Where to re-draw the line with government?

It is no secret that a large portion of the people in a nation rely on the government for survival; this, after all, has been bred into them. People tend not to bite the hand that feeds them. The problem that this has developed is...

296 11
296 11

It is no secret that a large portion of the people in a nation rely on the government for survival; this, after all, has been bred into them. People tend not to bite the hand that feeds them. The problem that this has developed is the same as the old proverb; people have been given fish but are not being taught to fish. This is not a matter of education in skills but a lesson in self-reliance, something our nation sorely lacks.

As I have mentioned before, the only true obligation of the government is defense, but as the states have grown over a millennia, they have grown a mentality where people will rely on them. This mentality cannot be broken in a day or even a generation but must be taken down nonetheless. But the state does not wish that. They continue to give workers, the unemployed and most of us a sense of entitlement and dependence on the state institution. So, the question is: how do we stop this?

As many would say, we must educate the people, but someone can only be ethically taught if they desire it. Another opinion would be to just remove all welfare and state benefits from the people. This will, of course, curb state reliance but as the result of state reliance, people have been dug into a hole and have been relying on the state throwing in some food every once and a while for survival.

This means that if that support stops, the people will die. That is not really an ethical option but keeping them on the teat of the state is even more unethical in its own way. People will never be able to develop if they are spoon fed and the government knows this, if we are to ever have a productive nation with a truly free society; people need to start working for their entitlement. In addition to this, the fact that people are taxed for a service that they are in no way receiving is highly unethical. It is not charity to force someone to give their money to someone else. We call that theft.

So that takes me back to the title of this article. How can a better society build self-reliance without killing the people who are too reliant on the state? Maybe it’s a question of slow adjustment but how slow and in what manner? What services should be made private, eradicated or remain public?

We, and hopefully many others, will be addressing this in the future. All we know is that with debt as high as it is, we cannot continue to rely on the welfare state.

In this article

Leave a Reply


  1. John Doe Reply

    We need to show that these people dont deserve entitlement because all of them are to lazy to get a job or go to school. There was a man in africa, A poorer place than where we live now who was 86 years old and went to school so he could get a job to provide for himself so what is stopping these people. I personally think they dont deserve the entitlement but that is just my opinion. And furthermore this may not even have anythig to do with anything but I gave it a shot.

  2. UEFA Euro Tournament Reply

    Scottish Proverb: “Get what you can and keep what you have that’s the way to get rich.”

  3. Turner Reply

    This philosophy of teaching men to fish instead of giving them fish. That’s not a bad idea fundamentally; but you still shoudn’t abolish welfare. What about those who cannot control the fishing rod?

    1. Turner Reply

      ie: Are incapable to being able to learn the skills required to survives in a Minarchist nation. I’m talking about the Blind-Death and the PMLD individuals here, on top of many others.

    2. Nicholas Woode-Smith Reply

      That is where the final question comes in. Where must the line be re-drawn? What state services should be eradicated, how much welfare should be given, what can be done to get rid of the need for welfare. That is what needs to be discussed.

      1. Niraj Reply

        This suonds to me like the stick-and-carrot approach: stick for the poor and carrot for the employer.Isn’t it about time we thought about chivvying employers by force of law to hire benefit claimants in the public interest?

        1. Nicholas Woode-Smith Reply

          Taking a wild guess and assuming your not a spam bot even though the scan sees you as one. By your IP, I can see you are not South African. As is logical, things work differently all around the world. I will not claim to know the politics of America, so I would hope that others would not claim to know the politics of SA.

          Any South African would know that employers are anything but benefited by our current system. In fact, it has gone so far that businesses aren’t even starting due to this. Labour unions control the scene and force pro-worker legislation so vehemently that employers can hardly afford to employ. Pro-Worker or not, you have to acknowledge that the employer is needed.

  4. Nicholas Woode-Smith Reply

    Remember, we’re talking from a South African perspective here. Europe developed during the Industrial Revolution, we’re still developing. Today, even beggars have access to the education and information that just ten years ago the rich could only dream of. Life is very different here than in Europe and assuming otherwise is extremely ignorant.

    You have given some good points, however, I will give you that but it seems you have not read the Blue Reform policy properly. The Blue Reform policy is to provide welfare to only those that would die regardless of what they did otherwise. So if someone is truly unable, they will recieve help. This is pointing towards the gangsters and junkies who feed off of the system and our tax money. They had a choice to join a gang, they had a choice to take drugs. They need to live with the consequences. A person who is disabled however, did not choose, so therefore they do not deserve punishment for being incapable but instead a means to become reliant.

    1. HRM Quentin Reply

      What I sense here is more rhetoric than a sociologically and economically viable alternative to the current situation.

      While I argue from a European point of view – an area which is rapidly moving towards your ideal society, with your views being commonly held by those in power and even by many not in power – these are universal human themes.

      It’s a popular misconception that one can just go out and find a job and pay for their own education. Not only do academic results suffer viciously, but these people have a very demotivating environment. Joining a gang or taking drugs is, to young men, often not a choice, but a necessity in order to survive and have a very dim chance of prospering in certain neighbourhoods and social environments, even here.

      It seems like too much to discuss theories of independent minds, which are highly controversial in any psychiatric and sociological circuit, but let’s delve into the abyss of ability here. If someone is born rather dim, is that a disability? Is it a disability that they will only ever be able to perform menial tasks that pay very little, essentially forcing them to live in dilapidated neighbourhoods, having a much higher risk of being the victim of violent crime and developing work-related conditions?

      It’s very difficult to draw the line between those who need public support in order to survive and prosper, and those who genuinely do not.

      1. Nicholas Woode-Smith Reply

        Howabout I divide this into different opinions and you can argue against each one:

        Social Darwinism: The person is born dim for a reason, they are born to undertake a certain facet of society and are needed.

        Free-Market: Depends on the definition of ‘dim’. If you mean medically ‘retarded’ then that is classified as a disability but if they are just uneducated (even with the current free education system) then they have no excuse. Education is extremely easy to come by. It is free in many parts of SA and to be blunt, they have no excuse. Anyone who works hard and cleverly WILL earn their entitlement. That is a fact of the universe as I am yet to see someone who has done both of that and remain poor.

        Historical Citation: Rhodes came to Cape Town at the age of 10 with nothing to his name but some rags. He had heart problems from birth and had no relatives. He came to Cape Town and started working in the mines by choice. He worked harder than any modern miner and by 16 he had had 8 heart attacks but had also managed to earn enough money to buy shares in the mines. He continued this and eventually the 10 year old boy with heart problems became the richest man in history, owning a nation and the biggest mining consortium in existence. He worked, he earned. He was uneducated.

        1. HRM Quentin Reply

          Social Darwinism: it’s an ideology I disagree with. It simply puts together painfully outdated research and personal opinions into a toxic mix that has done the world more harm than good.

          Free-Market: that is absolutely incorrect. In order to acquire almost any well-paying job, you will need the type of education that, in practice, two-thirds of any nation’s population will never be able to complete, and well over half won’t even be able to start. I know more people than you can possibly imagine who, despite studying for half of the day and working for hours a day while studying, were never able to complete anything near the level that I have completed. ‘Dim’ is not an absolute division of either medically diagnosed as being mentally retarded or being on a supposed scale of intelligence that allows for development through hard work – which, on a cynical sidenote, is sociologically false.

          Historical Citation: as soon as I started this discussion, I was hoping for you to fall into this little trap I had devised. My short-form answer: and what about the other tens of millions of people working bad jobs throughout the world, who died with no perspective at age thirty?

Rational Standard
%d bloggers like this: