I think it’s important to clear a few things up. And to explain the difference between personal charity and legislative responsibility.
On a human and personal level I get the fact that someone out of work is struggling. Most likely with personal value issues, household income issues and perhaps larger life skills and career opportunity issues.
I get that.
And to that extent, I resonate with the personal heart string tugging concept of needing to provide relief. I absolutely agree that helping when one can is the right thing to do. Without a doubt.
On the governmental and legislative level I know that the best thing that can be done is to make sure that it is as easy as possible for people looking for work can match up with people looking for workers.n In short, for the removal of every possible obstacle.
The juxtaposition of those two very valid and noble positions seems to be taking place in our debate.
The fiscal conservatives want less unemployment benefits to be handed out. Less as in fewer weeks and less money. The social liberals want to increase those benefits. Increase as in extend benefits and with more money.
And they yell at each other.
But they aren’t arguing about the same topic. The Left are advocating a position of personal charity. The Right are advocating a position of economic modeling. Both are right in their specific context, but that context isn’t the same.
So, I would suggest this:
- My Liberal friends: Form a non-profit foundation that provides relief to the unemployed.
- My Conservative friends: Contribute to said foundation.
- End government mandated charity.
Remember, there must be an incontrovertible condition for the government to relive a man of the fruits of his labor by threat of sword or gun. And the simple fact that you feel more comfortable with this man having that man’s property does not meet that condition.
