Persuasion by Force

Should we allow government to dictate our behavior in matters that apply only to ourselves? Does government have the responsibility to pick up the slack when we are incapable of taking care of ourselves?

No. Not only does it not have the responsibility. It does not have the moral justification for doing so.

Why? Because in matters that pertain only to ourselves we are the only individual capable of defining "happiness." Even if we are unable to properly ascertain that happiness, no other group or individual has the right to interfere in our pursuit of it.

Others may persuade us to stop writing boring blog posts in order to preserve our dignity, but you cannot lawfully stop me (hahaha!). More to the point, you can advise any civilized person to keep off the ice, use a rubber, or clean the needle, and you can do so with whatever persuasive abilities you have at your disposal; anything short of coercion by force...if not for its complete futility, for its effect of tending to encourage the behavior (children and lawless barbarians who are not receptive to reason excluded, and I know that is most of you - go back to your pit and put the lotion on the skin).

I might go out on a limb and say that one also has the obligation to help friends, family, loved ones and even complete strangers to the degree their resources allow and in whatever manner they see justified. Is this going out on a limb?

So the question is...why can't we just commission government to help friends, family, loved ones and strangers on our behalf? After all, isn't that why we pay all these taxes? Unfortunately, your friendly congressman is just as likely to blow your tax dollars huffing gas as he is using it to effectively reward good teachers. Sniff more glue? YES WE CAN! At a national level, that means doing whatever your billionaire corporate campaign contributers demand. Take the hard earned money we could use to help our neighbors and instead build a bridge to nowhere? YES WE CAN! Eliminate individual sovereignty? YES WE CAN. Perpetuate anti-American sentiment globally? YES WE CAN! Bankrupt the country? YES WE CAN!

Because individuals are far greater at identifying legitimate need than government, they are more effective assessors and distributors of charity because they target the most true and desperate demand. The degree to which individuals are capable of keeping the fruits of their labor and distributing it as they see fit is the primary measure of success for a free society, and central to our personal capacity to respect human rights and help the needy. Only a cruel, heartless population would allow the hungry to starve and homeless to freeze, especially with so much personal prosperity available to help.

If you believe we are a society of such heartless individuals, then you might suspect mandatory theft of a portion of prosperity from everyone is necessary to ensure the protection of basic human rights for the destitute. You might assume we must use government to do it.

But, if we are a society built of such trash, are politicians immune from such an affliction? Or, would politicians be the most tenacious examples of shrewed and unsavory cleverness who managed to claw their way to the top?

Assuming the above is even partly the case, the redistribution of wealth through government would not be weighted on the side of the needy. In such a society, only the very minimum amount of wealth is distributed to the desperate. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE is directed to the privileged few in the elite circle through rampant cronyism. It can be justified because these companies provide jobs, products, and services and it can be argued they are good for the economy. But, government advocacy is NOT the justification for any business - only market demand can validate a company's success. This cooperation between big corporations and government simply deprives small business, the poor, and especially the middle class.

If you believe we are a society of greedy monsters, and want to do something about it, you must starve the beast of government and allow the poor to keep ALL their earnings. You also must allow the middle-class - those who hang out with the poor more than the elite - to keep ALL their earnings so they have the means to help their neighbors and loved ones who run into hard times.

The greedy rich who hoard billions for themselves and their friends must not be allowed to use government to hoard billions more. This is what we allow to happen, and all while we still have enough power to stop them and restore the role of government to its rightful place - to protect OUR life, liberty, and property and not just the privileged few tugging the ropes. Why don't we do it? Oh yeah, because professional politicians spend lifetimes learning how to convince you otherwise for their billionaire friends and are much more convincing than me.

Why listen to the person who has the most to lose? Don't they have the most reason to lie to you? Then, if they are willing to lie, and discover you will let them take your money and liberty, what's stopping them?

To conclude, if the alternative is true, and we are a society of enlightened and charitable individuals, there is no need to take our prosperity in the first place. Personally, I suspect we are willing to accept the responsibilities of freedom already without requiring the outside of force from better men and women than ourselves. Do we need more persuasion to this effect? Absolutely, anything short of force will do.