[MD] Unreality of Equality

[Ham Priday]

Hi Arlo --

>Who is "encouraging dependence on public
> welfare"?  I have yet to see anyone actually
> promote living like this. You seem to believe
> that we have but two options (1) communism
> and (2) no social programs whatsoever.
> Is that right?

Beginning with Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' initiatives in the '60s,
which were patterned after FDR's 'New Deal' and established federal programs
like Medicare and Medicaid, public housing, Affirmative Action, and an
expanded entitlements program, politicans have been running on platforms
designed to micro-manage society at the taxpayers' expense.  Many of these
programs make it economically advantageous for the recipients to remain on
welfare, or live as single parents, thus promulgating the ideology of
victimhood.

Andrew Bernstein has a good handle on the philosophical basis for this
so-called 'progressive movement' in the U.S.

"Its essence is the claim that an individual's thinking and character are
conditioned by his society; that he is immersed in its fundamental concepts
from infancy, absorbing them from his family, the educational system,
religious organizations, the legal system, etc.  An individual is
cognitively, morally and behaviorally molded by society, a helpless
plaything of the group.  Marx added to this theory of social determinism,
claiming that the poor are victims of capitalist oppression, unable to rise
by means of individual thought and effort.  Since the poor are powerless
victims of capitalist exploitation, a benign government must redress the
injustice by redistributing income.  Further, Marx and his contemporary
heirs are philosophical materialists, who hold that man is exclusively
physical and that manual labor is the source of all production.  As
materialists, they believe that man is conditioned specifically by his
economic class and that simply giving people the money necessary to buy
material goods is sufficient to improve their existence.  Poor individuals
then become wards of the state, and are not expected to assume personal
responsibility for their lives."
                --Bernstein: "The Welfare State vs. Values and the Mind"

> And what does a nation that lets its sick die
> and its poor starve lead to?  (Assuming you
> get your no-social program future?).

The will to survive is instinctual in every creature; in man it is supported
by intellect and self-determination.  When society undermines these drives
by supplementing indigence and discouraging the work ethic, it diminishes
the productivity and standards of the nation as a whole.  Charity begins at
home, and a household that fosters personal responsibility and self-reliance
will go a long way toward eradicating the need for public welfare.  Local
communities, not the bureaucrats in Washington, bear the responsibility for
assisting the sick and poverty-stricken members of their society, and the
focus should be aimed at  effective rehabilitation rather than permanent
dependency.  These community efforts are subsidized by Red Feather
organizations like the Red Cross and Salvation Army, as well as numerous
religious and charitable institutions.  I see  little danger of people
starving to death in a responsible community.

Regards,
Ham