Socialism as Philanthropy

Hello friends,

I recently found myself in a conversation where one of the participants threw out an interesting concept I hadn't previously considered: socialism as philanthropy.  He said that he believes we have a large portion of wealthy, 'liberal-minded' individuals whose idea of charity work is to vote for laws to "end poverty".  I put "end poverty" in quotes because I don't believe it's possible, but that's a discussion for later.

As he expounded on his theory, I listened in wonderment.  I imagined wealthy Senators saying to themselves at night that they didn't need to volunteer at a soup kitchen or donate their money to the local free clinic because they had voted today for universal healthcare.  I could picture in my head all the good it would do if these wealthy individuals gave a fraction of what they say middle America should give, and I remembered that their vote not only states what they believe we should give, but it makes it law through allocating our tax dollars to these causes.  It also forces us to give more as we raise taxes to cover these programs.

I would like to see us go back a century or two.  At one point in time, we remembered that philanthropy was a private act.  Bill Gates, our modern Rockefeller, does more good with his money each year than the entirety of our tax dollars can manage.  Just like John D. Rockefeller, a single wealthy person who gives to charities can accomplish far more than bureaucracies.  There's a reason we name hospital wings and city plazas after these great people; they directly improve the lives of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people.

Government is not a charity organization.  It is there to serve two purposes: wage war and protect the macro-economy.  The first of these is self-explanatory; the second refers to regulating business by just enough to keep any one company from overtaking the country through monopolies or to stop unfair trade practices across state lines, and to the workings of the Treasury to produce a widely accepted legal tender.

The role of government is not to "end poverty", protect us from ourselves, nor regulate what we do in our homes.

As a linguist and writer, I oppose the dreaded SSP (Single Sentence Paragraph).  However, the sentence is important enough to warrant it and to warrant repeating.

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS NOT TO END POVERTY, PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES, NOR REGULATE WHAT WE DO IN OUR HOMES.


As support for this statement, I'll drag up that tired, old document, The Constitution.  This is at the heart of America, and NOWHERE does it say that we have an inalienable right to see a doctor.  Doctors are trained professionals for hire.  What's next: universal plumbing? 

Think about it.  Sewage leaks spread disease and cost Americans millions of dollars each year.  If you cannot bathe because you don't have running water, you are far more likely to contract any number of infections, and it leads to social disability when your stinky self must interact with polite society.  Should we socialize this industry too?  We're already well on our way to socializing both the auto and banking industries.

Let's start accepting that life and the world are not fair, that not everyone gets nor wants the same things.  If you want to feel better about yourself when you go to bed, do something productive with your day.  Feed a homeless person; give a few bucks to your local free clinic.  Voting for a government-regulated medical system isn't philanthropy; it's forcing others to give their hard-earned dollars to your charity of choice.

Until tomorrow,
MK