Nice Charaterization of Redistribution
Although de rigueur among “progressives,” Jim Salvucci is mistaken to describes bourgeois values as “empty” and consumerism as “mindless” (Letters, November 17). Bourgeois values encourage the substantive and mindful traits of hard work, sobriety, thrift, honesty, and self-reliance - all which earn their practitioners the ability over time to enjoy greater material comforts and amusements.
What is truly empty is the value that counsels A to live off of the wealth given to him by B and which B confiscated from C. And what is truly mindless is the notion that society progresses as greater numbers of us live as A’s or as B’s, and all the while thinking of C’s as being nothing more than contemptible cows to be milked for the “general good.”
From Cafe Hayek.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Thank you Ayn Rand. Just keep on shrugging, I’m sure we’ll all get our comeupance one of these days.
BTW, you’re really going to have to decide whether poor people are noble hard-working folk who could move up in the world if the government just got out of their way, or lazy, bloodsucking leeches who deserve to starve slowly in their own filth. Your tendency to assert either viewpoint whenever one is more convenient to your argument makes me question your sincerity.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Poor people are hard working motivated people until you get in their way making them lazy bloodsucking leeches.
While I’m being tongue n cheek with the response I really think there is something to this. Providing people with things that they do not have to earn over time has a corrupting effect on them. I’m sure you have found this to be intuitive true in your own personal experiences.
Besides, the question one needs to ask themselves is how do they wish to arrange their economy. If you accept my ideas, you keep the state out of the way of those that will be successful and while those that need assistance would find it in charities and religious organizations. Using the state to help those that actually need redistribution is redundant since there are already organizations willing to assist. More to the point, these organization don’t use coercion to accomplish their goals which most certainly can’t be said about your precious government.
Given this line of argumentation, on what grounds do you object?
November 26th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Basically, my objection is that charitable organizations are 1. unreliable 2. not subject to scrutiny/control by the public and 3. Able to deny aid to whoever they want (ie non-christians, unwed pregant teens, etc.). These are the reasons that I would generally, other factors aside, prefer public to private programs to help these people.
Now, let me start by saying that I do realize that the national welfare system has a lot of problems, and teh issue you are rasining may or may not be one of them. However, I wonder why you think private charities would not have this problem? I assume it is because they are run on a small, local level, where the people giving the money see the people receving it, an will cut them off if they are lazy and not trying to improve themselves. If this is the case, and such a structure really does work much better than the current national model, then I would favor reforming the current national model into something which had the same strengths.