Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

More Liberal Hypocrisy

More Liberal Hypocrisy

An interesting comment I found on the response to another blogger:

It is the government’s job to ensure that people have jobs and a place to live.

That is an excelent summation of the mindset of many of the left in America. And it is horrendously untrue. Add to that that it shows the hypocrisy of the left, yet again, in light of one of our more current controversies.

The argument from the left in the Terri Schiavo case centered heavily on Ms. Schiavo's inability to feed herself or provide her own self care. Because Ms. Schiavo was unable to do so, liberal pundits decreed, all sustenance must be withheld from her.

When that logic is applied to the situation of the poor in this country (expecting them to provide for themselves), the left quickly switches sides. The government, they demand, should create jobs even for the people unwilling to work for them, the government should provide housing for those unwilling to find their own.

The problem is, the government HAS no such liability. To add to that, neither do we have a MORAL responsibility to provide for people who are COMPLETELY unwilling to provide for themselves. Should food banks be required to deliver food, since some people don't want to get off their asses and go to the food banks? Should people be given a nominal job when all they're going to do is sit at a table staring at the wall?

I could take this argument further and argue that it's simply a matter of survival of the fittest, but that would assume that all leftists are Darwinists; experience has told me this is far from the case (although it's a compelling argument for those who ARE). I could further state that the "Protestant work ethic" does revolve around a standard of doing SOMETHING to provide for yourself, but that would equally assume that all leftists are Protestant Christians; again, experience refutes me on this, although again, the argument is equally compelling.

I WILL, however, state that individual responsibility is essential for individual freedoms. If we wish to have a socialist society where every need is provided by the government, we cannot have liberty. And if we are to have liberty, we must have individual responsibility. Benjamin Franklin said it well in an almost overquoted statement that "he who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserves and receives neither" (a paraphrase). Insisting that the government provide homes and jobs is a sacrifice of liberty for security. Sadly, for most of the American left, it is demanding the sacrifice come from OTHERS without sacrificing your own comforts.

We must eradicate the mindset that we are responsible for providing a living for others. Until we return to a nation of individual accountability and responsibility, we will all continue to suffer, and we will be weaker for it.

5,800 views 56 replies
Reply #51 Top

I would be all for supporting such an organization if it could prove it's overhead was the bare minimum and that it's programs were feasible.

Mason,

Interestingly enough, I already issued the challenge. My requirements were that they could allocate no more than 10% to admin, and that aid recipients had to meet basic human rights standards, among other things. I promised an initial $10 donation with more to come, and to use my blogs to promote the charity as heavily as I could.

Incidentally, I've had no takers. That $10 looks mighty safe (and Pizza Hut DOES have a good pizza deal...but I digress).

Reply #52 Top

no...the real issue was whether the government can involve itself in one of the most personal decisions a person can make.

Wrong, king...and the error of this statement has been pointed out so many times to you that it doesn't bear repeating.

Reply #53 Top
Wrong, king...and the error of this statement has been pointed out so many times to you that it doesn't bear repeating


nobody seems to have informed the libertarian party of it's error. Link


as they put it:

Libertarians and the majority of America can agree that the federal intervention attempted by congressional Republicans stepped over the line into not only a private family matter, but an issue to be decided by the state of Florida.
Reply #54 Top
nobody seems to have informed the libertarian party of it's error. Link


as they put it:

Libertarians and the majority of America can agree that the federal intervention attempted by congressional Republicans stepped over the line into not only a private family matter, but an issue to be decided by the state of Florida.


King,

The LP is NOT considered the "American Left". My statement was, and IS that the arguments of the American left centered HEAVILY (as in, NOT exclusively) on that issue. It's not your usual tactic to hijack a thread in this manner. Your response was off topic.

I DO agree (and have said so repeatedly) that the Republicans stepped over the line but, (since you insist on making this the topic of this article) also wonder where the leftists crying "states' rights" have been while states' rights have been consistently challenged by the left in almost every other area (tangential, but it's YOUR red herring, after all!). This article wasn't about Ms. Schiavo; that was used as a key illustration, yes, but this article is about the consistent hypocrisy of the left (come to think of it, my response about states' rights isn't all that tangential, after all!)
Reply #55 Top
It's not your usual tactic to hijack a thread in this manner.


nor is it my intent to do so now. you used a mischaracterization to set up your argument. the issue wasn't whether she was able to feed herself. there are hundreds of thousands of people who are unable to take food by mouth just as there have been for years. nobody on either side is advocating they have their tubes clamped for that reason--which is what you're claiming when you say this1:

The argument from the left in the Terri Schiavo case centered heavily on Ms. Schiavo's inability to feed herself or provide her own self care. Because Ms. Schiavo was unable to do so, liberal pundits decreed, all sustenance must be withheld from her.


you then go on to build the rest of your argument on that misperception.

while it was very obviously also a states' rights issue (and therefore exposed the hypocrisy of the right), first and foremost it was really about the arrogance of an executive and legislature attempting to interject itself into the very personal affairs of a husband and wife.
Reply #56 Top
you then go on to build the rest of your argument on that misperception.


Well, if the liberal misperception wasn't based heavily on Ms. Schiavo's inability to feed herself, maybe you libs need to circle your wagons a bit. Myrrander's articles on the topic, as well as many others, said it WAS.

But still, the concept of Democrats yelling "states' rights" is absurd. You haven't addressed the FACT that that is highly hypocritical, especially considering the fact that many leftists are funding LAWSUITS against the states who VOTED to ban gay marriages.

It boggles my mind that such an intelligent person as yourself can't see the hypocrisy here, kingbee.