mrparx ([info]mrparx) wrote,

How Chaos is Born

First of all, here is an article attributing the lawlessness in New Orleans to the welfare state.  The author makes some good points, but it is an incomplete analysis.  The gist of the essay is that people who have never owned anything have no concerns as to what might happen to their property.  People who have been taken care of by the government will expect to be taken care of by the government in a crisis.  People who have never concerned themselves with the state of their business will not hesitate to loot from abandoned businesses. 

And the missing piece is this:  People who do not have social supports are repeatedly stranded.  If a hurricane were to destroy my home in Savannah, I can, without thinking, name 10 families in Atlanta and other cities who would take my family in. I have those social supports, as does my wife, as do our parents.  Because we would take in any of those families without question.  People who sever ties with friends, who choose to never align themselves with any group, church, or culture, have nowhere to turn in times of crisis. 

When I'm counseling someone homeless, I often suggest that they begin affiliating with a church.  Not because religion will help them, though it certainly might, but because religious people like to help people.  And they start with their own.  Additionally, such associations tend to make better people of the clients, too.  They want to be able to return favors that were from individuals, not government.  Wanting to do for others is the cornerstone of a civilized society.  After all, if you never consider anything larger than yourself, larger than your own life, what would stop you from looting?

Of course, that was the theory behind welfare in the first place.  We're a civilized society, so we should do for those less fortunate.  The problem is that if such charity is filtered through government, those who give (more exactly, are forced to give) resent it, and those who receive have no one to feel indebted to, so there is no motivation to return the favor.  That's how entitlement starts.  The government creates various programs (for instance, job training programs for single-mother recipients of TANF - Temporary Aid to Needy Families.  However, the funding for the programs were based on certain data analyses, and presumed that anyone qualified for the programs would certainly participate.  They don't.  And what happens is, social workers who are depending on these programs to stay employed will go out of their way to recruit women into them.  It happens when food stamp recipients don't meet expectations, too.  Your tax dollars are paying people to find people to give more of your tax dollars to.  I've seen it a hundred times. 

So, when people are coming to you, asking you to please take this government money, are you going to say no thank you, I've already got a job busing tables?  Or will you realize that the government money comes with health benefits, direct deposit, job training, and a retirement plan, and decide that maybe working is just what other people do. 

But when someone opens their own door, doesn't just feed you but sits down and eats with you, brings down clean sheets that they washed, and makes up the sofa bed for you, you're a little more inclined to accept as little of their hospitality as you have to, and to pay it back in whatever way you can.  But entitlement breeds resentment and contempt.  Like the guest who acted like you were just expected to provide for them, letting you know which piles of their laundry need to be washed on cold.  You will not be so quick to offer your home to them next time.

Well, that's what appears to me to be happening in New Orleans and around the world.  Your thoughts?

Best,
Mr. P.




Tags: current events

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 6 comments

[info]badblood44

September 6 2005, 10:05:46 UTC 6 years ago

Your analysis is spot on. I couldn't agree more.

[info]mrparx

September 6 2005, 13:06:09 UTC 6 years ago

Thanks, Blood!

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for the comment.

Best,
Mr. P.

Anonymous

September 7 2005, 08:46:07 UTC 6 years ago

The money tree

Very insightful Mr P. It comes down to peoples hearts, their motives. Too bad you can't see those in an x-ray. As long as there are givers, those who truly need will be taken care of, but there will always be those who just take and never give back. We have all been in a position of needing help at one time or another but we should way more often be the helper. That is how it should work but some people just don't get it. Sad for them.
Thanks for the insights.

Anonymous

September 11 2005, 13:46:51 UTC 6 years ago

Swimming class 101

What happened in New Orleans was an example of Social Darwinism in action. A virulent disease, a war, a killing frost, a flood, it matters not. People select themselves for extinction by sitting on their brains, as it were, or by as you point out, failing to align themselves with groups who can help. Notice here, I said, "who can help". They can throw in all they want with people whose only commonality is the color of their skin, but how far will that get them when they need something a bit less general, or esoteric. This is in part a response to the claim that the lack of timely aid was somehow due to the fact that the afflicted were mostly black. One might well notice that their leaders (i.e, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.) did not show up to support "their" people until after the federal aid was on the way. Why didn't THEY go to New Orleans the days BEFORE the hurricane struck to make sure all their people had a way out? Why didn't THEY work with the local officials to make sure that systems were operational to ensure that the weakest of their
group were taken care of? Isn't that what leaders of a group claiming to be looking out for their members best interests do? Mind you, those are the leaders who perpetually claim MORAL superiority over the leaders they are now blaming AFTER THE FACT for not reacting quickly enough. Where was THEIR great society in action, when all along they claim to have the principle voice of representation for "their" people?

Imagine how better off I'D BE in New Orleans if the extent of my social and political support was based purely on the color of MY skin. Fact is, I am of a ruddy Scottish/English/French complexion which apparently lends a greater bouyancy to my frame. In short, I would have to swim, too. Indeed, I would give a salute as I jumped into the water, for unlike my whining compatriots, I am under no illusions about the extent of philanthropy MY skin color engenders.
Nor, in fact, am I offended by that FACT. Funny thing though, as cheap as they are, one would have thought that there COULD have been, at least, a few more Mae Wests on hand. You know - for the people who sat on their brains during swimming class.

- Sir K.





[info]mrparx

September 15 2005, 09:11:48 UTC 6 years ago

Re: Swimming class 101

This only marginally addresses your commment, but I just read a nice piece in TownHall (http://www.townhall.com) by Chuck Colson:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/chuckcolson/cc20050914.shtml

There are those who gain much by giving. And then there are those who haven't realized how much is to be gained by giving.

Best,
Mr. P.

PS - if you're going to TownHall.com anyway, read Thomas Sowell's (as always) beautiful logic, and even Ann Coulter makes excellent points with a little less venom.

Anonymous

September 15 2005, 13:41:26 UTC 6 years ago

Re: Swimming class 101

What I said was that my skin color does not engender charity. I should not assume that it will buy me any. I made no comments about
whether that was good or bad. I did not say that I or anyone being of my complexion would not help, either. Perhaps I would lead the on site orientation part of Swimming 101, on drown proofing. It is the expectation of government assistance as a recipient to which both you and I responded. OK, government molly coddling or tax funded assistance vs. real government sanctioned tax exempt charity, split hairs if you will, but people who think you should do all of your charitable tithing at the government treasury office believe that if you WERE of a charitable mind, you wouldn't mind FORCING others to be so as well. I am not suggesting that it is right, just that that is the way the sentiment runs. I personally donate to MAPS. My conscience is clear. I don't do it to feel good. I have habanero for that.

- Sir K.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…