Just biding my time 'til New Texas...

I'm going to keep this very brief.

I do not understand the political ideology of our welfare state. On moral grounds, it seems to be a given that the "haves" are not good enough people to be charitable on their own accord and thus must be stolen from in order to provide for the "have nots." But on the other hand, the "have-nots" are deserving of things they have not themselves earned. It almost seems to align a moral compass on individuals based on nothing more than their financial state.

I understand, my liberal friends, that since I'm a libertarian I could not possibly be Christian. I don't care about the poor or less fortunate, and I am a dirty and awful person for not supporting presently-proposed policy. That's why Jesus picked the Pharisees' pockets in order to pay the widow's Ambien bills, right?

I believe that when you earn something, it's yours. That's why the check has your name on it. It just seems so incredibly backwards and counter-productive to effectually steal from John to give to Jim. Of course Jim always supports that ideology; but, if John doesn't want Jim to get his money, how is that wrong? It's a personal choice. It's no more morally sound to steal one man's money than to let another starve. Sin's sin, right? There is no place for morality in government. Placing an evil man under a "good" regime does not make him "good." People skip out on taxes because they think the taxes are not fair. People ache about welfare, social security, mandated insurance, etc. because they think these institutions are wrong.

If a person wants to spend 100% of their gross pay, neglecting their future and the people who might benefit from their being taxed, so what? It's their choice. That's all I'm saying. If that same person chooses instead to save 25% of their gross in a 401k and donate 10% to a church, Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc., what's so wrong with that? It's not allowed either way. It just seems to me to be such an arrogant and ludicrous means of reasoning to say that you know how to better serve a person than they can serve themselves. Now, I'm sure that all rich people are greedy, hard-hearted, and self-seeking, and all poor people are good, loving, victims of bad situations. Of course.

Some people are victims in need of aid. Some people are wealthy pricks who couldn't care less about anyone else. But I've got to believe that some other folks are in bad scenarios because they screwed up, and others are in good spots because they worked hard. I'm not going to assign a morality or a level of goodness to any of them. All I'm saying is that I believe there are people out there who if they had more disposable income (because of a drastic cut-back in their wages' garnishings. Really, a "Department of Education"? ) that would be more than willing to donate their time, resources, and money to those who are truly in need.

Two generations ago, my family was composed entirely of farmers and sharecroppers. Eighty years later, we're reasonably well-educated, responsible citizens. And I'm going to make an offensive amount of money doing something. Without a cent of state money. And I'm going to give a lot of what I earn away. The sad part is, I'll do it whether I want to or not.

Reign in the Empire. Quit your thievery. Pass the fair tax. Experience economic, and dare I say, social, growth. Don't say I'm intolerant just because you won't tolerate me.

Peace.