Home | Editorials | More of the left's hypocrisy

More of the left's hypocrisy

By
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

Very rarely do I read anything by the New York Times’ so-called "economist" and columnist Paul Krugman with which I agree, even a little. Recently however I read one of his columns, "A Tale of Two Moralities", and thought he made some points about our current political divide which were not too far off the mark. At least some of them. Conclusions, well that’s a different matter.

He stated "that we are a deeply divided nation and are likely to remain one for a long time." Not much to disagree with there. He went on to add, "And the real challenge we face is not how to resolve our differences – something that won’t happen any time soon – but how to keep the expression of those differences within bounds." Not too much to disagree with there either. Listen up, liberals.

I also thought his description of the two sides of current political philosophy were pretty much on track.

For example, "One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state – a private enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net – morally superior to the capitalism . . . we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

"The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical imposition on their liberty."

You can certainly guess I strongly disagree with the use of "violent rhetoric" as the right has no monopoly on that; however, I believe the rest of his observation is pretty accurate. More to come later on the left’s history of violence.

I believe it’s incumbent on each of us to do as individuals what we can to help the less fortunate, the really deserving less fortunate. Some are in that circumstance simply because they weren’t blessed with the wherewithal to accomplish much or have suffered a catastrophic situation in their lives that rendered them incapable.

Some are in that circumstance because of a lifetime of bad decisions. They made a decision to use drugs, abuse alcohol, not to finish school, to engage in unprotected sex, and on and on. Each of us must accept responsibility for the outcomes our decisions bring us. It’s those who have made bad decisions in their lives, aren’t accepting that responsibility and have their hands out, I have the most trouble accepting a need for assistance.

I do not believe it is the proper role of government to be in the "charity" business. It’s not up to government to determine who is and who is not worthy of assistance. That decision must be made by the individual, and as individuals we can give whatever amounts we deem appropriate for the assistance of the less fortunate. Besides that the Constitution contains no delegated authority from the states or the people allowing government to be in the charity business.

Churches have, I believe for the most part, abdicated their responsibility to care for the less fortunate to government in spite of the admonition that charity is a part of each Christian’s duty. Christ’s admonition to help the poor was given to individual believers, and he did not implore government to take from them to do it.

So, leftists like Paul Krugman see this current divide as an issue of political morality. The left is more moral because of their belief government should tax others to spread the wealth. The right is less moral, or even amoral, because they see charity as an individual imperative. As Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

I heard Howard Dean tell an interviewer it’s government’s role to redistribute wealth. He likened taxes to build roads, court houses, and other governmental functions as wealth redistribution. I disagree with that. Redistribution to me means taking from one and giving to another simply because they exist, and I think that’s wrong.

Our country was founded on a strong belief in private property. What one earns by the sweat of their brow is no less one’s private property than their home or auto. It’s plain the left has no regard for that opinion which is why we disagree with them so strongly.


Subscribe to comments feed Comments (0 posted)

total: | displaying:

Post your comment

  • Bold
  • Italic
  • Underline
  • Quote

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Captcha

Log in

  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Tagged as:

No tags for this article

Rate this article

1.00
Powered by Vivvo CMS v4.5.2