FROM OUR INBOX
5ISTPIGERFIWIPǻWLERH8E\EXMSRJSVGIW people to participate to help others. Just like we need roads, bridges, military and emergence services, we also need to look after people who need it. Otherwise, we end up with more violence and crime and perhaps even revolution. Not in our best interest. Thirdly, we live in a democracy. If most people vote for candidates who want taxes to pay for government social programs, then that’s the price you pay for living here. You have the option of voting in candidates who don’t, and at the moment we have a president who doesn’t believe in helping others. I disagree with him, but we live in a democracy. – Rod H. P.J. O’Rourke comment: Rod, I might quibble with your characterization of the “two ideas” that American Consequences promotes. I’d like to think that we have more than two ideas. But you’re right about the tendency of democracy to relieve individuals of the responsibility for doing good works and to place that responsibility in the hands of government. Rather than get into a long argument with you about the rights and wrongs of this, I’d ask you to do one thing. Go back and reread the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and note how concerned the Founding Fathers were with one aspect of democracy – tyranny of the majority. Yes, yes, I know, Trump didn’t win the majority of the popular vote. But the Founders weren’t just worried about popular – vote tyranny. They worried about a majority
the government response very likely would have been to manufacture even more Edsels and make them (if this was possible) even uglier. For example, government poverty programs have been growing in number and expense since the Great Society era more than half a century ago. In fairness, the initial Great Society programs did cause a drop in the poverty rate. But that poverty rate quit dropping at the end of the 1960s and has leveled off, hovering between about 13% and 15% ever since. Meanwhile the scope and the cost of poverty programs continue to increase. But, you’re right, Jon. At American Consequences, we do concentrate on what the government refuses to learn from its policy failures. And we do pay a lot of attention to proposed government policies, such as price controls, that have a long history of failure. Maybe that’s because our theme is, as our title says, consequences . But maybe we should also work harder at suggesting constructive alternatives for government to try. Your e-mail promotes two ideas: that big government should be replaced with doing charity at home and that forcing people to pay tax is not generous. You are ignoring a few things: People don’t have the time or energy to do charity at home, that’s why many like the government doing it for them and the government has a lot of accountability, more than most charities.
14
January 2020
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog