1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three." - Frederic Bastiat
What’s wrong with the State providing it’s citizens a social safety net? Plenty. Social safety nets
- reward failure and sloth
- reinforce the victimhood paradigm
- are the political tools of vote buying demagogues
- eventually bankrupts the nation
- destroy wealth through transfer payments
- have a corrosive effect on the merits of citizenship
- fail to adequately take into account human nature
- accelerate societal decay
- enable the feckless to plunder those who behave responsibly
- hold hostage the productive members of society
- are State sponsored theft
- undermine the legitimacy of the government
An important author is Charlotte Iserbyt - Deliberate Dumbing Down of the World.
ReplyDeleteis there a need for any kind of social net at all. what degree of a social net, what constitutes Need, and the needy ?
ReplyDeleteI will concede that a social safety net is necessary - the Hebrew Bible affirms this. In fact, Yeshua himself stated that 'the poor will always be with us.' My contention is that attempts to use the 'government' (read 'taxpayer') to solve our problems is the worst possible way to deal with poverty. Why? The government uses extortion to extract funding to finance its charitable giving. This is immoral and subverts the very purpose of 'government.' Remember that all taxes are ultimately collected at gunpoint.
Delete'Need' is best identified at the local level, eye-to-eye, face-to-face. Poverty is more likely to be eradicated through one-on-one interactions with the needy to 'help them help themselves.' Government giveaways do not help individuals escape their poverty - it simply takes the edge off of their suffering just enough to enable the beneficiaries to continue their non-productive lifestyles. Government is the great enabler.