- I support the idea of a good safety net/welfare program for people who need it.
Sorry. That way lies madness. Because it never stops at just a “safety net”. Nice if it would, but it never ends there. We already have multiple levels, layers and forms of “safety net” in the U.S. They all suffer from various degrees of corruption, abuse and/or ineffectiveness. Every communist, “safety net” society of the past has ended badly. On the whole – if the UK and much of Europe are any indication – socialist societies aren’t faring any better, taking the long view.
But just as an experiment, please define need. Be sure to come up with a set of objective rules according to which that need is verifiable – rules that everyone can agree with, so that there will be no controversy later over who qualifies. Next, please explain from whom the wealth will be taken in order to provide for this need, and provide the rules according to which those particular individuals should allow their wealth to be taken (example: just because ‘they have it’ is not sufficient reason). Again, your rules have to be acceptable to everyone, not just the majority. Finally, explain who will administer this process, and be sure to include the mechanism that will guarantee that body remains uncorrupted.
When you’ve done this, you will have accomplished what no marxist or socialist has been able to accomplish in over 100 years. You will have successfully applied the insane tenet underlying marxist socialism, i.e., that wealth should be taken “from each according to his abilities, [and given] to each according to his need”.
All forms of social “safety net” are built upon this insane notion, which ignores – or assumes it’s possible to “re-engineer” – basic human nature. The initial motivation, of course, is always either genuinely or disingenuously altruistic. Whichever is the case, it doesn’t matter, because human nature is a prime catalyst for the Law of Unintended Consequences. Like our planet’s climate, human nature far exceeds human intelligence’s ability to comprehend, let alone control.
The discussion of evidence in this thread is a perfect example of how this works. The ultimate failure of every socialist form of economy – many past, some in progress – shows that ostensibly “democratic” exploitation of the wealthy minority simply doesn’t work over the long term.
In extreme cases, like Khmer Rouge Communism, the entire culture breaks down irretrievably through the outright persecution of the individual liberty and property necessary for individual productivity and prosperity. In less extreme cases, cultural apathy engendered by a “progressive” taxation system – which effectively punishes prosperity as President Obama wishes to do – leads to situations like we see in Eurabia, where European culture is slowly dying out and being replaced by something else. Finally, in nascent examples of this phenomenon, like the U.S., we see rampant abuse, corruption and subsequent, class-based resentment – not to mention manipulation by a growing professional political class for its own ends.
Rand was right about at least one very fundamental thing: no society will survive in which one is forced by the State to live for another’s benefit. That’s a slippery slope that presupposes someone in the society is just enough to make the necessary decisions. It also directly violates the theory of Darwinian Evolution (quite ironically so, given the so-called progressives’ almost religious devotion to it). That is, unnaturally supporting, promoting and perpetuating an inherently unproductive segment of society – one that is demonstrably incapable of caring for itself – will ultimately lead to an entire society that is incapable of caring for itself.
Yes, Darwin’s a bitch – even (especially?) for those who love him.
