bare minimum and that it's programs were feasible.

Mason,

Interestingly enough, I already issued the challenge. My requirements were that they could allocate no more than 10% to admin, and that aid recipients had to meet basic human rights standards, among other things. I promised an initial $10 donation with more to come, and to use my blogs to promote the charity as heavily as I could.

Incidentally, I've had no takers. That $10 looks mighty safe (and Pizza Hut DOES have a good pizza deal...but I digress).

on May 06, 2005

no...the real issue was whether the government can involve itself in one of the most personal decisions a person can make.

Wrong, king...and the error of this statement has been pointed out so many times to you that it doesn't bear repeating.

on May 06, 2005
Wrong, king...and the error of this statement has been pointed out so many times to you that it doesn't bear repeating


nobody seems to have informed the libertarian party of it's error. Link


as they put it:

Libertarians and the majority of America can agree that the federal intervention attempted by congressional Republicans stepped over the line into not only a private family matter, but an issue to be decided by the state of Florida.
on May 06, 2005
nobody seems to have informed the libertarian party of it's error. Link


as they put it:

Libertarians and the majority of America can agree that the federal intervention attempted by congressional Republicans stepped over the line into not only a private family matter, but an issue to be decided by the state of Florida.


King,

The LP is NOT considered the "American Left". My statement was, and IS that the arguments of the American left centered HEAVILY (as in, NOT exclusively) on that issue. It's not your usual tactic to hijack a thread in this manner. Your response was off topic.

I DO agree (and have said so repeatedly) that the Republicans stepped over the line but, (since you insist on making this the topic of this article) also wonder where the leftists crying "states' rights" have been while states' rights have been consistently challenged by the left in almost every other area (tangential, but it's YOUR red herring, after all!). This article wasn't about Ms. Schiavo; that was used as a key illustration, yes, but this article is about the consistent hypocrisy of the left (come to think of it, my response about states' rights isn't all that tangential, after all!)
on May 06, 2005
It's not your usual tactic to hijack a thread in this manner.


nor is it my intent to do so now. you used a mischaracterization to set up your argument. the issue wasn't whether she was able to feed herself. there are hundreds of thousands of people who are unable to take food by mouth just as there have been for years. nobody on either side is advocating they have their tubes clamped for that reason--which is what you're claiming when you say this1:

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.


you then go on to build the rest of your argument on that misperception.

while it was very obviously also a states' rights issue (and therefore exposed the hypocrisy of the right), first and foremost it was really about the arrogance of an executive and legislature attempting to interject itself into the very personal affairs of a husband and wife.
on May 07, 2005
you then go on to build the rest of your argument on that misperception.


Well, if the liberal misperception wasn't based heavily on Ms. Schiavo's inability to feed herself, maybe you libs need to circle your wagons a bit. Myrrander's articles on the topic, as well as many others, said it WAS.

But still, the concept of Democrats yelling "states' rights" is absurd. You haven't addressed the FACT that that is highly hypocritical, especially considering the fact that many leftists are funding LAWSUITS against the states who VOTED to ban gay marriages.

It boggles my mind that such an intelligent person as yourself can't see the hypocrisy here, kingbee.
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4