Ramona, jcmd, people don't give money to the poor or take money from the rich out of pity, they do so out of guilt. The economic difference between liberals and conservatives is that the left feels guilty for achieving success and the right feels proud for achieving success; neither is virtuous. People should not be demanded by other people to give charity to those in need. And people should be perfectly willing to give some of what they have in order to support those in need. In essence, the decision for the rich to support the poor should always be the individual, personal decision of the person giving, and yet giving is still compulsory. Somewhere between guilt and pride lies compassion.
And keep in mind that even though being a welfare reciepient isn't something for a person to be proud of, they shouldn't feel guilty either. The system is there to put people back on track, and it usually works like it's supposed to. Though it isn't always possible for the welfare system to operate on the principle of compassion, the government should behave as if it did. There are many who abuse the system, but maybe they'd be more motivated to get off welfare if those government checks weren't treated like a God-given right by liberals and a waste of funds by conservatives. Maybe if rich people gave willingly then poor people would recieve graciously. In truth, 'redistribution of wealth' is a misnomer, welfare was never intended to promote socialism. Unfortunatly it has that potential and because of that some people think it should be socialized and others think it should be done away with all together, both groups are dead wrong.
The government does give and it does take, and often it does too much of both. But when we realize that it is as Lincoln said 'a government of the people, by the people, and for the people' then we begin to understand that some of its functions are redundant and can be handled without a supreme authority dictating our conscience. Charity is a prime example of that fact, because welfare is nothing more than our collective will codified into law. The next step becomes obvious, it isn't the welfare system that needs reform but the welfare proponents and beneficiaries who need to change the way they see the situation. The law will eventually change, it always does, and it will accuratly reflect our preconcieved notions. As long as we recognise charity as the legimate child of compassion then those laws will be burdons easily borne and rarely abused.
|