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

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 that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Homelessness More Lucrative than $150,000/Year Job in SF Bay Area

Most people in the United States long for a $150,000-per-year salary. This makes sense, as the nation's median personal income is roughly 80 percent below that mark. 

It's a lot of money. 

In fact, this income level qualifies for the top 4 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent of the world's population; it is 109 times the global average.

If this is true, how could an unemployed homeless person possibly make more money? Well, the federal, state and local governments: that's how!

Let's take a look at the numbers.

A single Bay-Area Californian earning $150,000 per year pays an effective income tax rate of 32.23 percent: this figure is inclusive of a 7.20-percent effective state income tax (and 9.30-percent marginal rate), an 18.27-percent effective federal income tax (and 24.00-percent marginal rate), and a 6.76-percent effective rate for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. 



In addition to income taxes, the homeowner incurs an annual mortgage cost amou…

Why Leftism Fails

The precepts of socialism and communism endure palatably insofar as they apply to families and communities linked by the organic bonds of mutual interest. 

By the nature of their character, these precepts sound agreeable to the extent that we embrace them in our own lives within our own respective families and communities. 

Where that mutual interest begins to wane, however, we witness either abuse of — or, alternatively, enslavement to — the system erected to execute those ends. 

Naturally, people desire optimal outcomes. Due to this proclivity, individuals tend to overstate their commitment to idealistic ends. 

Realistically, individuals make tradeoffs, where they express preference (on the margin) for certain applications of their time, labor and capital. 

Due to the enormity of civilization, the infeasibility of meeting and much less caring about every individual, persons must make decisions to optimize the enjoyment of their lives. 

The communist ideal dictates, “To each according to h…