RoyalOrleans
New member
Obama wants to know the following: How do we balance our freedom with our need to "look after one another"?
So what IS the premise of the president's question? The premise is that we MUST, in fact, balance our freedoms with some mandate that we take care of one another. that we must balance our freedom with our need to "look after one another."
This is a very delicate, touchy subject to delve into, because the detractors will respond "So, Neal. You don't care about people.". Here's a scenario...
You're walking down the street with your friend. We'll call him Barack. As you're walking and chatting you notice a pathetic-looking man sitting on the sidewalk and begging for money. Barack pulls out a twenty and gives it to the man. Good for Barack. Barack then looks at you and says "Well?"
"Well what?"
"Aren't you going to give this man some money?"
"No, I'm not. I don't have any to spare right now. I have my own family to look after."
"So .. you don't care about the less-fortunate?"
"Don't give me that less-fortunate nonsense. This guy is here because he's a drunk. That wasn't a matter of luck, that was the inevitable result of his own life's choices."
"Well, I think you should give him some money."
"Sorry ... it's a free country. I worked hard for this money and I'm free to make the decisions on how I will spend it."
"Not any more," responds Barack, pulling out a gun.
Barack then points that gun at your head and tells you that, whether you want to or not, you are going to hand over some of your property to this man. Barack has the gun, he has the legal right to use it .. your freedom's be damned. Your property rights stop where the government decides someone needs to be "looked after."
There's another more subtle premise at work in Obama's comment. Apparently he thinks that the only way Americans will "look after one another" is through the processes of government. Private charity has always been more effective at taking care of those truly in need. It was government, not private charity, that chased the fathers out of the homes of countless welfare families. It was government, not charity, that created an mass chaos on Father's Day in most urban areas.
So .. the answer to President Obama is this: "You need to correct your premise, Mr. President. You don't balance freedom against our need to look after one another. Freedom is paramount. When people use their freedom to make the wrong choices and end up in need, they must rely on the private charitable efforts of individuals, service organizations, churches, synagogues and mosques. Once you have a government that is powerful enough to seize property from one individual solely for the purpose of transferring it to another .. freedom is in grave jeopardy.
But then I didn't have to tell you that, did I?
"Greedy capitalists want lots of money. Virtuous 'liberals' want to steal it."--David Friedman.
"I remember when 'liberal' meant being generous with our own money."--Will Rogers.
So what IS the premise of the president's question? The premise is that we MUST, in fact, balance our freedoms with some mandate that we take care of one another. that we must balance our freedom with our need to "look after one another."
This is a very delicate, touchy subject to delve into, because the detractors will respond "So, Neal. You don't care about people.". Here's a scenario...
You're walking down the street with your friend. We'll call him Barack. As you're walking and chatting you notice a pathetic-looking man sitting on the sidewalk and begging for money. Barack pulls out a twenty and gives it to the man. Good for Barack. Barack then looks at you and says "Well?"
"Well what?"
"Aren't you going to give this man some money?"
"No, I'm not. I don't have any to spare right now. I have my own family to look after."
"So .. you don't care about the less-fortunate?"
"Don't give me that less-fortunate nonsense. This guy is here because he's a drunk. That wasn't a matter of luck, that was the inevitable result of his own life's choices."
"Well, I think you should give him some money."
"Sorry ... it's a free country. I worked hard for this money and I'm free to make the decisions on how I will spend it."
"Not any more," responds Barack, pulling out a gun.
Barack then points that gun at your head and tells you that, whether you want to or not, you are going to hand over some of your property to this man. Barack has the gun, he has the legal right to use it .. your freedom's be damned. Your property rights stop where the government decides someone needs to be "looked after."
There's another more subtle premise at work in Obama's comment. Apparently he thinks that the only way Americans will "look after one another" is through the processes of government. Private charity has always been more effective at taking care of those truly in need. It was government, not private charity, that chased the fathers out of the homes of countless welfare families. It was government, not charity, that created an mass chaos on Father's Day in most urban areas.
So .. the answer to President Obama is this: "You need to correct your premise, Mr. President. You don't balance freedom against our need to look after one another. Freedom is paramount. When people use their freedom to make the wrong choices and end up in need, they must rely on the private charitable efforts of individuals, service organizations, churches, synagogues and mosques. Once you have a government that is powerful enough to seize property from one individual solely for the purpose of transferring it to another .. freedom is in grave jeopardy.
But then I didn't have to tell you that, did I?
"Greedy capitalists want lots of money. Virtuous 'liberals' want to steal it."--David Friedman.
"I remember when 'liberal' meant being generous with our own money."--Will Rogers.
