George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams writes:
"Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism. Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive. This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man."
Soap Box Ravings says at this time, our government is sending "bail out" money to save banks and other financial institutions. But it does not seem that the money is being used by the recipients for "bail out." The banks or financial institutions are free to spend their "bail out" as they wish.
In Walter Williams article above what is unsaid is when the old woman gets money from the government to mow her lawn she can spend that money when and where she wants. And therein lies the problem with money freely given to people for what other people believe the recipient needs.
It is a known fact that many people use their welfare money and/or food stamps to purchase items the money was not provided for. It makes no difference whether it is illegal drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or to go to Disneyland. The money was not used for it's intended purpose and I believe it will always be that way as long as the money is "given."
I believe most people need to earn their money. Once money is earned it is up to the earner to decide how to spend their own earned money. If they spend it recklessly, then they need to suffer the consequences of their actions.
I also believe that banks, financial institutions and anyone else looking for "bail out" money need to suffer the consequences of their previous actions, at least to the point of being forced to drop "deadwood" and other useless practices that led to wasted monies. For example, auto companies who can't sell their vehicles, it is not just the auto companies problem. The problem is a combination auto company-union problem and it needs to resolved in bankruptcy court. IMHO, handing out huge sums of money without realistic requirements is ridiculous.
Soap Box Ravings feels that anger is building amongst his fellow Americans; those fools who have been living their lives, all of their lives, by the rules. You know the type I mean, those Americans who essentially buy what they can pay for, who go to work daily and make their payments on time, and who pay the F*&^%^ taxes. The politicians who run this country don't realize what true anger looks like. Particularly when those politicians refuse to react to popular demand to find sources of oil and develop other energy programs just so prices will rise to a level where we the citizens will agree the the politicians goals.
