Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Compulsory Compassion

I've been spending some time at the radio station's message board. I've run into a plethora of liberals, much to my delight. I think I've hit on something.

I was ripping on socialism, as per usual, and explaining that it was stupid for people to complain about being "exploited" when they enter into a contract willingly. No, I don't make a lot of money at my job, but I can either find another one or accept the wages I earn. Such is the beauty of a free society. Someone told me I should read Nickled and Dimed.

I've read parts of it and maybe I'll get around to it eventually. I doubt it though, I think I get the author's beef. So I asked the board what I would get out of the book. The reply...

"I was actually just thinking it might stir up a little compassion. You know, like that hippie Jesus used to preach about."

Ah yes, Jesus the hippie. Just like the fact that Hitler didn't have an economic policy--the subject bored him--doesn't stop liberals from calling the National Socialist as a right-winger, so too is Jesus a hippie. The extent of Jesus' economic advice was "render to Ceasar", at least near as I can figure. I guess paying ones taxes makes one a hippie.

It's funny too, how often I am told I am not compassionate for wishing the market to have its way. Because I have no problem--from a political and legal standpoint--with Wal-Mart for example, paying their employees poorly, I am a heartless jerk. Because I think welfare, socialist security, medicare, medicaid, etc. are immoral, I am a bastard.

One cannot legislate compassion, yet that is what we do. Further, compassion is not a one-way street. In order to give to Paul, one must tax Peter. Why doesn't Peter get to keep his hard-earned money?

Actually, when it comes down to it, it is socialism that is immoral. Conservatism may be harsh, but it is also just. Conservatism leaves us all to fight for ourselves, to succeed or fail based soley of our own merits. Freedom is dangerous and frightening, so socialism tries to take it away.

After all, why should I be allowed to keep the money I earn when other people don't have jobs? Why shouldn't I be forced to share? The reason is simple: it is my money.

Those who are rich should give money to those who have less money, that is compassionate. It is not compassionate to steal from one party to give to another. Stealing is immoral. It is also unjust.

The "progressive" system chokes those who are productive to lavish those whose only virtue is an inability to be successful. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" appeals to the worst in us all. We all suddenly become needy until those of ability get sick of working for the parasitic masses. The scam can go on awhile though, since hard-workers are virtuous people who will continue to slave at seventy cents, then fifty, then twenty, then ten cents on the dollar.

Why should I work hard if my labors support someone who did not produce a thing? The system is beyond backward. Let each man get the fruits of his labors. This provides an incentive to work hard, leading to a productive society.

The last point about socialist mentality, is that it stems from guilt. The people I talked to on the message board actually feel bad about being born in America. They cannot enjoy what they have been given or work for more without wanting the government to give to those who weren't as lucky.

The circumstances of my birth were fortunate. I am not going to sit around moping about how good I have it compared to others. Instead, I'll try to put a system back in place that allows people to work to get to where I've got.

Handouts are misplaced and condescending. Let the people work. Give capitalism a shot. Do away with the compulsory compassion of socialism and allow people to live for themselves, giving, not of obligation, but true generosity.

Self-loathing liberals cannot legislate compassion. In order to love thy neighbor as thyself, as the hippie Jesus said, one must first love oneself.

No comments: