Tag Archives: entitlements

Contrary to Popular Belief, We’re Not Racists

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)


The name “entitlements” always troubles me. I reject the notion that someone is “entitled” to the fruits of another’s labor.

When those of us on the right argue that welfare, food stamps, unemployment, and/or disability should be reduced in any way, let alone eradicated, we’re often branded as racists. The argument being that reducing these programs would unfairly hurt minorities because statistics show that minorities disproportionately make up those who utilize these programs.

So first, let’s talk about what it means to be a racist. It generally means that you hold someone in a different regard because of their skin color or ethnicity, and it’s generally used in the context of disrespect, but not always. On occasion, it is intended as a positive force.

For instance, the NAACP, a group with a noble mission, is still a racist organization. But it’s mission is to help “colored” (the C in NAACP) people, and it limits its assistance to only that group, discriminating against all others. It makes no effort to harm people outside their race, which distinguishes it from negatively racist hate-based groups such as the KKK or the Black Panthers.


That being said, I generally think racism on all fronts should not exist in a properly moral society. I would prefer these organizations favor groups like the financially underprivileged and leave race out of it. In 1909, when the NAACP launched their efforts, race issues were very different from today. Legislative racism was prevalent and allowed, and private racism wasn’t relegated to the very ignorant few as it is in the modern era.

But back to government programs. While I understand the numbers indicate that this would affect minorities at a greater level, I find the notion insulting that most on the right are attacking government handouts from a racist point of view. We are attacking these programs from a work-ethics and/or morality point of view.

We generally believe that people can and should earn their own way, regardless of their ethnicity, and should not expect society to finance their life. I’ve not seen anyone outside groups like the KKK argue to end entitlements for people of color only, so the argument it is racist is not buoyed by any real evidence.

Penn Jillette
Penn Jillette

If someone needs help, they should ask for it from their family or community, but they have no right to expect government to extort other American wage-earners at the point of an IRS agent’s gun. “We the people” should have the right to choose who gets our hard-earned money and how much of it.

People who use these programs are mostly capable of taking care of themselves—very few are severely disabled to a point where they can do nothing to earn a wage. While some are purely lazy, many who used to work but suffered an injury preventing them from doing their chosen profession just need to reeducate or retrain themselves in a new field. But why would they as long as government will give them free money? While I admit that it can be scary or difficult to make such a change, YOU are your own responsibility; if society didn’t harm you, then society does not owe you. MESC UNEMPLOYMENT2#67134

Many contend there’s no jobs to be had. Yet I’ve never seen a local newspaper want-ad with the header, “Sorry, no jobs this week.” The problem is that many simply refuse to take a job they don’t want or that they feel is beneath them. That’s a choice they should be allowed to make, but I don’t feel I should be expected to bankroll it.

They argue that most of the wages are too low, but the problem is just as easily due to costs of goods and services being too high from taxes needed to pay for these programs and other government waste.

But there’s another issue that I believe is very racist, and it’s not what’s perpetuated by us on the right. The left arguing that minorities need these programs. It essentially insinuates that minorities are inferior, less capable of fending for themselves, or that they’re uncompetitive in the job marketplace.

The only other theory is to argue that minorities are being held back by Caucasians, but this would mean that whites have secret “white-people” meetings where we conspire to halt the advancement of others, which of course is ludicrous and unequivocally racist in its own right.

Sadly, many have been conditioned by some unscrupulous community leaders to believe that the color of their skin hinders their advancement instead of instilling in them that they can succeed with hard work, a good attitude, intellect, and selfless dedication. We have plenty of minority successes in this country as a counter-argument to the idea that race is a road-block to success.

Democrats founded the KKK, and they were also the ones to fight vehemently against abolishing slavery—far too few even know this. Their hateful racism has merely been replaced with compassionate racism, but it’s still racism and it’s still wrong.

Martin Luther King Jr.
Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream that his children would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. He never argued they should get special treatment because of it. It’s one of the most elegant statements ever given regarding racism. He didn’t want a divided black vs. white nation, he wanted a united one of mutual respect where race didn’t matter.

Skin color is no different from hair color or eye color. These traits are  genetic variances within our species (homo-sapiens), brought on by geographically varied ancestries and natural selection. As such, they should be treated as descriptors or indications of heritage, not predeterminers of one’s intellect or ability.

Racism is slowly being eradicated as advancements in knowledge of biology grow, specifically DNA research, which disprove the idea that minorities are somehow a sub-species, a theory widely held not much more than a century ago.

Tiger Woods
Tiger Woods

But also, racism ends as heritages intermingle and produce mixed offspring. Barack Obama and Tiger Woods are but two shining examples of mixed-ethnicity people who’ve went on to achieve greatness, and this group is growing rapidly.

I have little doubt that “pure-breeds” as some might call them are a dying breed, and I think this is not only a good thing, but part of our evolutionary process as natural selection chooses the best traits from all races to effectively build a better man.

As our ability to travel to faraway lands becomes easier, facilitating cultural intermingling, I suspect we will evolve into one big race somewhere in between in the centuries to come—a beautiful concept in my opinion.

So how do we end racism? It will die a slow quiet death with education and evolution all on its own, the evidence clearly indicates as much. Race-baiters with megaphones calling other people racists only foster bigotry by dividing us on the issue of race, accomplishing the opposite of the cause they profess to fight for. We are not the racists—they are.

Entitlements are the seeds of socialism; sociopaths are the fertilizer

Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

Disclaimer: This article is not about everyone who collects entitlements; many of whom are good and honest people who truly need help. So before I get accused of attacking all of those who collect entitlements, I am only assailing the programs themselves, and those who abuse them.

During one of President Obama’s speeches, he made a statement that was patently false. He stated:

“Nobody wants a handout. Nobody wants something for nothing.”

obamabill1[1]In an ideally moral world, this would be correct, but America is not Utopia. Some people are burdened with a conscience, others simply are not; a basic form of sociopathy.

I saw the videos of a woman; overwhelmingly giddy, saying she couldn’t wait for her Obama money. I personally know people collecting various entitlements even though they are capable of being self-sufficient. These people aren’t urban legends, they’re just the Lazyburg population behaving as if they hit the lottery, and they are out there in droves. So Obama is either ignorant, delusional, disingenuous—or a combination of all three.

Sociopaths and psychopaths are often believed to be the same; these terms are somewhat loosely defined. But in general and for our purposes, we’ll define psychopaths as violent sociopaths, whereas sociopaths are simply people with little or no capacity for empathy, but non-violent. They know what society considers to be morally right and wrong, but only comply to avoid imprisonment or retaliatory assault; their compliance is not out of any sense of morality. They live a life that is exclusively self-serving.

Humans have evolved as social beings. Our ancient ancestors fought off and hunted larger and more dangerous predators and prey by virtue of our intellect and our social interaction with each other—strength in numbers. Being kind to one another is evolutionarily beneficial; a point Dr. Michael Shermer eloquently makes here. But while sociopathy is an anomaly in humans, it isn’t inherently bad, nor even all that uncommon. Scientific American published a great article outlining the silver linings of sociopathy; it’s interesting reading.

The purpose of going into all of this psychobabble is to point out that most entitlement programs are built under the false assumption that people generally do the right thing, but for a much larger portion of the population than these bureaucrats care to admit, this isn’t true. Most logical folks know there are a great number of people who will often fail to do the right thing.

Here are some examples:

  • Disability: Imagine someone hurts their back and can no longer lift anything heavy. Instead of learning a less physically demanding new career, they often opt for disability. The fact that they are living off their neighbor’s tax dollars doesn’t bother them. Why should they work if we’re willing to pay them not to?
  • Welfare: Imagine a woman having multiple children; collecting more from welfare for each one. By paying her more per child, we are assuring she’ll never have to work again. To her; being a baby mill is more desirable and profitable than working or at least finding a supportive spouse and creating a typical family unit. Why should she work when we’ll pay her not to?
  • Unemployment insurance: Imagine someone collecting UI until that perfect opportunity comes along instead of taking a lesser job to get off the government dole sooner. Why should they take a job “beneath” their skills when you’ll pay them to wait until they find something better?

In each case, many of us would see these examples as morally wrong. To the sociopath, it’s merely the path of least resistance. As such, it is quite natural. The questions I asked at the end of each one, are the questions they rhetorically ask to justify this existence.

Beggar_Saint_Elisabeth_Group[1]I do believe that many serial entitlement-collectors wouldn’t have the courage to go to a town gathering, look people in the eye, and ask for money personally. The guilt of knowing they are asking for something they don’t need nor deserve would be too much for most. But with government entitlements, they don’t have to. They can do it behind the anonymity of a government worker, or worse yet, by simply filing an application online or via snail mail. While some may have some semblance of a conscience and are not complete sociopaths, the anonymity shields what little moral fiber they have from any social pressure whatsoever.

So am I saying people shouldn’t get help? Of course not. Most Americans are generous, and willing to help one another. For instance, the Mormon Church is legendary for being the first on scene when a crisis occurs. As tragedies happen around the world, American charities easily out-donate the next most generous country. Charities designed to help unfortunate Americans abound as well. So the idea that Americans wouldn’t help each other if government doesn’t, isn’t backed by any data. Good people who truly need help would often get it, whereas the scammers would be rightfully quashed.

Government caseworkers are charged with preventing fraud, but it’s nearly impossible when they rarely, if ever, meet the claimant. But small social circles know each other. My ex-roommate for instance was someone prone to find a host, pay rent a few months, then fabricate a reason why he can’t find a job, and as such, can’t pay rent. I put a stop to his all-expenses-paid vacation by simply evicting him. But if I were the government, booting him would have been significantly more difficult, lest they be accused of unlawful bias and then sued accordingly.

As the left push for more assistance, I wish to point out that one cannot fraud a program that doesn’t exist in the first place. If we continue to offer free money based on a simple set of criteria, and that money is enough to support a lifestyle, ingenious sociopaths will find a way to meet that criteria, regardless of whether they actually need assistance. It’s the path of least resistance, a phenomenon all of nature generally and understandably adheres to. These people aren’t evil, they’re just not encumbered by social pressure like the rest of us.

when-the-people-find-they-can-vote-themselves-money-that-will-herald-the-end-of-the-republic[1]America is the land of the free, and as heartless as it seems, freedom means being allowed to fail as well. Charities, churches, social groups, and loved ones will find a way to help the truly needy. That was never something this government was intended to do. I say that entitlements are the seeds of socialism, but Benjamin Franklin said it best:

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

We cannot let quasi-socialists redefine our love for freedom as heartlessness. Good people will almost always help other good people. They just need the government to stop stealing the money they would otherwise have to do so.