Thread: The Naivety of Bleeding Hearts

We can no longer afford the naivety of bleeding hearts. We can no longer afford the good lie that the productive produce at the expense of the unproductive, that the haves have at the expense of the "have nots". This negative idea, this truly cold-hearted and empty-headed thought, that goodness comes from our opposition to inequality, must die. So too must we dispense with the lazy idea, the truly criminal thought, that inequity is caused by the greed and anti-social values of the successful, instead of by the laziness and self-absorbed values of society's losers.



There is a disease common to all Democracies; a disease bred of resentment and irresponsibility. The masses of every capitalist society have experienced a better poverty than any other poverty that has existed throughout time. This comparably soft poverty that allows them the education and leisure to rebel against those who have produced such a quality of life, that the poor can foment resentment from the comfort of their air conditioned homes, with their flat screen televisions, their expensive cell phone bills, with that beautiful truck parked outside their broken down homes. Yes, poverty in America just isn't good enough for the masses.



And so, our whole Democracy becomes an expression of our collective discontent. Our whole Democracy becomes a race to harness the productive power of the few for the benefit of the many, with no thought paid to cause and effect. We resent the wealthy at first glance, but the more we bind them, the more we resent them for failing to produce more! No, the productive can never give enough. The danger of this disease is the death of creative productivity and the onset of what every Democracy fears most of all - real poverty.



If this increasingly Democratic civilization wants to stave off real poverty, then it must abandon the so-well-intentioned sympathy for the values and worldview of the unsuccessful and unproductive. A great civilization must be built upon a common faith in human goodness, in human capacity, in human exceptionalism. A great society must begin with admiration for the qualities and virtues that make great men great. We cannot steal from the enormous wealth of the economic elite while despising the morality and lifestyle necessary to create that wealth in the first place. We've created an unconscionable contradiction here! We've become addicted to theft, but we're mangling the hand we thieve from.



Take a close look at the heartless spirit of Democracy, and ask yourself, is this morality of resentment and vitriol justified? Is it even productive? The poor, who have benefited just as much from Capitalism as the wealthy, are threatening to destroy the market forces which have finally made poverty bearable for so many. Over the years, even as the masses have employed criminal politician after politician to further thieve from the productive to provide services to the rabble, has not the condition of your poverty gotten worse? Inner City communities have supported the same thieves for generations, without ever demanding a single objective increase in their economic condition! How unreasonable! How strong their resentment must be, for them to support thieves for the sole purpose of thieving, while expecting so little for themselves!



Indeed, all the benefits of federal theft seem to benefit the unemployable politicians and bureaucrats that manage the system of theft, so much more than those on whose behalf they steal! But still, we herd the poor into these ridiculous government schools, we teach them about the Two Americas, about the importance of Class Warfare, and instill in them a resentment so thick as to cloud their minds from reason and from an understanding of the particles of their own well-being. We've turned the masses into a slave class; a class designed and manufactured to serve the bureaucracy for a measly pittance. Such low expectations, such infantile hopes - how can the masses continue to breathe?



( If my rhetoric is thick, if it tastes too much of poison, then understand its origin. Negative moralities kill cultures and prevent goodness. Nothing good will come of this democratizing of morality, this gathering of all our vices and collectively naming them Goodness. Poverty is painful and it is hard. It is not a fertile ground from which we can simply decide to overcome it - but I promise the world this: that poverty will never overcome itself with theft, with resentment, or with a hatred for the values of those who do not know poverty. If you want to know what it takes to be wealthy, ask the wealthy how they did it. If you want to know what it takes to be happy or healthy, surround yourself with happy and healthy people. Do not look to the sick for health tips, or to the poor for economic advice. Do not look to the resentful for their morality or to the politicians for truth. )

BG every time you post this argument I respond by stating that this theory is in practice all over the world, and has been in practice everywhere all throughout history, and it has never worked. It creates stagnant, miserable societies with populations, rich and poor alike, that are desperate to flee to more liberal, livable environments. It is the reason anyone with any money talent or opportunity run from Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, India, South Africa and would rather wash dishes in New York, Northern California, Seattle, Sydney, London, Toronto, Vancouver, Boston, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Yokohama, Zurich, Stockholm... than live in the failed libertarian shit holes their lack of ability to learn from the past has created.



These liberal cities with social safety nets drive the world's economy. They are the most wealthy, successful, livable places on the planet and people flock to them daily. And much of the wealth created there is wasted trying to drag more conservative parts of their country into a modern lifestyle... always kicking and screaming.



Your pet theory was, for one example of many, tried in industrial England, old Charles Dickens' day. It was a brutal, injust society that no sane man would ever, ever want to retrun to.



It doesn't matter how nicely the ideology is spoken about... it has been applied in real life for 5,000 years and never once worked.



It'd be nice to repond to this rather than just making another thread making the same argument again with more snide condecending sneers towards the people who pay for the unvelievably wealthy and successful society you live in - a liberal democracy since the 30's: The most successful, productive period of time in human history.





Kmiller - the part of your constitution that recognises morality over commerce is the amendment that (finally) made slavery illegal. That's the part of the constitution that says human rights and dignity are more important in the constitution than how much money you can make. THAT's the part that says you don't piss on other people's human rights to protect your private economic rights.



And nowhere was thet battle harder faught than in America and South Africa and India.... hmmm.... the same list of the usual subjects.

[quote name='Devil505' date='05 April 2010 - 10:28 AM' timestamp='1270477739' post='136505']

Do you claim that corporate welfare is different from social welfare somehow?[/quote]

That depends on your definition of both, and your view of the intentions of each. In a perfect world, an equilibrium sounds great. The recipients have all that the providers do thanks to the governments forced redistribution. So how much would be enough to create this equilibrium? At what point do the providers throw up their hands and realize it's not worth it? At this point, who will be the providers and recipients of "welfare"? With the incentive gone to create wealth, how is it then collected?......or redistributed?