Who Pays?
Dale Netherton
March 03, 2006
I want to walk you through the mentality of those that think they shouldn?t pay for anything. More and more on the television screen ( particularly regarding the Katrina disaster) we see people interviewed who are expecting something for nothing. There are the reporters who fawn over the ?free? services provided, the recipients who complain that there is not food or housing being provided and the screaming editorials that the government should do more. It is a simple fact that nobody makes anything or provides a service without a personal cost. This is called production. No production. No goods or services. So when someone extols the free commodities or services what they are really talking about is the exploitation of the little red hen. You provide it and we?ll consume it.
You would think the importance of production as primary would be almost self explanatory. But after years of government, academia and the media passing out the illusion of the free lunch, there are now people who actually believe there is no cost to the producer or the distributor and all that is necessary to obtain anything is to be like the new born and squall louder than the next guy. But you ask,? Can?t these people see that what they are asking for has to be provided by someone at a cost to the provider?? Of course they can see. They scream the loudest when it is their property that is being taken. Whether it is a pack of cigarettes or a pair of earrings, it is theirs, they own it and the principle of ownership is now paramount. If you want what they have, you have to pay for it. They don?t claim they earned it but they do claim they are entitled to it. This is where the disconnect comes in. Property must be owned but it doesn?t have to be earned. This is the belief but this is not the reality. For without production there can be nothing to own without confiscation and/or redistribution.
There is hope. If someone can be taught to believe the impossible then it follows they can be taught the truth. Now whether they will act upon it is quite another matter but the attempt must constantly be made to counter the fallacies of those who think they can get away with the ?free lunch? gimmick. When a politician talks about what the government will provide (and the government produces nothing) you have to ask where are you going to get the resources that you are offering? The attraction fades when you find out what you are getting is something that is bought with money you sent to the government who deducts a huge redistribution fee and then returns it to those it deems more worthy than the person contributing the money. This is so convoluted you would think it would be discovered and rejected in a moment. But this is where the guilt instilled from the other partner in this scheme comes into play. Being told that you must share from your kindergarden days, reinforced by pulpiteers weekly shouting the virtue of personal sacrifice coupled with the echo of the politicians speaking of the ?good? your money is doing in the far reaches of the Congo , the research facilities in the Arctic or the gathering of spotted owl feces in the North West one could reasonably feel out of step by thinking he was entitled to anything for himself. But you will notice the world is not filled with Mother Teresas , Only thousands of promoters asking other people to emulate what they want to cash in on. They want to be the champions of giving without producing. And those who see there needs to be recipients, line up for miles to receive whatever is being redistributed whether they need it or not. Just like the looters who took what ever they could carry whether they needed it or not, when it is legally stolen and redistributed they know enough to get in line because they now have an agent to steal for them. And they pay nothing.
There was an attempt at one time for promote class warfare. It was the poor versus the rich. But the real class war is developing to be the working versus the non working. The government has created this by entitlements which act as an incentive not to work. If you are paid for having children, feigned disabilities and just plain laziness, why get up in the morning and labor all day long when you can watch soaps, get food with food stamps, medical care via the emergency room and live off of the poor stiff getting up every day and putting in several hours of labor producing something or some service? And if someone is telling you the person getting the unearned rewards is the most deserving and you?re fool enough to believe them, then who should revise their thinking?
Paying is the moral way to obtain something. Those who do not pay are wards of the state or beggars ( or both ). It is unfair and unjust to take from those taking care of themselves and expect them to carry those who won?t make the effort to produce. But this isn?t what?s preached, printed or promoted. It will take a personal rebellion against this propaganda to defuse its movement. It will take an examination of all that?s been said daily for thousands of years. It will take the rejection of the notion that some people by their demands are entitled to something for no effort on their part except to sign their name and stand in line.
The real tragedies like Katrina provide fodder for the perpetuating of the welfare state. ?See?, the pundit says, ?People are in need and the government must be the helper?. It was government that didn?t ensure the safety of the levees. If a private company would offer a contract to build and protect the city with a levee system with assurances and an incentive to maintain its reputation, a repeat could be avoided. Relying on lazy politicians to oversee something they know nothing about is a sure prescription for disaster. Complacency is a natural for a government meddling in so many area it can?t keep track of the time of day, let alone what it?s main focus ought to be. The services of government must be paid for and the only ones who have any money to pay for these services are the people producing something. Since these government services carry the mandate of law they need to be very carefully restricted to that which the government can handle effectively. This leaves out a whole lot of activities the government has stuck its nose in. The government cannot pay for anything if it doesn?t take or have the ability to take from the productive. And to show how short sighted government is, the meddling they do restricts the ability of the productive to produce effectively, thereby lowering the amount that the government can confiscate and redistribute. The government is paying for its inept policies by reaching a level of debt that is choking the economy, limiting the scope of affordable government and creating a trend toward a lower standard of living. This all from a notion that ?paying? should not be necessary for those who claim they can?t or simply won?t. There is no escape form this aspect of reality. If you try to obtain without paying, you either are thief or a beggar. Albeit you may be a beggar through no fault of your own, you do not have to retain the status if you?re willing an able to produce. There are very few in the category that limits them from doing anything productive. The government would have you believe a country with an unemployment rate of 5% is composed of a bajillion beggars unable to do anything but live off the productive efforts of others and be grateful to the redistribution schemes that speak of getting it for ?free?. The person who promotes bad ideas ?pays? with the consequences they produce. And that is why the government and the academic community that depends on government funding are in financial straits. When they said, ?you won?t have to pay? they didn?t realize the cost they incurred.
You would think the importance of production as primary would be almost self explanatory. But after years of government, academia and the media passing out the illusion of the free lunch, there are now people who actually believe there is no cost to the producer or the distributor and all that is necessary to obtain anything is to be like the new born and squall louder than the next guy. But you ask,? Can?t these people see that what they are asking for has to be provided by someone at a cost to the provider?? Of course they can see. They scream the loudest when it is their property that is being taken. Whether it is a pack of cigarettes or a pair of earrings, it is theirs, they own it and the principle of ownership is now paramount. If you want what they have, you have to pay for it. They don?t claim they earned it but they do claim they are entitled to it. This is where the disconnect comes in. Property must be owned but it doesn?t have to be earned. This is the belief but this is not the reality. For without production there can be nothing to own without confiscation and/or redistribution.
There is hope. If someone can be taught to believe the impossible then it follows they can be taught the truth. Now whether they will act upon it is quite another matter but the attempt must constantly be made to counter the fallacies of those who think they can get away with the ?free lunch? gimmick. When a politician talks about what the government will provide (and the government produces nothing) you have to ask where are you going to get the resources that you are offering? The attraction fades when you find out what you are getting is something that is bought with money you sent to the government who deducts a huge redistribution fee and then returns it to those it deems more worthy than the person contributing the money. This is so convoluted you would think it would be discovered and rejected in a moment. But this is where the guilt instilled from the other partner in this scheme comes into play. Being told that you must share from your kindergarden days, reinforced by pulpiteers weekly shouting the virtue of personal sacrifice coupled with the echo of the politicians speaking of the ?good? your money is doing in the far reaches of the Congo , the research facilities in the Arctic or the gathering of spotted owl feces in the North West one could reasonably feel out of step by thinking he was entitled to anything for himself. But you will notice the world is not filled with Mother Teresas , Only thousands of promoters asking other people to emulate what they want to cash in on. They want to be the champions of giving without producing. And those who see there needs to be recipients, line up for miles to receive whatever is being redistributed whether they need it or not. Just like the looters who took what ever they could carry whether they needed it or not, when it is legally stolen and redistributed they know enough to get in line because they now have an agent to steal for them. And they pay nothing.
There was an attempt at one time for promote class warfare. It was the poor versus the rich. But the real class war is developing to be the working versus the non working. The government has created this by entitlements which act as an incentive not to work. If you are paid for having children, feigned disabilities and just plain laziness, why get up in the morning and labor all day long when you can watch soaps, get food with food stamps, medical care via the emergency room and live off of the poor stiff getting up every day and putting in several hours of labor producing something or some service? And if someone is telling you the person getting the unearned rewards is the most deserving and you?re fool enough to believe them, then who should revise their thinking?
Paying is the moral way to obtain something. Those who do not pay are wards of the state or beggars ( or both ). It is unfair and unjust to take from those taking care of themselves and expect them to carry those who won?t make the effort to produce. But this isn?t what?s preached, printed or promoted. It will take a personal rebellion against this propaganda to defuse its movement. It will take an examination of all that?s been said daily for thousands of years. It will take the rejection of the notion that some people by their demands are entitled to something for no effort on their part except to sign their name and stand in line.
The real tragedies like Katrina provide fodder for the perpetuating of the welfare state. ?See?, the pundit says, ?People are in need and the government must be the helper?. It was government that didn?t ensure the safety of the levees. If a private company would offer a contract to build and protect the city with a levee system with assurances and an incentive to maintain its reputation, a repeat could be avoided. Relying on lazy politicians to oversee something they know nothing about is a sure prescription for disaster. Complacency is a natural for a government meddling in so many area it can?t keep track of the time of day, let alone what it?s main focus ought to be. The services of government must be paid for and the only ones who have any money to pay for these services are the people producing something. Since these government services carry the mandate of law they need to be very carefully restricted to that which the government can handle effectively. This leaves out a whole lot of activities the government has stuck its nose in. The government cannot pay for anything if it doesn?t take or have the ability to take from the productive. And to show how short sighted government is, the meddling they do restricts the ability of the productive to produce effectively, thereby lowering the amount that the government can confiscate and redistribute. The government is paying for its inept policies by reaching a level of debt that is choking the economy, limiting the scope of affordable government and creating a trend toward a lower standard of living. This all from a notion that ?paying? should not be necessary for those who claim they can?t or simply won?t. There is no escape form this aspect of reality. If you try to obtain without paying, you either are thief or a beggar. Albeit you may be a beggar through no fault of your own, you do not have to retain the status if you?re willing an able to produce. There are very few in the category that limits them from doing anything productive. The government would have you believe a country with an unemployment rate of 5% is composed of a bajillion beggars unable to do anything but live off the productive efforts of others and be grateful to the redistribution schemes that speak of getting it for ?free?. The person who promotes bad ideas ?pays? with the consequences they produce. And that is why the government and the academic community that depends on government funding are in financial straits. When they said, ?you won?t have to pay? they didn?t realize the cost they incurred.
Print
Email
