This post will continue to address how the loss of virtue leads to the loss of freedom, as will other posts to come.
Poverty
The loss of virtue in the people of our country has led to a large welfare state. Before I am accused of hating the poor and wanting them to suffer, please know that I am for an emergency safety net provided through government, as were the Founders. However, the modern welfare state and the safety net put in place by the Founder's have nearly nothing in common. While Jesus confirmed that poverty is a permanent part of the human condition (Mark 14:7), most people don't want to see others suffer from it. It is unwise and does nothing to better the situation to accuse others of not caring for the poor if they don't agree with the approach that you take.
Now, I say that most people don't want people to suffer from poverty, and that is true, but there are many that don't mind taking advantage of them in order to enrich themselves. They don't want to make others poor, they just want to make themselves more wealthy and more powerful, and they are willing to compromise their integrity and harm others in order to make that happen. No group or political party has a monopoly on the lust for wealth and power. As pride is a universal sin, so too are these vices. Others may feel indifferent about the situation of the poor or lack sufficient concern to take significant personal action. The loss of virtue leads to all of these.
The loss of virtue leads to poverty in many ways, both through the actions of those held captive in its chains as well as the actions of others in society that help to clasp those chains to them. Drug and alcohol abuse often leads people to be unable to maintain a job and it eats away any income they do have. The destruction of the traditional family leads to single parenthood, which significantly increases poverty. Lack of parent presence leads to increased drop-out rates in school and decreased chances of further education, both of which contribute to poverty. Loss of virtue in business owners leads some of them to take advantage of their employees, reaping greater profits at their expense. These are just a few ways that poverty is fed by the loss of virtue in the population. Though poverty is surely not always caused by a decline in virtue, in many, many cases its contribution is significant.
The Welfare State
Many large changes in our government occurred in the first part of the 20th century. These changes were in response to an increase in poverty during that time and to many people feeling that they were being oppressed by those in power. It was the loss of virtue which led to practices in the manufacturing and financial markets that gave rise to these conditions, ultimately leading to the Great Depression. The Great Recession, and many other troughs in the economic history of our country have also come in large measure through the loss of virtue.
The loss of virtue has led to the people of the country advancing the ever-growing welfare state and promoting leaders of both parties that espoused belief in it. People become very angry when anyone intimates that a significant portion of those partaking of government aid are "working the system" because they view it as a value judgement. The truth is that idleness has been a problem in the human condition for thousands of years (Prov 31:27, Eccl 10:18, Ezek 16:49, 1 Tim 5:13, D&C 42:42). It was in response to these national changes early in the 1900's toward a welfare state and the people's acceptance of it that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints instituted it's welfare program. In 1936, when the Church's welfare program was launched, President Heber J. Grant stated the following:
"Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership."If work needed to be "re-enthroned" as a ruling principle at that time, when the welfare state was in it's infancy, how much more must it be a problem in our day. Idleness, both in many on government aid and in those politicians, bureaucrats, and business owners that grow rich off of these programs, their promotion, and their administration, is a major driver the national debt, the declining middle class, and the economic polarization that we see today. Please know that I understand that there are many people to whom aid from the government comes who legitimately need that assistance, on whom some unforeseen emergency has fallen and whose family, friends, and private charity are unable support sufficiently. These people should be supported by government until they, if at all possible, are able to get back on their feet. These kinds of situations, however, are relatively few. Also, please know that the idea of a welfare program is not in and of itself bad. I believe the LDS Church's welfare program to be divinely inspired and instituted. However, the current welfare programs of the state differ in their principles so vastly from that inspired version that they are hardly comparable. State programs often, among other problems, are compulsory in their funding, require little to no accountability, and encourage people to stay dependent on them.
The Welfare State and Freedom
How then does the welfare state threaten freedom? It does so in at least four ways. 1) It requires the erosion and eventual destruction of property rights, which are an essential component of liberty. As soon as it becomes permissible for the government to take a portion of people's property without their consent to distribute it to others, the only thing that keeps it from taking all their property is the right circumstance and the might to enforce it. 2) It changes people's standing so that when they approach the government they no longer come before it as citizens, but as dependents. 3) If left unchecked, it burdens society with massive amounts of debt, producing more takers and less producers. 4) It destroys self-respect and the initiative for personal independence, limiting the ultimate outcomes of a person's life. The loss of virtue in the lives of the people has in large measure produced the welfare state which has induced all of these things upon the nation.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts here, Andrew. Props for your wisdom in recognizing that no group or party has a monopoly on selfishness, greed, and corruption. And also, for your desire to care for the poor who are in an urgent state of need. These sentiments are a credit to your good heart. A couple of thoughts I had (this isn't the most coherent thing I ever wrote, so bear with and feel free to correct me where I'm in error :) --
ReplyDeleteChrist says in Mark to his disciples that "ye have the poor with you always". Certainly a argument can me made that poverty is an overwhelmingly consistent part of the human condition, but not necessarily a permanent part. He could have merely been telling his disciples then that they would always have the poor with them. In fact, in the ideal of Zion and the City of Enoch, one of the defining characteristics was that there was no poor among them. In the Book of Mormon, typically when the Nephites, et al were doing well, one of the symptoms was usually an increase in societal alleviation of poverty.
It is, perhaps, shortsighted to decide that because of one quote from the Savior, that we are stuck with poverty, so we might as well learn to live with it. What is with us always is a charge to care for the poor as long as they are among us. I know you believe in that, as do many others of good heart. The question then is, where are these efforts to care for the poor valid and appropriate? Are we only allowed to care for the poor who dwell within our religious groups? Is a reprieve from the crush of poverty our reward to someone for believing the same thing we believe? Or is it alright for us, as a societal collective, to decide to care for the poor among us, even if many of us don't believe a word the prophets say? Why is aid from a church divinely inspire welfare, while aid from a government and from a society the evils of a dole? As you've mentioned or at least indicated a comparison between Roosevelt's New Deal and the Church's Welfare System, consider the following comparisons:
Gov't & the New Deal -
1. Through elected representation, Gov't levied taxes on the country to generate income for the operation of the gov't and gov't programs
2. Gov't received those tax monies
3. Roosevelt's Admin spend those tax monies on a litany of new social programs. The backbone of these are programs like the CCC and the PWA, which spent gov't money (read tax money taken from Americans) on massive public works projects.
4. These public works projects allow the poor, the jobless, the homeless to go back to work and to earn a daily wage to care for themselves and provide for their families necessities. These welfare jobs were not available in the private sector and only existed because gov't money made it so.
Church's Welfare Program-
1. Through church representation, Church places kind, but not insignificant pressure on church members to pay tithing and offerings to generate income for the operation of the church and church programs
2. Church receives those tithes and offerings
3. Church officials spend these monies on a litany of church programs, including the church's welfare program.
4. This welfare program provides assistance to the poor, the jobless, the homeless in the form of food, rent payment, payment for medical treatment, clothing, and all necessities. Welfare recipients are encouraged to work/serve in church facilities while they're receiving church aid. These welfare jobs are not available in the private sector and only exist because church money makes it so.
(...continued)
ReplyDeleteThe church welfare program and the roots of governmental welfare are all but identical. Differences include: governmental welfare makes a larger effort to care for ALL the poor among us. The church's welfare program can NEVER lead to the elimination of poverty in our society (it's just not big enough and never can be). The church's welfare allows its members to remain isolated and dependent on the church for aid, instead of relying on anyone outside.
Perhaps the big difference is that the collection funds that run governmental welfare is to large extent, compulsory, while the collection of funds that run church welfare is to a large extent, voluntary. In an agency church, I can see the virtue of allowing people to choose to care for the poor. However, do we not have a sort of societal compact that we are in this together, and that we will abide by the laws and policies put in place by our elected leaders? And do we not have our agency at the voting booth to decide how we will care for our poor and who we will charge with overseeing that sacred duty? It is true that there cannot exist governmental without the gov't taking some of our property. But it is our decision, with our votes and with our hearts, whether the government is taking the portion of our taxes that goes to welfare, or whether we are giving it. It is not a loss of virtue that inspires governmental welfare, but an exercise of it. Might it not benefit our society if the many members of our church who so continually fight government assistance, instead decided to commit to it as a good value of our society and devote our efforts to making it run as efficiently as possible and to help it be beneficial to lifting the least among us? Perhaps some of us can even bring insights gleaned from the church's inspired welfare program and help apply them to our governmental welfare program.
Also, we ought to beware the voice that tells us that welfare programs are inherently bad because some number of people are taking advantage of them, when they could be working. This attitude will suck from us the joy and the energy to care for the poor, even though the command to care for the poor will still remain. There are many who come to church purely for social, economic, or family reasons, but it doesn't stop us for holding the meeting for those who are actually spiritually hungry.
Thanks for your thoughts Corbin. You show again the evidence of your love for others and your with me. As I feared, people, at least to some extent, would misunderstand my meaning in this post. First addressing the charge from Christ to care for the poor. I know that during brief periods in history, when righteousness and the truths of the gospel held full sway in the lives and hearts of certain peoples, that "there were no poor among them." Would to God that this were possible at all times and in all societies. But until the population at large reaches that level of knowledge of and commitment to the principles taught by Jesus, having no poor among us will not be possible. I fully understand that the Church's welfare program will never be large enough to care for the larger number of the poor in society, and thus mentioned that I am for a government based welfare program for those in significant need. I do not believe that all government based welfare programs have been bad, and I certainly don't question the motives behind the majority of those who promote them. I believe that many of them have done good, the homeless management program that Pat is involved in, for example, is significant and needed, as also are programs that get people back to work.
DeleteThere are, however, many programs and/or elements of certain programs that do more harm than good and that are far from sustainable. The debt that aspects of these programs lead us as a society to incur is almost incomprehensible. The wealthiest country in history has, in peace time, amassed the largest debt in history. I am just worried that the course we are on will lead us to more poverty and less ability to anything to help. While I can't speak for all those who "continually fight government assistance," I can tell you that I hope that more people do accept aid for the poor as a virtue in our society and that they sincerely try to bring good ideas and wisdom into these programs to make them better, as I am confident Pat is doing. This is in large measure what I was trying to do with my post.
As a society we are "all in this together" and we are obliged to follow our consciences in bringing about what we believe/feel to be the course that will bring about the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. You are correct that we all, through elected government, are to choose that course. Changes in that process will be the subject of a future post. I believe that that motives that drove the changes in welfare in the early 1900's were in large measure benevolent. However, I believe that the changes in our country's political philosophies that occurred in that process have been detrimental to our society as a whole. More will be said about this in future posts. I also believe that the end results of many of the efforts to care for the poor have not brought to pass their intended goals, and in some cases have made things worse. Though others may not believe in prophets nor their counsel, I do, and it is important for me to promote the principles that I believe to be founded in the truths of the gospel, as best I understand them.
DeleteYou mentioned that I am shortsighted in my view, which I may be, but I believe that the principles that I share with others are correct. I fear that we are, though motivated by love, so often focused on doing something to help those that suffer, that we don't fully consider the effects that our efforts may have both on the people we wish to help and the society at large. Helping others does bring joy, but we need to be sure that we give them what will ultimately end in their good, happiness, and prosperity. Thanks again for your patience with me as I try to bring about some good in my limited understanding. I think that, as is often the case, we share more common ground with those with whom we disagree than is often supposed. If we assume the good in others and listen to each other with the intent to understand and with a commitment to what resonates to our soul as truth, I am confident that we can bring to pass much good in the society we live in. I don't believe that a loss of virtue is the root if government assistance, but I do believe that it contributes to the poverty that those programs seek to help and that it has contributed to the growth in our government to be nearly half the GDP of our country and in large measure no longer based on the principles upon which the country was founded.