The basic problem isn't politics, the basic problem is the difference betwen people: there are leaders and there are followers (I was going to say 'sheep' but that would have been an oversimplification since some of the followers are more rampant wolf than lamb); there are entrepreneurs and also those who need to have work handed them on a plate with strictly defined functions for them to fulfil. I know this for a fact, having worked for years in engineering on both floor and in office as well as internal photo-unit. Nothing in life is a fit-all when it comes to earning one's keep; talents lie in different capabilties, aspirations and possibilities, too. You can give that golden opportunity to the wrong person and it isn't even seen for what it is. You can't train people to be that sort of on-the-ball person that business demands - all you can do is help those in possession of the ability along the way a little bit.
Trouble is, with so much populist support for state intervention in everyday life, people come to believe that the state not only could, but should supply all the answers to a happy life. That's patently absurd, because the state has no money: it can only screw it out of those who produce the environment that allows production to flourish and folks to be needed to do something for which they can get paid. And those folks creating the opportunities/needs, unfortunately for the left, are the very entrepreneurs the left so despises.
Mention’s been made of whether such things as fire departments, hospitals, schools etc. should be state responsibilities. I think that they should be, and that they should all be well funded in order to keep the nation at a decent level of health and optimism, without which nothing works well. It’s insane to imagine that the less talented and the very poor should be allowed to die off in the gutters of our cities; those people are there because of all manner of problems and you can’t pigeonhole people quite as easily as that.
The above does not imply that there should, then, be no private alternatives to the services of state. Many can and wish to provide for private medical care etc. and why should they be denied their right to buy that? Just envy?
Where state should be more active in being careful is in where it disperses the ‘social funding’ at its disposal. Paying money to those who simply don’t want a job isn’t an option, in my view, even though it is a reality. If you are unemployed and get state funds to tide you over – or even to maintain that state of official unemployment as a way of life – you should be required to do whatever menial jobs the state needs doing. You could be an out of work accountant, but your city needs the streets cleaned: so do it in exchange for your unemployment benefit. Pride and ego shouldn’t be factors when it comes to the taxpayer helping you out: do what needs to be done to help the community, even if you might bump into your neighbour parking his Mercedes just where you have your garbage truck. It could be his turn tomorrow – little call for his gloating at your troubles.
So maybe it's also partly the fault of the American Dream, where you are supposed to be No.1 and coming in 2nd is failure. That's crazy: as long as you survive at a decent level you should feel happy within yourself, and if you don't the problem lies in you, not anyone else and not any system of governance.
Should the day arrive when children all come from baby farms, then yes, the state will be your mama and papa and should then provide you with your keep. I think that's been pretty well tried, more or less, and where did it get anyone?
Rob C
