Al, Goverment is an abstract term...
You have hit the nail on the head with this. I'll ignore your arguments for Social Security and minimum wage, because I brought up those issues not to argue for their abolishment, but to try and make my original point.
it is the will of me and you and everyone else that lives in a self determined society. Many, and I would submit a majority in this nation, want to do all of the things you mention above and pay the collectively determined share of the bill.
Yes, yes, but the argument isn't over whether we should obey the collective will of the people or not, since that's a given in a democratic society. The argument is over what you think the collective will ought to be.
So the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. An undesirable situation, as I already pointed out to John Fowler. So how should this be remedied? A larger wealth redistribution scheme, cloaked in the appearance of "charity"? Let me tell you that a rich person who is forced to give up more of his or her money toward "wealth redistribution" is not going to consider himself more charitable, because he or she is being forced to donate to an "abstract system" where the money will go towards who know what. Nor will the poor who receive this money feel a sense of gratitude because they are receiving from an "abstract system" that just doles out funny money. It's impersonal, cold, and heartless. It's a system meant to be taken advantage of, especially by those who know how (career politicians, deadbeat welfare recipients, etc.). It's no longer a solution to the fundamental problems of society, but a victim of it, because like you said, it's just a reflection of the collective will of society.
And what are those fundamental problems? That's where the moral decline comes in. You might have trouble drawing a direct connection between Social Security and this decline, but think about why Social Security was instituted in the first place. It was in response to the Great Depression, brought about by the greed and excessive living of the 20's. It was meant to be a relief program, a safety net so that the next time greed and excess comes crashing down, people won't be hit as hard. Look at what it's become, a system we all take for granted, especially those who have been contributing to it for decades. It's no longer a system driven out of humanity and charity. It's turned into an entitlement, a fundamental right guaranteed by "life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," so help you God (or Darwin, or whatever walking fish you worship (j/k)).
Meanwhile, the moral decline continues. Greed and excess sure didn't get cured with Social Security. Poverty wasn't eliminated with that collective "charity" called welfare. People sure don't feel any more charitable today than they did when a lower percentage of their wage was going toward government-institutionalized "charity." As a result, we see more entitlement programs growing and expanding, all to try and cover the symptoms of the fundamental problem. There is value to treating the symptoms, for sure, but when are we going to fix the real problems behind the symptoms? Maybe the first step is to recognize what those problems are, and to stop pretending that the drug is the cure.
Tenchusatsu |
