Sunday, 28 October 2012
Are Conservatives mean?
When it comes to the issue of welfare, and many other socio-economic issues we are often accused of being mean, bigoted, racist, etc., for standing in opposition to left wing programs. Welfare is one of the more sensitive issues, and it is an issue where conservatives get accused of being greedy and/or mean spirited for opposing it. Anyone with an average level IQ or higher should be able to logically discern that the issue is more complex than mean-spiritedness vs. benevolence, but for the sake of enlightenment I will clearly explain what exactly the issue is.
Most of us have been to middle school and graduated from it. Most of us can agree that the issues which are considered important in Middle School are in fact irrelevant, but much of what happens in Middle School is a microcosm for the conflicts one faces in the adult world. Suppose Studant A is flicking Studant B in the ear from behind. Student B tells Student A to stop multiple times, but Student A just keeps it up. Flick, flick, flick, flick... After a while Student B turns around and slaps Student A so hard that everyone in class hears it. Student A is no longer flicking Student B but now Student B is in trouble, and the next thing he knows Student B is the one who is being portrayed as the bad guy. Regardless of what anyone thinks transpired, does Student B's reaction to Student A make Student B a hateful or spiteful person? For the rational person the answer is no, obviously what Student B did was a reaction to the incessant prodding of Student A, and the failure of Student A to stop when told.
The same is true of conservatives. Conservatives are people who wish to either maintain the current socio-economic system, or return to a time in the past when conditions were better. When we are continually prodded by people who wish to take things in a direction which is detrimental to our way of life then of course we are going to react. That being said, any hostility that comes from our side is a defensive reaction rather than an act of pointless hate.
Opposition to Welfare
Our opposition to welfare is not based on greed or spite, but based on the obvious fact that welfare is not voluntary giving, and that such artificial manipulation of the economy has adverse side affects.
Conservatives engage in more voluntary giving than anyone else in the country, especially the religious right, which receives more hate and scorn than any other group, both nationally and internationally. It is a serious and grievous error to equate government redistribution of wealth with voluntary giving, or opposition of such redistribution with greed. One cannot be benevolent with another person's belongings. If I go out and rob a bank, and then give all that money to random people on the streets does that make me benevolent? What if I rob one person who is walking down the streets and give the contents of their wallet to a homeless man? Am I benevolent yet? A rational person would say no. There is no voluntary giving in welfare, the government demands a certain amount of money each year, and if it is not paid then they come in force to take it. I cannot be benevolent with my money if it is being lifted out of my pocket by someone else, because once it is taken out of my pocket it is out of my control what happens to it.
"Oh but we have to help all the poor people!" they say. So help them then, but do it with your own resources. A thief with a cause is still a thief. If you want to give then give, but don't concern yourself with what your neighbor is doing. What he does or does not do is between him and God, not between him and you, and if your neighbor is a successful conservative he is probably giving more than you are anyways.
The accusation that conservatives do not want to "do their part" is as subjective judgment. There is no law of God or nature that states that anyone who does not work is entitled to earnings. In fact, it boggles my mind how on one hand liberals are constantly ridiculing conservatives for not believing in evolution (even though not all conservatives are Christians or believers in ID), while at the same time refusing apply the principles of evolution to real life situations, or to society. If evolution is true, then the absolute worst thing you can do is try to interfere with the process of natural selection, which is the driving engine behind it. At this point I am certain some liberal is tempted to say, "that's mean!" but if you will read my statement closely, I did not advocate anything, I merely pointed out an obvious contradiction. If you refuse to stand by the principles of your own particular belief system then you should not criticize others for not sharing your beliefs.
But I digress, the fact is there is no scientifically proven natural law, or divine law stating that people are entitled to earnings without working. When I refer to natural law I mean actual natural laws, not theories or widely accepted beliefs among "experts." For example, entropy is a natural law.
When it comes to man's laws, they are only as authoritative as there is force to back them, but no law of man can affect the laws of nature, or the laws of God. Therefore, the existence of any given human law does not automatically make that law morally or pragmatically sound. Institutionalized theft is still theft, and it is still immoral.
The impetus behind welfare is not charity or moral outrage, it is a two pronged attack on economic freedom by those who wish to have something without having earned it, and by government elites who are trying to push a socio-economic agenda.
The Purpose of Welfare:
Welfare is nothing more than a state sponsored dysgenics program. There is not one iota of evidence that welfare is something the Founding Fathers intended, or that it is necessary, or that it is having a positive impact on poverty.
If the Founding Fathers intended for such an institution as welfare to exist then they would have established it immediately. The fact that they did not is quite telling. In fact, no one believed that such a thing as welfare was Constitutional or American until the 20th century after it was already established. People were hoodwinked into accepting a socialist program.
Since welfare was established the amount of people on welfare and the sheer numbers of poor people in the country has skyrocketed:
For a program which was ostensibly established to get people back on their feet it has failed miserably, in fact, it has done the opposite of the ostensibly intended affect. This is why I believe that the purpose of welfare is something other than helping people get out of poverty. To the rational person with an average or above average level IQ it should be obvious that when a behavior is incentivised the end result will be a net increase in that behavior. To put it simply, if you pay people to not work then they will continue to not work, if you increase their not-working pay when they have additional children then they will have more children. The result is that there are ever increasing numbers of non-working people who exist off of the state.
The issue is further compounded by immigration, specifically unskilled third world immigration.
Thirteen years after Congress overhauled the American welfare system, 57 percent of immigrants with children — those in the country legally or not — use at least one government, welfare program according to a report released Tuesday by the Center for Immigration Studies.
In comparison, 39 percent of native-born Americans with children are signed up for welfare, the report found.
In Texas, 54 percent of legal immigrants and 70 percent of illegal immigrants receive welfare assistance, with illegal immigrants generally receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, according to the study, written by a think tank that favors reducing immigration into the U.S.
Source: Houston Chronicle http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/04/study-70-of-texas-illegal-immigrant-families-receive-welfare/
Why are we allowing the country to be flooded with so many unskilled immigrants when there is already a good portion of citizens who are perpetually out of work? When it comes to illegal aliens, and arguments about whether or not they have a right to be here, one often hears the argument, "we need them because they work all the jobs that white people don't want to." The fact that we have so many citizens, white, black, whatever, who are not working is a testament to the fact that we do not need hordes of unskilled immigrants each year, and whether or not they want to do the work is immaterial. If their welfare is cut off and they begin to starve then working on a farm or construction site all of a sudden begins to look good. Immigration should be cut absolutely, except in cases of high need, and welfare should be cut at the same time. Those welfare people can then work on the farms and constructions sites, or they can become janitors, fast food workers, warehouse workers, dock workers, etc. With the government no longer incentivising their lifestyle they will have less children, because they will not want to bring more beings into the world than they can support on their own, and our socio-economic system will gradually return to a more balanced state.
But of course this is not what the government wishes to do, especially not left wing politicians. On the one hand they want to continue welfare, and on the other they want to flood the country with unskilled immigrants and allow them to drain from the system as well. The effect is that we have growing numbers of people with low-IQ. The left is notorious for it's preference for cultivating masses of people with low-IQ's. They want to have masses of low IQ individuals who will accept whatever they say or do without questioning. What they want is to be able to tell people a dog is a duck, and have the masses repeat "it's a duck..." like a droning crowd of mindless zombies.
For the time being the left wing leadership insists that these people are entitled to earnings which they did not work for, and that they have a right to be in the US, but as their numbers grow then the system must eventually break. The expenditures necessary to support these people will greatly exceed tax revenues, and the GDP. The end result will be a collapse, which will probably take the form of a communist style revolution, with the left wing leadership carefully inserting themselves as benefactors and leaders of the revolution. At that point the welfare will stop, but the government will have fully established a command economy where private production and ownership of property no longer exist. The amount of low-IQ people will greatly surpass that of intelligent people, so the intelligent people who are not party members will become increasingly irrelevant, and if they complain they will be silenced one way or another.
The man of low IQ is less likely to question the authority structure, and less likely to recognize when depredations are being worked on him or on those around him. If the authorities tell the low-IQ masses that they are better off under the new conditions then the masses will believe them. The intelligent man is more capable of independent thought, and is less likely to view those in the authority structure as inherently superior. As a result he is more likely to question both the actions of the authority structure and the legitimacy of the authority structure, which is why in the long run intelligent people will not be allowed to exist outside of the authority structure.
Nothing I have said here so far should be a shocking revelation, neither is it anything new. These ideas, and concepts have been around since at least the 4th century BC, where ideas which sound as though they were taken directly from George Orwell's "1984" or the "Communist Manifesto" were penned by the Chinese statesman Shang Yang:
Sophistry and cleverness are an aid to lawlessness; rites and music are symptoms of dissipations and licence; kindness and benevolence are the foster-mother of transgressions; employment and promotion of opportunities for the rapacity of the wicked.
(Shang p. 167)
A weak people means a strong state and a strong state means a weak people.
(Shang p. 222)
The motives of the left wing leadership are inherently tyrannical, and geared entirely towards establishing permanent rule. That is how it has always been throughout history, and that is why the execution of intelligent people is a common theme throughout every single communist regime. The only people a tyrannical regime has to be nice to are it's military. If the country is populated by low-IQ persons then they will accept as good whatever the regime tells them is good.
The agenda of the left wing leadership and the type of society it will culminate in is best lined out in George Orwell's book "1984."
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested only in power. Not wealth or luxary or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.
(Orwell, p. 302)
Although 1984 is fiction, we can see that it is based in historical fact. If one steps back and objectively examines the effects of left wing policies, not the stated purposes and goals, but the actual effects, then it becomes obvious what sort of socio-economic structure is on the horizon. All of this madness that is going on now has to be stopped.
I have had liberals tell me that if we cut off the welfare these people will riot and come after us. I do not believe that they will. People of low IQ do not originate revolutions, and if they get stirred up over something then it is their own neighborhoods which bear the brunt of their wrath. Without direction they are only dangerous in the places where they live. But, for the sake of argument, suppose they do decide to spread out from their areas to loot and kill? That's why we have police with guns, and we as citizens are also allowed to have guns. If you are worried, get some guns, stockpile some bullets, and shoot at them from the windows of your house when they come. But again, I do not believe it will come to that. Worst case scenario they will wreck their own neighborhoods, and after the initial spasm we can work on returning to the age of private charities, and we can establish better trade schools for these people.