You nailed it. You have described the truthful state of affairs in a minimum of words.
Like most, I have no idea how to fix this mess. The masses have been conditioned to reject and resist anything that might help (like a job, personal responsibility, civil behavior and so on).
Tough love is the only answer, but 60% of Americans would reject it, while the other 40% doesn't need it.
Thanks, much. I’ve always admired your work, particularly in the cafeteria.
To my mind, our present state of affairs demonstrates very clearly that we were right all along. That civil society and a people who believed in certain things were fragile, and a lot easier to break down than reconstitute. That’s small comfort now.
I work in a field where most are liberals or even socialists, the environmental field. There is a principle they love to promote, the Precautionary Principle. Under it anybody wanting to produce a new product would have to prove it would NOT have bad effects for the environment before being allowed to make it.
The idea, not a bad one in and of itself, being that the side effects and unintended consequences of introducing changes in a complex system should be carefully considered before making them.
I’ve sometimes asked colleagues why this principle shouldn’t apply to human societies, the most complex systems known. Why should we encourage people to experiment with such great enthusiasm on the human social environment while trying to prohibit experimentation in the physical environment and on individual humans?
Never have gotten a logical response, mostly just blank stares.
Or, as Chesterton put it, much better than I can:
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
IOW, that we don’t understand why certain ways of doing things have evolved in human societies tells us much more about our lack of understanding than it does about the utility of those methods. Destroying them because we DON’T understand their function is just idiotic.
But that’s what most “reform” has consisted of for the last few decades.
The solution is a return to local charity. The government, whether state or federal, has no business meddling in people’s lives to “help” them. Government help is never helpful. It is destructive at all times and in all places.
Local churches, civic organizations, neighborhoods, businesses all know how to help those truly in need. They also know how to protect themselves from cons and ripoff artists.
Everyone needs to eat. If a person is capable of working they can support their belly. If they cannot the generosity and kindness of their neighbors will provide. That is how it is done.