Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Liberal Intentions, Reality, and Human Nature

By Douglas V. Gibbs

We all want to change the world for the better.

I think everybody would like to see less destruction, less war, less poverty, less hunger, and so forth. That's the reason conservatives like myself try to be involved in various charities, and their church.

The Left has determined that the best way to change the world for the better is through bigger government. That way, if anybody doesn't want to do it, they can make them do it through mandatory taxation.

Well, here's the problem. Liberalism, by trying to give through government, doesn't take into account the reality of human nature. It all looks good on paper, and they dance around like a bunch of young lords on a deserted island around a rotting pig's head, but they then scratch their heads in amazement when their programs don't proceed exactly as they had envisioned.

The reality of human nature is we often tend to do the wrong thing before we do the right thing. We take advantage of the programs, and so forth.

Some consider me evil for thinking that way. "How dare you, Doug, to think the worst of people!"

I would love to be able to expect the best from humanity. But reality is reality. As a species, we tend to do the wrong thing. Sometimes we do the wrong things for the right reasons, but regardless of the intention, the action is still wrong.

As the old saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

The fact is, in order to initiate the programs the liberals desire, the government must mandate them. And the government needs more power, and money, normally, in order to do so.

Yet, there will always be those that fight the system.

For a moment lets step away from entitlements topic, and discuss war for a moment, and how it fits into this discussion.

The liberal argument is, "I want no war."

I agree. War is bad, war is destructive, war kills innocent people, and war is not exactly inexpensive.

It is my desire, as is the desire of every sane human being on this planet, that war is eliminated, and that a more peaceful means of acting upon this is initiated.

Here's the problem:

You want no war, and I want no war, but the opponent often glorifies war, and is intent on waging war on us, regardless of our feelings regarding the issue.

But it is the madman, or despot, or dictator that is waging war. And regardless of what we feel about war, he (or maybe even possibly "she") is going to initiate that war, and is going to send troops to fight that war, whether you are willing to fight it, or not.

Now, the liberal response is. . . let's just lay down our arms, get rid of our weapons, play "Imagine" by John Lennon, and everyone else will soon follow.

The liberal believes that 9/11 happened because of us supporting Israel, or because we have troops around the world, rather than just accepting the fact that Islam hates us, and wants us all dead.

Laying down arms and negotiating with a big smile of appeasement did not stop Hitler, did not change Stalin's mind, and it won't work on Islam. In fact, refusing to defend ourselves is akin to suicide. Therefore, fighting back is necessary.

Bad guys have risen up before, and each time what brought peace was strength, and the will to defeat them.

If the enemy fears defeat, they will be encouraged to back down, and not attack. If they feel they have an opportunity to gain ground, or win, they will attack.

The tactic of appeasement, and over-negotiation, sends a message that you're weak, that you're not willing to fight, and it gives them the feeling that they should strike. That's the reality of it.

Yes, yes, yes, I agree, war is horrible, and I wish it did not exist. But you have to convince the bad guys of that, and they won't accept it because war is their tool for more power.

They fight, therefore, we must defend ourselves.

Okay, now we can return to entitlement programs. . .

Same theory, really. Our human nature will screw it all up.

If assistance is provided by the government, and if government's attitude is, we will continue to give it as long as you need it, then a part of the people receiving these entitlements will determine that they need the assistance indefinitely, even if they don't.

If assistance is provided by a charity, and it is known that the charity's resources are finite, and provided by the voluntary gifts of everyday people, the receiver is going to usually deem (thanks to human nature) that they need to be a little appreciative, and need to do what it takes to eventually stand on their own two feet. They know the charitable assistance can't last indefinitely, and there are few funds to go around. They know that the gifts are out of the goodness of people's hearts, not the result of mandates by government. Then they pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they become self-sufficient, and later they become involved in giving through charities themselves.

The other problem with entitlement programs, aside from teaching people to become dependent upon the government, is the fact that it costs money, and it is costing the taxpayer now money that we don't have. You can be as giving as you want, but if you don't have the money, there will be no ability to continue. If there is nothing left to spend, we can't continue to do it. So why try to help everybody, when you know there are those taking advantage of the system, when you can reform the system to be more limited, and make it more difficult to receive that help, that way only the most needy are receiving the gifts from the treasure, which will bring down spending, rather than bankrupt the system into the position of not being able to continue?

I mean, if there's no money, there's no money.

All of the best intentions in the world does not create dollars. And all this deficit spending, all of this borrowing, is going to destroy our economy, so that in the end, everybody will be needy, and nobody will receive assistance. Government will have nothing left to give. Then what do you do?

It is time to encourage that the majority of people who use entitlement programs become self-reliant.

That means halting the extension of unemployment benefits, so that people spend a little more energy looking for work, or creating their own source of income.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that everybody is sitting at home milking the system. This is a center-right country, so most Americans are conservative, and I think that most people out there are doing their darndest to make it.

But there are enough people out there that are willing to take advantage of the system to cause problems. There are enough leeches on the system that it is leading us to bankruptcy. And all of the liberal big hearts of the world can't stop an economic collapse once it starts rolling in.

Human nature is reality.

We need to take human nature into account when we let government start doing these things. Human nature, when given free rein, can run out of control.

When it comes to government, we need to not provide dependency upon the government so readily.

Should there be a system of temporary help?

Absolutely. . . through the State governments. You know; small programs that give enough help for those that do indeed face situations that are out of their control.

We shouldn't create systems that encourage dependency upon a government that can't even balance its own budget, much less have policies that are permanent. We can't afford to do that.

If we don't start looking at the reality of the nature of human beings, our entire system is going to collapse, and there won't be anything left to give anybody - we will all be equally miserable.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: