The general consensus appears to be that all politicians are the same. To some degree, that is true, but there are differences in philosophies of governing. One believes that the people need to be cared for like little children and the other that everyone who can should take care of themselves.
The motives of each in adopting these positions can be challenged legitimately because there can be and actually are multiple reasons for espousing either point of view. The caretakers can believe that it is government's responsibility to take care of its citizens or they may hold this position believing that giving something for nothing will insure them votes and a continuation in power. The other contends that a dependence upon self reliance creates character, promotes self esteem and allows greater freedom for individuals to excel or fail based on there own efforts. They do not deny that some among us are not capable of taking care of themselves, for reasons beyond their control, and do need help. They also believe that it is not government's responsibility to supply that help but that the people as individuals and church or charitable groups should be the ones to provide it with voluntary contributions from the people. In a population which has become accustomed to government handouts (read compulsory contributions from taxpayers), the second group cannot make many friends proposing a cessation of that practice yet they hold that view firmly.
Even when we were in a position to do so, it was wrong to make those who can fend for themselves become dependent upon government. Real people would rather take care of themselves and families and, when necessary, their neighbors. Enslaving people to the government by destroying the need to be self reliant is the technique of communism and robs us of the incentive to be better because it is not allowed nor necessary.
If you can honestly say you would rather be "taken care of" rather than taking care of yourself, then the whole purpose of freedom has eluded you. The founders tried to create a government which would not interfere with our lives but some politicians, in search of power, have discovered ways to convince some to let them into their lives "for their own good". Shame on those who permit that to happen. You sell your freedom too cheaply.
The motives of each in adopting these positions can be challenged legitimately because there can be and actually are multiple reasons for espousing either point of view. The caretakers can believe that it is government's responsibility to take care of its citizens or they may hold this position believing that giving something for nothing will insure them votes and a continuation in power. The other contends that a dependence upon self reliance creates character, promotes self esteem and allows greater freedom for individuals to excel or fail based on there own efforts. They do not deny that some among us are not capable of taking care of themselves, for reasons beyond their control, and do need help. They also believe that it is not government's responsibility to supply that help but that the people as individuals and church or charitable groups should be the ones to provide it with voluntary contributions from the people. In a population which has become accustomed to government handouts (read compulsory contributions from taxpayers), the second group cannot make many friends proposing a cessation of that practice yet they hold that view firmly.
Even when we were in a position to do so, it was wrong to make those who can fend for themselves become dependent upon government. Real people would rather take care of themselves and families and, when necessary, their neighbors. Enslaving people to the government by destroying the need to be self reliant is the technique of communism and robs us of the incentive to be better because it is not allowed nor necessary.
If you can honestly say you would rather be "taken care of" rather than taking care of yourself, then the whole purpose of freedom has eluded you. The founders tried to create a government which would not interfere with our lives but some politicians, in search of power, have discovered ways to convince some to let them into their lives "for their own good". Shame on those who permit that to happen. You sell your freedom too cheaply.
No comments:
Post a Comment