Welfare is theft
Posted by Slick 11 years, 7 months ago to Government
Welfare is theft, not only because government must steal from those who produce in order to fund social programs. But because it robs those who use welfare, of the initiative to make money by thrift or other creative means for themselves.
I have said this to people around me for years, about 20 of them. It is so cool to find another who also is stating it. Bravo.
The civility that is created in people who give to a charity to help others of there own choice is priceless in society. The frustration of having the money stolen is equally priceless in a negative way.
It is much easier to go take a handout when you are entitled to it, than when you have to beg for it. That need to beg causes most people to find another way. I think most people that will be looters in our entitlement system would not be in a charity and beggar system.
Who feels good about getting something they are entitled to and paid into for years?
Who feels good about begging for something they did not earn?
You are correct most people when faced with the second choice would work. The truly eveil thing about welfare is that somewhere among those who are locked into taking welfare is a mind with an idea that just needs a bit of necessity to have that idea explode out of there head and make the next Microsoft only in another yet undiscovered field. That mined is being repressed and destroyed by the idea of entitlements.
The cost of welfare is greater even than your article states.
O.A.
The government has no place in humanitarian efforts. They have no money of there own to participate with. If I choose to give my time or money to a Humanitarian or charitable cause of my choice, that is mine to choose. Its my money I earned it and I can do with it what I will.
The government only has the responsibility of protecting its citizens from force being used against them by another citizen or outside force. No other act is permitted.
The allows for a military, which could be paid for by a sales or income tax but not both. All people benefit, but those who have more benefit more from the protection military offers. If a income tax it must be flat (all people pay the same percentage of earnings) and must be the same for all sources of income; corporate, capital gains, owner, partner or wages. The source does not matter.
The courts are a place that is needed to allow disputes that involve the failure to comply to agreements (force by omission is still force) and the use of various mechanics within society to supply force which is paid for by the plaintiff should he loose, and the defendant should he loose.
Finally patiants to protect personal property, which should be paid for annually by the patient holder so long as they want the patient enforced.
I can think of no other way in which the government would protect is citizens against the use of force upon them.
In principle I completely agree with you. Sarcasm… a little bit perhaps; I am just floating an alternative to the present state of things. I am offering a less painful/ expensive alternative, since I believe we as a people are not ready to cut the government umbilical cord completely. You and I may be happy to do so, but we are yet a minority. Yes, on the prison food. I believe charities and private philanthropists would be wise to send the supplies I mentioned to foreign lands in the way I described. Too often foreign governments abscond the supplies for their own benefit, not their people. On all other points in your post we are in complete agreement.
O.A.
Oh, and you are right many people will not accept freedom when it stares them in the face today. The responsibility of being free is more than they can bear.
Excellent!
A three for one win! People desiring to give aid will be happy to see it to those intended (the corollary: the intended needy receive) and Americans will not provide the weapons of their own destruction.
I do not believe it is possible to wean the dependents in one swift blow. You are quite right; they fear freedom and liberty because of the responsibility they bear. However, I believe as did Benjamin Franklin when he said- “I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor (29 November 1766)
Regards,
O.A.
Your friend, is no friend to the American people. The civil society has not improved one iota after decades of diminution of rights in the name of the civil society. If anything society has become less civil. Your friend has it exactly backwards. Those are the words of a progressive statist...
Regards,
O.A.