A Response to “Accept Help”
October 11th, 2007 | by rocketc |I enjoy reading plonkee for good advice on money and for the perspective from “across the pond”. Here is a recent post where plonkee responds to a comment thread at The Simple Dollar. The post is entitled Accept Help. Plonkee states:
I don’t think you are big and clever for not taking money you are entitled to. I think you are dumb. I feel like saying, ‘don’t think not taking money gets you out of society’s obligations’. Refusing government handouts is like deliberately paying too much tax. You didn’t write the system, they will not spend your money on more important things, I can guarantee that they will pay for things that you don’t approve of. If you take the money then you can choose where to spend it.
Government handouts cause most of the economic problems faced by capitalistic societies. I work very hard to keep my family from “going on the dole”. I think this is the only way to be consistent since I am against every tax increase and every increase in entitlement spending. Welfare, social security, state health care are simply kickbacks from politicians to get the masses to vote for them. They know that there are more poor people or people who think they are poor than there are rich. So they buy the votes of the larger demographic and then use their political position to blackmail the rich into donating to their campaigns or spending money on lavish lobbying. Scottish historian, Alexander Tyler the folowing paragraph before the founding of the United States:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.
That said, I do not believe that it is wrong to take handouts. Many of us will need a gift now and then, I just don’t think that it should come from the government. In our country, there are thousands of charitable organizations who help the poor, the old and the infirm - and they do so for a lot less money, with more compassion and in most instances, with a lot more expertise. Who would you rather have dealing with your elderly parents: a government doctor in a dead-end job who is controlled by a monolithic bureaucracy or a compassionate doctor who is a volunteer or paid by the gifts of generous donors?
I and my family qualify for a whole host of government programs. At the moment, we are holding our own without using them. I can’t say that I will never go on welfare or some other entitlement program, but I will do everything I can to keep from taking the handouts because it is not in the public’s best interest. What would happen to our culture if every person took every government hand-out they possibly could? Who would pay the bills?
I also refuse these handouts because they reduces my motivation to be the best I can be. To save for the future. To exercise good stewardship. To work hard. To use ingenuity and creativity.
I will “accept help”, but not “expect help” to come from the federal government.
Only a couple more days to get 25,000 points from Amex Gold:
Edit: The 25,000 points promotion for the Amex Gold Business Card has ended, but you can still get a great card that will earn great rewards for your business!
9 Responses to “A Response to “Accept Help””
By Trent Hamm on Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
I agree with Plonkee, actually, that someone eligible for a benefit shoudl take it. However, I also agree with you that there’s something inherently wrong with the system when it takes from hard working people and redistributes it.
By plonkee on Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
Naturally, I’m not opposed to some redistribution of wealth, in effect giving some people who have been handicapped by circumstances a fair shot at the competition. For this reason I agree with state-funded education, lots of support for people trying to get into employment.
In other cases, I think that a civilised country doesn’t have people living on the street, or people suffering because they are too poor to get medical care. I don’t live in a civilised country yet, but we are getting there.
Countries that have strong wefare systems (think Scandinavia) are some of the happiest in the world, and I’d rather be happy than rich.
Finally, in the UK at least the people most likely to get government help are those who have the lowest income, they are simultaneously least likely to vote. I don’t think that its the end of democracy (if that’s how you’d describe either of our political systems).
In rebuttal to Alexander Tyler - I’m not sure he’d ever even witnessed democracy so why is he likely to be right. I see neither the USA nor the UK, (nor any other major industrialised democratic nation) becoming dictatorships anytime soon.
By admin on Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
Perhaps the prediction of a dictatorship is too extreme, however I can see that thought and speech are becoming more and more restricted in our society every day.
It is my understanding that Scandinavia is moving way from socialism and more toward a capitalistic type society. Furthermore, does Scandinavia have less of a problem with poverty, drug abuse and homelessness than the US or UK?
I live in what is often termed the “wealthiest nation on the earth”, yet we still have poverty and homelessness. I think that it lend strength to the prophecy made by Christ when he said: “For you always have the poor with you”.
I am certainly not against charity and compassion. I just do not think that those areas are the proper role of government.
I think I feel another post coming. . .
By plonkee on Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
I believe that the standard of living is higher in Scandinavia - I’m sure they have problems with poverty, drug abuse and homelessness. I will merely state that they are happier, and being happy is a good thing.
There is always a tension in European countries between the political left and right wings and it tends to be quite cyclical. I can’t imagine any European country completely abandoning its welfare state - in the UK (not a very socialist country on the whole) certain aspects are sacrosanct even amongst the right wing.
For a wealthy country, there is a large disparity between rich and poor in the States so its no wonder that you still have poverty. Oh, and IMHO government is representative of society, not somehow separate. I want my society to be compassionate.
By admin on Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
Culture and society can be compassionate. Governments do not exist for compassion. I don’t believe that government handouts equal compassion. It seems to me that progressives like taxes and entitlements by way of the government because it absolves them of guilt over the poor without having to do something about the poor themselves. They would rather help the poor through legislation than through privately run charities.
The gap between the rich and poor is greater in socialist countries. Furthermore the standard of living among the poor in a capitalistic society is far greater than that of a socialist nation. The poor in the US suffer from obesity and have cable tv. The poor in most socialist nations suffer from starvation.
By plonkee on Oct 13, 2007 | Reply
It depends how you define socialist. If you mean communist, then that is true in the majority of communist nations (although it wasn’t true in the Soviet Union for example). On the other hand, if you mean like European socialist, then, er, no the poor don’t suffer from starvation.