Servitude to the State

Our founders enumerated powers in our Constitution to ensure that the scope of government remained limited, thereby preventing government from re-enslaving the people.  For decades the government has used the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution to justify expansion and increasing involvement in or control over the lives of citizens.  This has resulted in a corresponding degradation of liberty and servitude to the state.  To illustrate this, let’s examine the government’s role in meeting the needs of the poor and frame the discussion with Aesop’s fable, “The Ant and the Grasshopper”.

In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content.  An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest. 

"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"

"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; we have got plenty of food at present."  But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil.  When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer.  Then the Grasshopper knew:

It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.

This well-known fable highlights the importance of industry and self-reliance, while also highlighting the folly of indolence and procrastination.  In another version of this fable the ant refuses the starving grasshopper’s petition for food and upbraids him for his wasted summer and unpreparedness.  This variation leads some to ignore the original moral of the fable and instead condemn selfishness and lack of compassion on the part of those like the ant.   Granting that the grasshopper was lazy and the ant lacked charity, let’s consider which side our government comes down on.

There are two types of poor, the deserving and undeserving.  Deserving poor are those who are poor through no fault of their own, while the undeserving poor are able bodied with adequate opportunity but choose not to work for their basic necessities.  The grasshopper in Aesop’s fable is clearly intended to highlight the undeserving poor.  Our government’s welfare policies make no attempt to distinguish between the two and therefore incentivize the indolence of the grasshopper.  Worse, government unjustly makes the industrious ant the slave of the grasshopper.

If our government were cast in Aesop’s fable, upon identifying the plight of the undeserving grasshopper, instead of using the force of government to compel him to work and earn his own bread they would use the force of government to take the fruits of the ant’s labor and redistribute it to the grasshopper through welfare instruments.  Instead of forcing self-reliance the government chooses to force “charity” and fosters dependence.  Since there is no incentive for the grasshopper to become self-reliant his annual plight will persist and the government will continue to force the ant to support the grasshopper with his labor.  It is a twisted mind that can claim justice in this scenario.

 

The individual himself should be the first line against poverty, yet the government’s policies do not seek to foster self-reliance.  The next line of defense should be the family, yet the government’s policies do not seek to strengthen and support this vital institution in society.  Quite the contrary, the government has for some time supported and aided those in society bent to destroy the family and has sought itself to replace the family.  Welfare distribution actually discourages poor pregnant females from getting married.  The next line of defense should be religious based institutions and organizations specifically established to relieve poverty. 

   

One author wrote that the “private charities of the nineteenth century had been more successful and humane than the twentieth-century welfare state – private charities had stressed what he called affiliation, trying to help the poor by restoring broken family ties, whereas contemporary social policy emphasized personal autonomy.  Private charities had tried to bond with those they cared for when they were truly on their own, whereas the welfare state was bureaucratic and impersonal.  Private charities tried to discern who really needed help and who merely sought to live in indolence; the welfare state made no such distinction” (Regnery,2008).

The government is impersonal and will never be able to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor.  Instead of assuming the role and responsibilities of charity, they should establish policies that foster self-reliance and strengthen those institutions of society best able to do so and to administer to the deserving poor.   As long as government stays in the welfare business, they will continue to unjustly make the hard working members of society the slaves of the undeserving poor.

In expanding outside of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, our government has slowly marched towards tyranny and despotism.  Our welfare system is but one example.  Always under the guise of authority, justice and the general welfare of society, politicians have fostered a mindset and culture of dependency on government.  The have passed laws that steadily eroded personal liberty and put government in control.  They are increasingly bold in despoiling the fruits of our labors to support the growing aims of the state.  Sadly, too many of our citizens cannot see this destruction in operation.