Introduction

Subsidized self reliance is an oxymoron, a self-cancelling phrase. Like civil war, or jumbo shrimp. In yet another triumph of doublethink (from Orwell’s 1984), over reason and integrity, it is being sold as being humane and compassionate. It is precisely the opposite. 

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

It has long been true that if allowed one false premise to build upon, then just about anything can be “proved” to be true. For example, when the prevailing belief was that the earth was flat, it was easy to “prove” that a ship going a distance in any direction would fall off the edge of the world. More recently, when 1930s Germany promoted the false belief that Jews, homoexuals, gypsies, etc., were not people, it allowed those who accepted that thinking to treat the people in these groups in horribly inhumane ways. With apologies to Bertrand Russell, here’s a fun example: 

Someone once challenged Bertrand Russell to prove that, "If  1=2 (the allowed false premise) then you, Russell are the Pope. Russell replied, "Either the Pope and I are one person or we are two people. If 1=2 then in either case we are one person. Therefore, I am the Pope."

Allowing the false premise of subsidized self reliance to stand will lead to claiming that subsidizing people will make them self reliant. In other words, if I just keep giving you new a fish every day, you will eventually learn how to fish. And more importantly, you will be motivated by all the free fish to provide your own fish after a time of being giving them for free. (The people esposing this way of thinking are silent on just how long the free fish have to be given out before, like spontaneous combustion, learning and motivation flare up.)

Pause for a definition. The kind of subsidies we are talking about here are the long term and extended giveaways like “Healthcare is a human right” and free college with the forgiveness of current student debt. As in $1.5 T for trillion in student debt. One third of our annual federal budget. That’s more than all of the outstanding credit card debt. Hey, why not pay that off for everyone as well? We are not talking about the temporary subsidies that have correctly existed for many decades, like good public schools (when they were good), merit-based scholarships and efficient public transportation--where that exists. All subsidized, and all good investments, designed to give the individual what they need when they need it. And allow and encourage them to wean themselves from the subsidies. Eventually to contribute to subsidizing others either through appropriate taxation or personal charity. 

Let’s take a quick re-look at a drawing that deals with the issue of what is a good, effective and compassionate subsidy and, well, what isn’t. This Can’t v. Won’t drawing is a useful guide. 

“Can’t” and “won’t” are completely different. Much of how we see and deal with ourselves, family and society depends upon how we define those two terms, those two states of mind, and how we apply those definitions in our lives.

For example, we all want to help people who can’t and don’t want to help those who won’t. 

As we go forward together with these podcasts, this can’t or won’t distinction will become more important as we begin to outline a complete political, personal and financial philosophy. A way of looking at, living in and contributing to the world around us.

This definition, this distinction, is a good example of the many places in our lives where there is a lot of grey, but we need to make--and act on--firm choices. And just having an honest, non agenda-driven discussion will be hugely beneficial. And advance everyone's thinking in useful directions.

Today’s Key Point: Don’t surrender the word compassion...