It's Bad Enough Being Wrong

Good intentions are, tautologically speaking, good. But they are way overrated. I would venture a guess that most of the world's mistakes have been made with the best of intentions.

Today a lot of folks make themselves feel good by talking about how we can help the poor, the sick, the disadvantaged, by shifting money around. And this conversation almost exclusively involves one mechanism: The US Federal Government, aka Wealth Moving and Storage.

I know this greatly simplifies the "Progressive" movement, but it is accurate. The Church (any church) has been dismissed as an arcane maintainer of the status-quo (at best) and a hypocritical corrupter of society's moral fiber (at worst) . . . and is certainly no longer viewed by the mainstream as a legitimate provider to the needy. Progressives give lip service to other private charities and organizations, but real "change" has to come through the government.

This thought process can be broken down into 3 stages:

1) A desire to help the downtrodden
2) The belief that you are helping by making unearned resources available to them
3) The conclusion that government is the best (only?) way to implement this

Few people will disagree with #1. I'm all for it. Sign me up.

Things get tricky with #2. As a parent, I see every day the danger of giving kids too much versus teaching them that things of value must be earned. I have seen far too many recipients of welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps or subsidized housing become institutionalized, never learning that such dependence is not normal. Prolonged addiction (to anything) can skew a person's view of reality.

There is a role for charity in a civilized society and it is almost always best done locally. Help someone when they are down on their luck, but don't cripple them by making help permanently available. Raise expectations and humans almost always respond. Making unearned resources available to someone should be a last resort, for a limited time.

But, rational, intelligent people can disagree on this. There are different points of view and ways to explore ideas. I have an opinion, but others do also. I respect that. I might be wrong.

Point #3 is not tricky, not at all. If you believe that making unearned resources available to a certain class of people is proper and best . . . fine. I disagree, but fine. However, when you promote the involuntary confiscation of wealth in order to put your vision into practice, then you've crossed the line. You've gone from being wrong to being a thief. Or, one who votes for thieves.

Progressives (née "liberals") are so sure, so righteous, that their way is best, they lose no sleep. They would never (well, most would never) sneak into a house at night to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but they have no problem enabling the democratic process to do so.

There are many ways to help the poor, to educate, to elevate. But none of them can be accomplished without cooperation from the recipient, a desire to grow beyond the need for help. To proceed without such cooperation and through a government program, sadly, is just a waste of everyone's time and money . . . both of which were stolen.