[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Paul's compassion is what I was responding to. Compassion is a highly personal response. It is the personal response of an individual to the plight of another. It is inherent in human nature, not in the nature of a bureaucracy. Though individuals may collectively create bureacracies, even with compassionate intent, once it leaves their hands it operates as an impersonal mechanism. It knows no personal choice or preference or feeling, and it is not received with gratitude, but with expectation.

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

The "system" owes, is required by law, to dole the handout. There is no person to thank or feel beholden to. Instead of gratitude when the gift is given, there is anger when it isn't. And those that pay, rarely meet the recipients and rarely feel the warm flow of personal generosity. And, as the needy grow, in response to the legal confiscation of their substance, those that pay are told they need to pay more.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

This is a result of the statist's distrust of the individual, and the continual assault on individual freedom with the excuse that the individual is not capable of solving the problems of humanity. The individual is too selfish. Only the collective can eliminate the problems that ail us.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

When the needy become, as apparently they are about to do so, half of the population, then, indeed, everyone and his neighbor (if he is not needy) will have to offer the cookie.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

Yes, the collective must decide what is normal.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

Isn't it interesting that as being "our brother's keeper" becomes more a responsibility of the government, the number of needy brothers expands.

Does it? I'd think this is more probably a function of the overall economic condition.

-spence