The big story in the media for a long time (and they're still harping on it) was the botched government response to hurricane Katrina. Yes, you can say it wasn't botched and present all kinds of evidence that it wasn't; maybe you're right, but nevertheless the problem still was there, as it has been in various degrees of seriousness in other disasters. One thing nobody seems to mention is the failure of socialism. The media and the Democrats are busy blaming the Bush administration, the Republicans are busy blaming the state and local governments; but nobody is looking at this situation and what happened and saying "Look at this, this is another example of how socialism doesn't work."
In the 1800s we didn't have big government intruding into people's lives, telling them what they can and cannot do, and taking the responsibility for any disaster. Back then we had widespread "Voluntary Associations" that focused on every social problem under the sun. We had associations for taking care of widows, for ministering in the slums, for looking after immigrants, etc. America was known as one of the most charitable countries in the world. When the Jews wanted help, they came to America; when the Hungarians wanted to put off Hapsburg rule, they came to America because they knew that they would find hearers. The same was true for natural disasters; a voluntary association would be created for that.
All these things were made possible because of the widespread influence of Christianity at that time. The Christian spirit of giving was prevalent everywhere. Government didn't need to get involved. But then, then the organizations began to break up as humanism spread. Neitche set forth the evolutionary worldview of kill or be killed. Charity was considered a weakness, Socialism took the place of the voluntary associations, and government took over.
But this system is highly inefficient. Government isn’t designed for handling the needs of every person in the country. When you replace the free giving and passionate work with forced taxes and reluctant management, the effectiveness of the service is greatly reduced.
Have you ever noticed that the media highlight the people who had to pick everything up again and start over, to get things done? The media highlight them with sorrow and "How could this person not be helped by government?" This shows the weakness of socialism. It creates in the minds of certain people this resignment, of "just let government take care of it," In more conservative states, they are used to fixing it themselves, do it rather effectively (e.g. North Dakota) and save the feds millions of dollars. Why don't they see it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What is "socialism'?
Socialism is a system of government and economics similar, but not identical to communism. Marx said that socialism is the step in between capitalism and communism. Socialism says that the state must take care of everyone's needs and provlide all services (e.g. welfare, education, medicare) In the extreme, it means that all goods produced are shared with everyone else. (e.g. Jamestown, in 1607)
Here's Webster's definition: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Post a Comment