One of the greatest liberal myths

I’d like to put to rest one of the greatest liberal myths with a bit of sound reasoning and basic economics. The myth goes like this. Taxation and government welfare are a good thing because they help the needy and anyone who disagrees obviously has no compassion for the less fortunate. Those who call for less taxes and a decrease in the amount of money the government spends are stealing food out of the mouths of babies.

Ask yourself this simple question. Is there a greater chance for need when there is less stuff or more? Of course the answer is simple. The more stuff there is the less likely that there will be need for stuff. How does stuff come to be? Well, people produce stuff. So, the more people who are producing stuff the more stuff there will be and the less likely it will be that there will be shortages of the stuff we need.

What happens when government takes from people who produce stuff and give it to people who don’t? Less stuff gets made. This is true for two reasons. One, the producers have less capital to invest in growing production, and two, the people who receive have less incentive to become a producer.

With the producers producing less and less people producing it’s no wonder that more people are in need of stuff.

When property rights are respected, and the market is unhampered by overbearing regulations, the chances that there will be more stuff is greatly increased. As a result of more stuff being produced, the prices for stuff will generally decrease. This means that those who can’t afford stuff will be better off because stuff will cost less and people who have enough stuff will be more capable of helping those who don’t.

So it’s easy to see that those who proclaim to be compassionate and desire to help the poor by growing the societal safety net ( welfare state ), are actually supporting policies which hurt the very people they intended to help.

Now who’s stealing food out of the mouths of babies?


4 thoughts on “One of the greatest liberal myths

  1. Are you saying that government needs to redistribute because people don’t live like they should?

    I’m not buying that. 🙂 I say people don’t live like they should, at least in part, because government redistributes. Everyone needs to eat to live, right? Absent charity, the only way and honest person eats is to produce something of value to exchange for food. In doing so the person gives and gets rather than just getting. Both parties have produced something the other wants or needs and both come out of the deal better off.

    The only thing government can give away is what someone else produces. The benefactor of such action is reaping the reward of another person’s labor without contributing any of their own. So long as leisure is rewarded with full stomach, what incentive is there to change? Very little.

    There are, of course, always those who cannot produce. But these people also are negatively impacted by redistribution for the reasons I explained in my post.

    There is simply no good sense in redistribution. Good intentions aside, it’s evil.

  2. Sorry, guess I was not clear… what I meant is that if people all lived as they should (can work do work, can’t work others pitch in somehow) then we would not need the government to take on what the people should be doing for themselves… then again that can apply to retaining our freedoms too (if we kept them, they wouldn’t be disappearing)…

  3. But again, no matter what people do, we don’t need redistribution. It just compounds the issue. Gov is not picking up the slack. It is digging a deeper hole.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s