I try to remind people as frequently as possible that I am a heartless bastard. The truth of the matter is that I'm really just not stupid enough to be so generous that it hurts. Sometimes being smart means that you have to make some tough calls.
I'm listening to a radio show right now called Handle on the Law. Bill Handle is the host and he gives out "marginal legal advice" to callers. I don't really like listening to him much because he yells a lot, but on the other hand he does give out "marginal legal advice" and where else can I get that?
Anyway, a caller just told him that her father died one week after his $100K life insurance policy expired. She wanted to know if she had any legal recourse for making a claim against the policy. Bill told her 'no.' I would add 'duh.'
It's most unfortunate that the man died and it is even more unfortunate that his timing (and financial planning) was so bad. But what difference does that make to the insurance company? They weren't paid to write $100K check out to strangers and when the policy expired that poor man essentially became a stranger to the company. His estate has as much claim against his company as they would any other company out there.
Insurance companies aren't charities. If that lady wants money because her dad died, why doesn't she go ask a charity? Because there's no guarantee that they will give it to her either. She sagely recognizes that no one owes her any money at all and the only way she can be sure to get a payout is if she takes it by force.
I object to this.
I don't object to people giving their time, money, energy, and ideas away for free if they want. I have a problem with forcing people to do that, though. There's a word for taking money from people: stealing.
It's just a fact of reality that unfortunate things, like fires, tornados, earthquakes, meteor impacts, and stock market crashes, will happen to people. It's also a fact of reality that some people insist on being incredibly stupid and they get hurt for it. Examples of stupidity exist in infinite permutations.
Either way a great need is created but everyone's rights are intact.
Let's make sure we're clear on that point before we proceed; rights can only be violated by the action of another person. The Laws of Physics cannot violate your rights. Your jaw-dropping idiocy does not violate your rights. Even being in a state of ignorance is not a violation of your rights.
Nevertheless, there are people who suffer and they suffer greatly. Most people are not immune to having their heartstrings yanked by images of great pain and misfortune. Most people want to help other people out when trouble comes their way. They do so not out of complete altruism but also out of a hope that if something bad happens others will show compassion and generosity in return.
Fine.
But there is no reason any individual must help those who suffer.
When the government steps in to force citizens to practice generosity it is more than simple political stupidity at work; a case can be made for malice.
In politics, there is no addage more chilling than the one coined by Marx. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." And when the government comes to practice enforcing generosity it is no surprise that the number of sob stories across the board sky-rocket. Once suffering becomes something rewarded ability become scarce. Like stupidity, there is no end to need.
Update: I was just reading an article by Thomas Sowell with this very apt line:
California has long had more than its fair share of busybodies with a vision of the world in which it is necessary for them to force other people to do Good Things. That is not just a vision of the world, it is a vision of themselves -- a very flattering vision that they are not likely to give up for anything so mundane as facts or logic.Posted by Flibbertigibbet at October 17, 2004 02:58 PM
Yes, heartless bastard. :) I understand what you are saying and see the point. I just think that if you depend on an altruistic society to take care of those who are in true need, the buck will get passed. Sure I could give the homeless guy on the corner my spare change, but surely someone else will come along and do it, so why should I?
Posted by: Britton at October 18, 2004 10:01 AMSo what if the buck gets passed?
Are you saying that you prefer the security of slavery over the opportunities of freedom?
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at October 18, 2004 06:59 PMI am sorry but I am calling people like you,Britton,a selfish bastard.Selfish bastards are the reason for many,many bad things in this country.
However,I DO prefer the opportunities of freedom myself so I guess I have to let you off of the hook...
I'm not sure which I'd prefer honestly. I don't think there is freedom of opportunity in this country. I just don't think we're very much, very good people, to not want to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. If there is a way to do it that doesn't involve forced assistance, I'd be okay with that. But I don't think I'd like this country very much if we didn't feel some obligation to our neighbors. I can't help but think that. If I thought it work otherwise, I'd be okay with it.
As for LW's post, I have zero clue what you're talking about so I'll just ignore it.
Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 10:23 AMThats exactly my point:you have absolutely NO clue!
Posted by: LW at October 19, 2004 12:43 PMThere's no such thing as "freedom of opportunity" and the government isn't here to make sure that we're "good people."
But no further discussion is really possible given that you aren't sure which you'd prefer when choosing between freedom and slavery.
You should look into that. Really.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at October 19, 2004 01:41 PMIt's easy to criticize the way things are when you have no suggestion for how things should be. Or how you should get there.
And I don't agree with your choices...those aren't the only choices. It's not so black and white. And if you feel the government isn't here to make sure we are "good people" then 1. what is it here for? and 2. who is the person who defines who it is here for? don't we decide what our government is here for and what it is not?
Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 02:09 PMLW-
"I'm calling you a selfish bastard...selfish bastards are the reason for many many bad things in this country." What kind of argument is that? It seems its just name calling to me which is childish. I don't respond well to that.
Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 02:10 PMI personally take the remark as flattery. Not sure why she likes you so much, Brit.
And you didn't ank me for a solution here (Although I have one - Cease and Desist!)
Individual rights are not negotiable. The purpose and function of government is dependent upon that fact. The only way this country has voted itself into its current condition is by ignoring that fact and violating individual rights; the very foundation of our Constitution.
So, to answer your questions:
1) The government is here to protect the rights of individuals from force or fraud.
2) Reality has defined proper governance as such. It is simply an objective fact; no person made it so.
3) We do not get to change the facts of reality. We can attempt to ignore them but only at sometimes dire costs. In the case of violating the rights of individuals, the result is tyranny and despotism. (It's also key to note that one cannot vote away one's own rights any more than a person can sell himself into slavery.)
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at October 19, 2004 03:24 PMSun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
30 |