Skip to main content

Leftists Despise Charity Because They Hate Freedom

In a recent article from CBS News, readers learn of a two-year-old boy suffering from a rare genetic condition that affects his mobility. 

According to the boy's family, who live in Farmington, Minnesota, they couldn't afford to spend upwards of $20,000 for the specialized wheelchair they desired for their son. 



In hopes of receiving some assistance from the community, the toddler's parents contacted the local high school robotics team, named Rogue Robotics, who in turn collaborated with the University of Delaware's GoBabyGo program to build the custom wheelchair for the little boy.

According to the team's coach, it took the group a couple of weeks to build the vehicle, and they completed the project in time to deliver it to the family just before Christmas.

Oddly, however, where the average reader may see a story of compassion and charity, the Left witnesses an opportunity for controversy and exasperation.  

On a relatively popular and conspicuously-socialist Facebook page known as Medicare for All, a member proposes an alternative title for this CBS News article:

"We live in a dystopian nightmare, where 2 year old children with acute mobility challenges (AND WHOSE PARENTS HAVE INSURANCE) must rely on a high school robotics team for basic healthcare needs."

Notwithstanding the fact that we all rely on somebody, whether through partnership or through commerce, what's dystopian about people helping people who can't afford something? 

One of the most dreadful aspects of the modern Western world has been its seeming insistence on programming institutional (and coercive) "solutions" instead of voluntarily collaborating for improved outcomes with neighbors within our respective communities. 

This insistence on macro approaches to problem-solving has distanced us from our communities and the people who live among us, which has rendered us less safe and more cynical about everyone and everything. 

Even in the case of charity, the modern Westerner cites it as an abomination instead of celebrating the act of compassion. 

Clearly, the family didn't require just a basic electric wheelchair, which can be purchased for hundreds of dollars from Walmart. 

What's more, the fact that medical and hospital expenses are so inordinately expensive in the United States can be traced back to the artificially high costs of labor, malpractice insurance and regulatory compliance, the new age of non-actuarial "insurance" and fundamentally the non-productive aspects of a debt-based service economy "based on consumption" and cheap money.  

This sort of commentary also operates from a gross misunderstanding of the nature of economics: the economy exists not to supply everything that one can imagine he or she could ever want, nor does it exist to supplant family and community networks. 

On the contrary, it exists to complement these features of life that exist beyond the monetary domain, whose nuances are best appreciated by the people who live most local. 

While the market has made such great advances through specialized labor and economies of scale, it is important to remained focused on those aspects of life that it cannot independently replace: the compassion of voluntary expressions of charity, mentorship and leadership; the personal investment of time, labor and capital in one's own family or community; the discovery of one's passion or purpose. 

The application of self in these directions serves as the adhesive for community, and any movement that intends to systematize or automate these decisions (through coercion or otherwise) will serve only to deprive humanity of the greatest source of fulfillment the world has to offer.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes