Monday, July 19, 2010

Obama as Robin Hood, or Entitlement and Justification

I often ask myself how it is that a rational human being can justify the viewpoint that he is deserving of something simply because he wants it. How does a man look to one who is better off than he and come to the determination that the well-off man owes him something because of that success? Why do liberals look at those who are wealthy and believe they are due some of that wealth? What evil festers in the heart of a man who looks at a Donald Trump or a Nelson Rockefeller, a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet or a Walton, and concludes that he is deserving of a portion of their wealth because he has none of his own? Why is it that liberals believe that people who work hard and earn more, or at least enough to afford to pay for their own needs, including their own health insurance, should be required to pay to provide for the needs of others? How is that conceivably justifiable?

I refer to those who feel entitled by merit of their existence, those in this country who demand something for nothing--who expect to be cared for without being willing to care for themselves or work for themselves--who would rather demand handouts, reparations, entitlements, etc. from the government--which, in case you haven't noticed, is US--that is OUR money they are spending. Even those on the right side of the aisle who consider themselves “compassionate conservatives” seem to embrace the same startling point of view: that a person is somehow entitled to food, drink, shelter, medical care, education, etc. by merit of his very existence--that there is no obligation for him to earn these things, but that they should be provided without question. How astounding it is that there are so many people who demand sustenance, shelter, health care, and education, without being willing to work for them!

Those things are not guaranteed "rights." A person does not have the right to demand that I provide him with water because I have a bottle of it; he cannot rightfully demand to sleep in my house because I have a spare bedroom; he cannot require me to pay for his broken arm for no other reason than that I earn enough to afford it and he does not.

Similarly, free food and water are not human rights. The equal opportunity to compete for food and water is a human right. You want water? Pay your water bill or live next to a stream, or walk to the stream, get the water (hopefully boil it), and then drink it. And once you have successfully acquired it, endeavor to prevent someone who is either unwilling or unable to go to the creek for his own water from taking it from you by force, or by government fiat--either that or be prepared to spend a lot of time walking back and forth to the stream to provide water for the unwilling, while never getting any for yourself.

If you are the free rider—if you are the one receiving the benefit of another's work—if you are the one getting the water without having to get off your arse to walk to the well or the stream—if you are the one getting money for nothing, I imagine you view the system as a good one. However, this school of thought is so far removed from the mindset of Americans at the time of the founding of our country that I don't know if the Founders could have imagined a people so unwilling to work to feed and clothe and educate and care for themselves, but rather, who spend more and more of their efforts in determining new ways to take what they need from those who ARE willing to work.

The way to achieve a better life is to advance your skills and your abilities so that you have more earning power and therefore place yourself in a better position for the future. If a person deems his employer-provided insurance to be inadequate, he is free to find a different employer with a better insurance plan. The key is that he must have the skills required by that employer. Failing that, he has the option to spend more on insurance and less on other things. The part of socialism that liberals seem unwilling to recognize is that the majority of citizens pay no taxes at all, placing the burden for financing the needs of the masses on those who do earn—the free-rider problem.

Socialism discourages the producers from working--why should I work if I am unable to enjoy the fruits of my labor? Why should I work if it is only to support people who are unwilling to make the same financial decisions or expend the same effort to improve their marketability in the workplace that I made? By what right does one demand that someone else support him or his family? It is not "the government" who pays the price, it is the taxpayer--people like us, who work hard and would prefer to keep a larger portion of the 37% of our income that the government appropriates. However, there is limited probability that I would ever be able to convince a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat of its negative impact, because the Democrat constituency is reliant on having a hand in my wallet to ensure its very survival.

How could I possibly explain to someone who demands my money—albeit through a middleman--that he is not deserving of it by merit of the simple fact that he has less than I have? Generally, we respond to extortion and strong arm robbery with the law--unfortunately, the Obama administration seems to be using the law for the purpose of extortion. I can't be surprised, because Obama did state during his campaign that he planned to redistribute income. It doesn't change the fact that to do so is immoral, reprehensible, and has all the markers of Marxist/Leninist revolutionary behavior. From each, according to his ability, to each according to his need. Sound familiar?

Democrats supported the health “reform bill,” the Wall Street “reform” bill, and most other bills promoting the redistribution of wealth, because they see it as a way to buy votes from their constituency. They are counting on a type of class warfare that they incite by pointing at the wealthy and telling their constituency that those wealthy people are stealing from the common man...that the wealthy have no right to their money or their property. That the world would be fairer if the rich man had to give his money to the poor man--regardless of whether or not the poor man was willing to work for it. It's the whole bastardized Robin Hood mentality--take from those with more, and we won't call it stealing or hold you accountable so long as you give it to "the poor."

It is my view that those who want to get something for nothing, those who wish to reap the rewards of other people's labor, are lazy, unethical, and morally inferior. I believe that the forced redistribution of wealth, whether done at the hands of a robber with a gun, or Congress with the IRS as their weapon of choice, is a criminal act.

You can tax me into penury, you can force me to support you through government-mandated entitlement programs shoved down my throat by an out-of-control Congress, but you cannot force me to like it.

No comments: