--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> The "we" obligation has led to some bad consequences, including the
> extensive welfare states that populate a lot of the world.
No, those consequences result from a misapprehension of the obligation we have to our fellows, which must first be to restore their equal human rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. That can best (maybe only) be accomplished through LVT with a UIE. Then there is the prudent provision of education, and basic and catastrophic health care. Private charity can probably handle the rest.
> Essentially, a
> welfare state admits that its economy is unable to attain the real
> objective - liberty and justice for all - so it goes to extraordinary
> lengths to patch up its failure with re-distribution of wealth.
From the productive to the poor's landlords. Right.
> It fails and in addition there is a theory of history that suggests that
> the welfare state is the reason why democracies fail. That, as more and
> more citizens find that taking from the state via the vote is easier, so
> the number of takers grow even as the producers diminish. Eventually, comes
History suggests that it is welfare for the rich -- especially landowners -- that collapses civilizations, not welfare for the poor.
> In any event, the problems have arisen because "we" feel obligated which
> is a lot easier to do than feeling "I" am obligated.
See above. The problems arise because the nature of the obligation is misapprehended.
> Which is healthier? Governments appropriating other people's money to
> distribute on pet projects
"Meeza hatesa gubmint!!"
> or individuals deciding that someone needs help
> and proceeding to do something about it?
As Karl Eskelund's report from Bengal explained, individuals just end up giving to landowners.
-- Roy Langston