Monday, June 6, 2011

Helping the Poor

“I think he is a good man.” This was said about President Obama by an individual in a Facebook post about Sarah Palin. He explained that we should consider all opinions about Sarah Palin and keep an open mind about whether she was good enough to be President but that it was indisputable that President Obama is a good man.

Why would anyone consider that President Obama is a good man in a world run by realpolitik, corruption and crony capitalism (fascism)? Obviously, it must be because the President has his heart in the right place. He's just trying to help people, especially the poor and other victims of greed and self-interest. He's just trying to make the world a better place. Anyone with those goals in mind must be a good man.

My response:
“Do you mean that there are still people out there capable of hiding their heads in the sand? "Good man" in what respect? In the desire to take peoples' money away from them and spend it by giving it to his liberal friends and set the foundation for a society that rules our lives as in a dictatorship? Good in the sense that he has no problem using your money to feed his friends? What is your definition of "good"? A thief?”

Of course, I got no answer to my question; just the following:

“I will never understand why helping the poor is so hard for some people.”

There you have it. I’m sure this person is no pol, no lurker paid by the administration to frustrate the Tea Party. He’s probably just an average person with a dishonest mind who sees no problem with re-distributing other peoples’ money. What a nice guy.

Do you understand what he is saying? He has no problem with people taking your money. Well, that's nice of him. He has no problem with making sure that the rich pay “their fair share” as if there is such a thing as a fair share. When it comes to your hard earned money, there is no fair; there is no share; your money is yours to do with as you please; you have no obligation to do what someone else thinks you should do with your money. Yet, this is what goes for an irrefutable argument with the left and the right today. Demand that someone has a duty to give up his money and somehow there is moral power there. I beg to differ.

But what is a worse scandal than the left making these spurious demands is that the right has no argument against it. They simply say, well, you shouldn’t take so much. Here’s my response:

I don't mind helping the poor. I do it when I give them jobs. If I want to donate to them it should be voluntary and not forced through government. What he is really saying is that he doesn't understand why I would protest about having my money taken from me by force. You see, I DO understand THE REAL ISSUE; my individual right to my income should not be violated by anyone even if it would help someone (which it won’t). The idea that theft is being undertaken in order to help someone does not keep the thief out of jail. Why should it justify the state’s confiscation of property or taxes?

There is no social compact, no obligation upon anyone to sacrifice life, time, energy or money at the point of a gun or a law. There is no argument based on reality that can properly justify one man being forced to do anything against his will. It is a proper society that recognizes man's rights and creates freedom. It is a proper society that recognizes that man survives by means of his mind and that any effort to force him to do anything violates his right to the use of his mind and to make his own decisions. Force destroys reason; it invalidates any reason that the individual would have for the pursuit of his values, his life and his pleasures.

Whenever you hear someone say, "I have no problem" about using other peoples' money to solve so-called problems, you are hearing the voice of arrogance and collectivism. Collectivism is not a benign idea that asks people to join in order to solve a common problem. If collectivists were to merely ask people to join, any decision to join would be a voluntary one. Collectivism does not ask; collectivism demands and takes; and in order to take, it must denigrate and insult anyone who dissents. This is why they are always making statements such as: “I will never understand why helping the poor is so hard for some people.”

Look at all the collectivist societies in history and you'll see two related themes, guns pointed at honest citizens and mass graves. This is the collectivism that promises to solve problems. Yet what most people miss is that collectivism is the method for causing the problems the collectivists claim to be fixing. Collectivism creates the poverty it promises to solve and then offers more collectivism and more sacrifice as the solution to new problems it creates.

Today, we are moving headlong into collectivism. Our President admonishes us about private choices and promises to solve "our" collective problem if we would only take on "the spirit of sacrifice". Yet, the economic problems that he blames on capitalism are caused by his own collectivist policies, by the very "spirit of sacrifice" that he offers as the solution. For that reason he should be removed from office in the next election.

This is a nation based on rights and your right to your property should not be violated. Collectivism can only violate rights; it never protects them and it never solves problems. It is immoral for the thief and the government to take your money against your will. It was the Nazis who sent Jews into mass graves because they were considered selfish capitalists who had caused the defeat of Germany in World War 1. It was Stalin who sent businessmen into mass graves because they would not help the poor under his murderous form of welfare state.

It is attitudes that bring people to say "I don't know why you don't want to help the poor" that create those mass graves or destroy peoples' lives slowly by means of bleeding men to death. It is Obama and his policies that are bleeding this country dry because he has support from people who see no problem with forcing others to help the poor (while making a whole nation poor in the process).

Is it that hard for people to understand that no one is being helped through re-distribution especially the poor? Don’t they see that altruism demands that people sacrifice; and that the idea of sacrifice creates the political climate where some people HAVE NO PROBLEM with forcing other people to part with their life blood? It doesn't matter if the sacrifice is the life of the most beautiful virgin or the most productive citizen; it is evil either way. Only thinking men can stop the propagation of ancient ritual sacrifice and the death that it has done for centuries.

Why can’t people see that no one has a right to think it is ok for someone to take YOUR money?. What gives ANYONE the right to be so shallow about YOUR earnings and their use? No one has that right and only an arrogant person/leftist could think he has that right. He did not earn it and no one should vote on what should be done with another person’s earnings.

Republicans should stop agreeing with the liberals on this point and this goes for the Republicans trying to save Medicare and Social Security. They are nothing more than welfare statists; thieves who pretend to themselves that force and coercion can help someone.

No comments:

Post a Comment