Even Charity is Not Always a Good Thing
Consider these items from Jeffrey Kacirk's Forgotten English calendar:
Villages in some parts of the country formerly possessed buildings known as "beggar barns." These barns usually belonged to the farm which was situated nearest the church, and wayfaring beggars were always given gratis a night's lodging and a meal in them. It was a popular belief that such homeless wanderers had a legal right to sleep in the church porch, and it was purely a sense of public decency which substituted the beggar barn. --Frederick Hackwood's Good Old Times, 1910
In the Middle Ages, many European communities subscribed to the notion that they had a moral obligation to assist wayfarers. During that time, many wanderers abused such hospitality, seeing that their vagacion (an early form of "vacation," referring to the "occupation" of a tramp and closely related to "vagrant") could be practiced indefinitely. Although over time popular sentiment turned against them, these increasingly resourceful men, women, and children continued sleeping in unlocked barns and gathering meals from orchard, field, and coop.
The English parliament enacted a number of unsuccessful laws to discourage unlimited freeloading, including one in 1572 known as the Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds.
So, over 400 years ago the English government knew it needed to take action to discourage freeloading, even though the excessive freeloading resulted largely from voluntary charitable acts of the citizenry. But now the government of the United States is daily taking actions that will encourage freeloading and force the citizenry to support it. (I should note that the modern English government lost its way long before the US government.)
If I were an intellectual, perhaps I could understand why supposedly smart people want to keep experimenting with socialism. They seem to be thinking that we should abandon capitalism and free markets because they aren't working perfectly. But clearly no other system has ever worked as well. I always come back to the conclusion that it's not about working well or even better, it's about power. The proponents of a bigger, more controlling government are simply using it to become members of the ruling class. They don't necessarily believe in it but they know there are plenty of "useful idiots" out there who do.
Comments
Make a comment:
- Government is Friction
- We Have Too Many Experts
- Money is Not Wealth
- The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- Arizonans React to San Diego Boycott
- Let's Use Afghanistan as an Entitlement Testbed
- Socially Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher
- Even Charity is Not Always a Good Thing
- Why Not Give Universal Footwear a Try?
- Supporters of New Health Care Acts Disingenuous
- anhinga on The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- Carson on The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- anhinga on The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- Carson on Arizonans React to San Diego Boycott
- anhinga on Arizonans React to San Diego Boycott
- anhinga, 31 July 2010
- Carson, 19 June 2010
- Liquid Egg Product, 18 June 2010
- Carson, 02 May 2010
- Liquid Egg Product, 01 May 2010
- Anhinga
- Carnival of Climate Change
- Ekawaaz
- Flashpoint
- Florida Cracker
- I Can Plainly See
- Ironic Surrealism
- Liquid Egg Product
- Ms Understood
- The Hatemongers Quarterly
- Truth, Lies and Character
I have probably said this before, but I don't know when you have written a more perfectly reasoned blog. Too bad you have too much intellect to be an "intellectual." Perhaps more would listen to you.
Dear Sir: Let me draw your attention to Mr. hackwood's phrase "a sense of public decency" as the key to why beggar barns and their modern day equivalants are provided. It was better for the residents to provide a barn than having vagabonds sleep on the porch of the church. I, as a taxpayer, am happy to see basic health care provided for all rather than rub elbows with someone who can't afford to have his rash treated. Are there sponges out there? Yes, but some are rich and some are poor. It is usually the poor ones that we notice.
Mr Person, I don't think Hackwood meant federal government when he used the term public. I think he was referring to charitable acts of the citizenry or possibly small-town officials.
I don't think there is anything decent about forcing one individual to furnish the needs of another. But I am a strong believer in voluntary charity.
The best argument against big-government managed health care is that it won't result in better health-care. It will neither increase the availability of health-care to the poor nor will it result in better quality health-care. There is no free lunch. People have to provide the health-care and people have to pay for it. What happens when we run out of people willing or able to do that?