there is one political philosophy that says people should be free as
individuals and take responsibility for their own decisions and
actions. being free means being responsible for what one does. to
demand freedom means to accept consequences of one's free actions.
kids don't have freedom and must do as told by their parents. for this
reason, the parents are required to take care of their children--feed,
clothe, house, etc.
when kids grow up and demand more freedom and then finally
independence, it means the kids must take responsibilities for their
own freedom.
one political philosophy says government should leave us to be free.
free people can make the right decisions. even if they make wrong
decisions, they can learn from the experience and make better
decisions in the future. this philosophy also sees life as a
struggle, and every decision is comes with its share of risks.
another political philosophy says that government should do much more
to take care of us or watch our for us. people often make mistakes,
act foolishly, or just fall on hard times. so, we need the government
to provide more and more for the people. the problem with this
philosophy in the US is it allows people to be taken care of while
sacrificing none of their freedom. to be sure, taxation--the source
of government programs--can be said to reduce freedom, so those who
demand more programs undermine the freedom of those who are forced to
pay higher taxes while they themselves pay nothing or almost nothing
in taxes.
the government takes, by threat of force, more of our money. still, in
terms of individual choice and decisions, bigger government doesn't
take away freedom of choice in our daily lives. yet, this is the
problem--at least among those who demand more programs. in a family,
a kid who's taken care of by his parents has very limited freedom.
the parents provide for him, but the kid must follow the rules of the
parent. this is also true if an adult kid lives with his parents. a
person over the age of 18 who chooes to 'live at home' must comply
with the house rules set down by his parents. if he's not willing to
comply, he can just go and find his own place.
the problem we have today is government offers to do more for people
who demand more but doesn't take away nor control the freedom of the
people making the demand. instead, the government only reduces the
freedom of those who don't ask for government help but are forced to
pay more in taxes. the behavior, actions, and choices of the people
who demand more are never controlled or limited.
imagine a scenario of bob and james. bob is responsible and an
earner. james is a lazy slob. bob doesn't ask for government help or
aid. he wants to take care of himself. he doesn't want to interfere
with james's freedom either. bob just wants to be left alone. james,
on the other hand, messes up often in life and wants to be taken care
of. he mostly ruined his life because he's an idiot. so, he keeps
messing up royally. in other words, he cannot handle his freedom
responsibly. so, let's say the government steps in. the logical
thing to do would be to control, minimize, or even take away james's
freedom. after all, james has amply demonstrated--and even suggested
by asking for help--that he cannot handle freedom. suppose james does
have a job but spends all his earnings on stupid stuff, saves nothing,
and constantly has problems making payments on a whole bunch of
stuff. if he acted a little more sensibly, he could lead a stable
life, but he's incapable of such because he has no self-discipline or
self-control when it comes to using his freedom.
yet, when the government steps in, it doesn't penalize or control
james at all. rather, james is seen as a victim of 'social injustice'
while bob is seen as the uncaring, selfish, and greedy culprit. now,
bob doesn't want anything he didn't earn himself. everything he
earned was gained thru much effort and investment of his time and
capital. yet, he's seen as the bad guy. he must be penalized for the
sake of james. so, bob is forced to fork over more money for the sake
of james. but, that's not the worst part of it. the government makes
no demand on james whatsoever. james is treated as a poor, salt-of-
the-earth victim. never mind that most of his problems stem from his
own idiocy. so, he must be taken care of.
so, james goes on with his idiotic ways. he's free like before. and,
he's being rewarded for idiocy.
the logical thing for people who ask for more government help should
be to take away some of their freedom. we're not talking of emergency
aid victims or people who are seriously disabled. we are talking of
people who are incapable of acting intelligently or sensibly. the
problem isn't lack of government programs but misuse of freedom. so,
the best way government can help these people is to control their
freedom.
so, if the government really wanna help many people who ask for more
help, then what government should do is NOT to tax those who have more
but to control those who persistently have less. suppose there's
someone who makes $30,000 a yrs. that's not a lot of money but one can
live comfortably within means if one spends, saves, and invests the
money wisely. but, suppose this person, at the end of every year, is
loaded with debt and all sorts of financial problems. the way for the
government to help this person is to control his finance. indeed, if
many people really want more help from the government and if the
government really wants to make a difference in their lives, it should
focus on controlling the freedoms of those who ask or demand more
help. don't take from the responsible and intelligent and then shower
that money on the foolish and lazy.
now, take this guy who only makes $30,000 a year. if the government
wants to help him, the guy should be put on a program whereupon his
paycheck goes to the government rather than directly to him. for his
own good, the government saves a certain amount in a bank account,
invests a certain amount for the longterm, makes sure his rents and
bills are paid. and, the guy can receive the rest of the paycheck for
whatever he wants to spend on. this way, the government will force
him to be financially responsible. it will take away some of his
freedom since he has demonstrated thru his life that he's incapable of
handling freedom.
this only seems logical, doesn't it? in fact, this is precisely how
divorced fathers are forced--in many cases--to pay for child sup****t.
the solution is not to force everyone to pay higher taxes for the kid
but to force the father of the child to fork over a ****tion of his
paycheck for his kid. since a father who won't sup****t his kid has
proven that he's irresponsible, the government takes away some of his
financial freedom. it puts the burden of freedom and payment on the
person who should pay than on the rest of us.
but instead, political leaders hear all the whining and complaining of
all these americans who overspent, didn't save a penny, wasted their
money, borrowed what they shouldn't have borrowed, lent what they
shouldn't have lent, gambled what they shouldn't have gambled, and
messed up in countless ways. they are seen as poor victims, poor
babies. their idiotic freedoms are left intact. instead, people who
manage their lives properly must pay. responsible people can be rich,
middle class, or even poor. even poor people can manage their finances
sensibly--as many immigrant families do. and, rich people can be
financially irresponsible. this is why it's appalling when businesses,
which gripe and whine about government regulation & interference with
their freedom, demand that governments bail them out when they mess up
royally because of their own idiocies. take the subprime loan
disaster. Bear Stearns chose to be stupid. they insisted on greater
freedom to do as it saw fit. when disaster struck, they were pleading
the government to bail them out. but, it's all those idiots who
bought big houses without any down payment too.
so, we need to think about the relation between freedom and
government. those who demand more freedom must take more
responsibility for their behavior. those who demand more government
must be willing to give up some of their freedom or have it limited.
but, we have people who demand freedom AND more government, and we
have politicians who promise more government but tell the slobs of the
world that they can go on as usual.
many americans suffer not because of lack of job but poor management
of finances. they overspend and fall into debt and then ask the
government to bail them out or sup****t them. meanwhile, they don't
want their freedom touched in anyway. if they really want government
help and if the government really wants to help, the thing to do is to
control or limit the freedom of the irresponsible who ask for more
government help. the government should offer to control the paycheck
of those who complain. so, let the paycheck go to the government.
let the government make sure some of it's saved for the long term--
where it cannot be withdrawn for a few yrs except in cases of
emergency--, some of it goes to pay the rent and utilities, etc.
what's left over will be given to the person.
now, some people always mention the scandanavian success stories. but,
those are much smaller countries with much more homogeneous
populations. norway has a population of 3 million. denmark has 3.5
million. what works for hong kong or singa****e will not work for all
of mainland china. what works for estonia will not necessarily work
for all of russia.
in places like denmark, there's a strong sense of almost familial
community. there's a sense of shared history, culture, values, honor,
ethics. so, there's greater social pressure for those who abuse the
system and less resentment against those pressures.
social sharing among workers with similar values who contribute to the
system is not the same as welfare system in the US where we have
permanent workers who pay for permanent ****rkers.
in a family, a husband and wife practice a kind of socialism. they
share everything. but, it's okay because there's a strong bond and
cultural understanding that goes beyond the economic. there's love,
trust, a sense of togetherness, and shared commitment. smaller, more
homogeneous, and more work-ethic-oriented a society is, there is a
greater sense of shared unity and purpose. this is why social-
democracy has worked, more or less, in scandanavia. but, it won't work
in a place like italy where southern italians will just be happy to
sit around and mooch off the much more industrious northern italians.
and, indeed, such tensions are showing up in scandanavian countries
due to rise of immigration from african and muslim countries who have
no work ethic, no willingness to join the national fabric, and so
on(foreign affairs magazine. march/april 2008).
it's like this. suppose you have 5 roommates who are all work-ethic-
oriented, decent, trustworthy, and considerate. they can practice a
bit of socialism within the apartment they share. they may share the
cost of various things since no one will try to take advantage. they
may share eachother's grocery because everyone fills the refrigerator
with foodstuff. so, if you eat bob's apple today, bob may eat your
apple tomorrow. but, suppose you have 5 roomates where 2 guys don't
wanna work, don't wanna pay the rent, and just wanna mooch off others.
they eat bob's apple and your apple but never fill the fridge with
apples. this kind of socialism cannot work. so, the success of
government-sponsored sharing depends much on culture, values, and
historical context.
|
