November 4, 2013
Shouldn’t we embrace Obamacare and wealth redistribution? Afterall, isn’t it the Christian concept of caring for the least among us as Moral Monday protestors suggest?
Let’s say a fellow is hungry and asks for your sandwich. You decide to give it to him. Each understands the moral sense of this exchange.
Now let’s say instead that Obama comes along. He puts a gun to your head and forces you to give up your sandwich. Although the outcome is the same, the transaction is different.
When government is involved there is an element of compulsion. Then it is no longer a moral transaction, but a compulsory one. The compulsory effect strips virtue from it, according to best-selling author Dinesh D’Souza.
The recipient of the sandwich is left with neither gratitude nor a moral obligation to improve his situation. In fact, he is left with a feeling of entitlement. Instead of one sandwich, he soon begins to feel he should be given several.
As for the giver, he deserves no moral credit for giving unwillingly. Moral elements such as charity and gratitude are actually removed when an invisible caretaker exists. And as long as a paternal caretaker exists, many will take advantage as long as possible.
Studies support this natural behavior. Denmark demonstrated that the longer unemployment benefits were provided, the longer it took someone to find work. So, Denmark keeps shortening the length of benefits. Each time the unemployment rate soon matches benefits. When benefits were five years, it took five years for a person to find a job. When shortened to four, it took four. Shorten it to one year and guess what happens? Nanny state Denmark is running away from socialism as America is running toward it.
Adding insult to injury, the elected overseers of moral discretion are immune. Redistribution laws enacted by Congress do not apply to them. They give your money, not theirs. You comply with health care laws, not them. Congress gets a waiver, along with many unions and companies. Moral obligation is selective. Why? Because any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can certainly depend on Paul’s continued support.
Clearly government compulsion was never intended to be an element of a moral transaction. It contaminates the act and unintended consequences result. It is stunning that Democrats embrace forcing productive members of society to give up more and more of the results of their labor then declare themselves morally superior and productive members somehow evil.
Let’s be clear. Republicans don’t deny the core Christian concept. It’s just that Democratic policies subvert it.
D’Souza recently illustrated that since the birth of our nation, people have been pulling the wagon. Obviously, there are some who are disadvantaged and have to sit in the wagon while others pull. We can argue over how many should be in the wagon, but the fact remains that more and more people are getting in the wagon.
Soon more people will be sitting in the wagon than are pulling. The subversion is that Democrats actually demonize the sacrificial ones pulling. Again, some have no choice to sit, but entitlement mentalities make sitting rather than pulling a conscious rather than involuntary choice. This should infuriate the truly disadvantaged as incentives are dysfunctional.
It is an inverted morality. It does harm to those in the wagon, creates dependency and alienates those left pulling who should be praised not punished.
When government inverts morality, more people want to be in the wagon than pulling it. It undermines productivity and society.
History is clear. Democratic policies do not redistribute wealth as much as they eliminate it. Capitalism is the only methodology proven to provide more sandwiches, help folks out of the wagon while honestly spreading the wealth. Unfortunately, Republicans are fast becoming the only ones committed to preserving capitalistic freedom.
It’s capitalistic models that create productive societies. Not socialistic ones.
Phillip Stephens is the chairman of the Robeson County Republican Party.