Liberals are Compassionate With Other People’s Money
If you ask most liberals why they are liberal you will normally get answers like this-“I care about the needs of the poor and oppressed”, or “I believe that government should work to create a ‘just’ society that provides for the needs of all people.”
Conversely, if you ask liberals what most conservatives believe, they will normally tell you that-“they support the interests of the rich and big corporations”, or “they only want to protect their own wealth and privilege, and are not interested in helping anyone else.”
Although buzz words like “justice” and “equity” are often used by liberals to describe their goals, it soon becomes clear that they are using these words to describe radically different things that you might expect. For example, when liberals say that they are only seeking “justice” for the poor and oppressed, what they normally mean is that the government should take property by force from those who have worked to earn it, and then give it to those who have not. As expressed by the Occupy Wall Street protesters, they believe that the most affluent 1% are oppressing them and others by refusing to share their wealth, and that government should mandate “equity” by redistributing these “excess” profits.
Although these liberals believe that they occupy the “moral high ground”, at bottom their proposals all involve taking money by force from others to do “good” for those who want or need the money, including themselves. If their proposals involved the voluntary giving of their own property or the property of those willing to give, no one would object. If Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or any other person wants to give away all of his own money to help the needy, his sacrifice and generosity might be evidence of personal virtue. However, I am not sure that I see the merit in people who want to do “good” works by using the government to force other people to give away their money.
If I proposed that every citizen should be forced to pay 10% of his or her income to my church, because I am a caring person who believes my church helps people, there would be howls of protest. Those who disagreed with my proposal would rightly argue that they should be allowed to pick their own charities and dispose of their money as they see fit. If they disagreed with my church’s goals or its giving policy, they would argue that there is no reason that they should be forced to contribute their money to my church just because I believe it is the right thing to do. They would also point out that I was an officious inter-meddler, who was attempting to infringe on their rights while falsely claiming to be virtuous by forcing others to conform to my religious vision of “what’s right.”
When analyzed the liberal plans to “help” other people by establishing a “just” distribution of income is exactly the same sort of proposal. They are claiming to be compassionate and caring because they advocate using other people’s money to help the needy. The difference in liberals and conservatives is not whether one believes in helping the poor and the other does not, but whether it is right to take other people’s money by force for the purpose of compelling them to support a cause that liberals believe should be supported. Liberal plans are always about using the power of the State to force others to do what they believe is right. I fail to see any basis for the liberal claim that they are unselfish and compassionate, when their proposals are always aimed at helping someone they favor by stripping others at no cost to themselves.
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=8009