 |
| Source:Liberty Pen- author Thomas Sowell, on the Charlie Rose Show, talking about his book. |
From Liberty Pen
Anytime I here someone or a group of people say that they have a plan or a vision on how to make people's lives better, especially low-income and low-skilled people and they say: "Trust us, you no longer have anything to worry about, we'll take care of you or something." I get skeptical. (To put it mildly)
Who are these great society planners to decide how others should live their own lives and make more people dependent on government for their economic survival? Especially planners who are attempting to plan the lives of others they've never met and never know and in some cases are planning the lives of others from 3000 miles away.
Anytime I here someone or a group of people say that they have a plan or a vision on how to make people's lives better, especially low-income and low-skilled people and they say: "Trust us, you no longer have anything to worry about, we'll take care of you or something." I get skeptical. (To put it mildly)
Who are these great society planners to decide how others should live their own lives and make more people dependent on government for their economic survival? Especially planners who are attempting to plan the lives of others they've never met and never know and in some cases are planning the lives of others from 3000 miles away.
If you want people to be free especially in a free society and especially for people who haven't had a full taste of freedom because they are lets say economically challenged, they simply don't have the money that middle class people and high- earners and to compound the problem, don't have the skills to get a good job to have those advantages, you empower these people to further their education so they can get a good job and live in freedom on their own.
Let economically challenged America be free. Give them the freedom to live their own lives and be able to take care of themselves and their families. Instead of making them dependent on government or more dependent on government, funded by of course taxpayers.
Empower the economically challenged to get the skills that they need to be self-sufficient in life and not need government to take care of them.
All social insurance programs that are designed to help low-income and low-skilled people, should be designed to empower them to take care of themselves. Thats my main issue with the New Deal and Great Society programs, because even though they both provided assistance for people who were economically disadvantaged, they didn't empower them to get the skills that that they need by helping them go back to school or go to school. Or receive additional skills in school to be able to finally take care of themselves. Creating this "culture of dependency" on public assistance for people to survive.
Socialist-Collectivists believe in taxing the rich for one reason: to take from the rich and to give to the poor, like Robin Hood. And they of course have this collectivist view that no one should be rich and be able to make a lot of money. Especially compared to the rest of society, even if their skills and production give them the ability too.
The answer to helping the economically disadvantaged is not to take from wealthy people just to give to low-income people. What we should do instead is to create more wealth.
First, by leaving in the incentives for people to make a good living legally and through hard work.
And to empower low-income people to get the skills that they need to do the same thing. It's the collectivist vs individualist argument.
Liberal economics is about liberating people in need to clime the economic ladder and liberate themselves from poverty. Yes, through some public assistance like short-term financial assistance to help people in need survive short-term. But just as important if not more important empowering people in need to liberate themselves from poverty and live in freedom on their own. That gets to things like education, economic development, and infrastructure. Not to take from people who've already made it to subsidize the economically disadvantaged.
Let economically challenged America be free. Give them the freedom to live their own lives and be able to take care of themselves and their families. Instead of making them dependent on government or more dependent on government, funded by of course taxpayers.
Empower the economically challenged to get the skills that they need to be self-sufficient in life and not need government to take care of them.
All social insurance programs that are designed to help low-income and low-skilled people, should be designed to empower them to take care of themselves. Thats my main issue with the New Deal and Great Society programs, because even though they both provided assistance for people who were economically disadvantaged, they didn't empower them to get the skills that that they need by helping them go back to school or go to school. Or receive additional skills in school to be able to finally take care of themselves. Creating this "culture of dependency" on public assistance for people to survive.
Socialist-Collectivists believe in taxing the rich for one reason: to take from the rich and to give to the poor, like Robin Hood. And they of course have this collectivist view that no one should be rich and be able to make a lot of money. Especially compared to the rest of society, even if their skills and production give them the ability too.
The answer to helping the economically disadvantaged is not to take from wealthy people just to give to low-income people. What we should do instead is to create more wealth.
First, by leaving in the incentives for people to make a good living legally and through hard work.
And to empower low-income people to get the skills that they need to do the same thing. It's the collectivist vs individualist argument.
Liberal economics is about liberating people in need to clime the economic ladder and liberate themselves from poverty. Yes, through some public assistance like short-term financial assistance to help people in need survive short-term. But just as important if not more important empowering people in need to liberate themselves from poverty and live in freedom on their own. That gets to things like education, economic development, and infrastructure. Not to take from people who've already made it to subsidize the economically disadvantaged.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All relevant comments to the post that you're trying to comment on, that don't include spam or personal comments about the author, will be accepted at FRS FreeState.