On the Duty and Care of Government and the Nature and Reasoning of Transfers and Subsidies


The perception of man is often quite limited because of his entrenched biases and fictitious reasoning on the conduct and order of things. His whole being is corrupted by his insatiable wants and his religious scruples are no more a restraint than the law on his conduct which is forever descending toward chaos and ruin. Some are bold enough to demand a fair quota from others but give less of themselves than the least ignoble man. There are those who are ready to set themselves up as judges arbitrarily and exact harsh punishments for others but would have their own judgment conducted in the court of mercy and by judges filled with remorse and pity toward them. As if the law could be bought and so favours the rich at the expense of abusing the poor. And these same men express regret at the state of society that their own conduct created.

There are those who live with plenty everyday above all of their needs but they describe others who endeavour to have even a meal to last more than one day as greedy and grasping as if their wealth and bountifulness were some sacred privilege that their wisdom and excellence bequeath to them. While the remaining mass who are in the majority must apply to heaven for mercy and pray for their daily bread. A society in which money is the medium of exchange is bound to be a society of reprobates and evil men with time, who, as the need for it develops and overtakes their mental faculties with lust and avariciousness sacrifice themselves to it; while those who wish to moderate their conduct and act with virtue are but chattel to those learned men of wealth who spring up under it. Among them are those intellectuals who with their quantum of ideas and exact knowledge of things remain in a den of darkness without understanding or feeling and would readily condemn with contempt the so called “intellectually deficient” into the abyss with vexation(the Brexit referendum result is a notable example of this fact).

All men are by right of their existence assured that they must live and have their daily bread. No two men can be expected to follow the same path in life. The knowledge possessed by the world is too broad while the resources of men are quite limited. Man must search within himself and so decide how he must survive. It is not the express duty of governments to create jobs, it is their duty to ensure that man can achieve his upward mobility in accordance with his natural desire to reach his full potential. Whether or not an education assures a man a job is debatable as a fact. The social stratification of society and its functional order are in fact real impediments to equanimity of opportunity. Furthermore, the pyramid structure of a capitalistic society as controlled based upon hereditary privilege ensures that all men are not guaranteed a place at the pinnacle of society and hence the view of the communists and socialists on the order of society were meant to ameliorate those effects but in an imperfect way and to differing degrees. However, this is not a sociological or economic discussion but more particularly a political question on the nature of governments and its effects on the former two.

We must approach therefore what is good for a society, how to maintain order and ensure peace and prosperity, how to bridle greed in public office and limit the exploitation of the masses within the global capitalistic pandemic, how to limit the extent of individual power to the extent of the law and ensure justice is equitable in view of the public and that the punishment of men is neither tendered by their station nor are they treated light, who scoff at the law without compunction because of the tumour of wealth that destroys all virtue and honour.

Now we arrive at the duty of government in the deceitful reality of a capitalistic- quasi democratic society. As asserted earlier, no two men are obligated to follow the same path and the accessibility of knowledge is limited and confined to man’s geography, experience and inclinations. However, the access to services and the means to survival under any government is imperative. Should a man be allowed to deteriorate his health by his choices and yet be able to benefit from free health care? Well, does the government prohibit the sale of alcohol or cigarettes or drugs that carry the possibility of harmful side effects to those whom they are administered or inferior foods from being prevalent or gambling institutions from flourishing in spite of their debilitative consequences while, at the same time, taxing those institutions as if to punish their existence with a slap upon the wrists because of economic advantages? So then why should government totter around the argument and allow private institutions to profit at the expense of life? Furthermore, how can one man who earns $30,000 dollars a month because of his education or expertise or perhaps his business trade, for example, which supposing the absence of the harmful effects of inflation or instability of the economy and relative affordability of food and housing and other services would be quite considerable, weigh his opinion upon a man who earns a mere $1,500 dollars a fortnight through his government so as to say that because he does little or no work for it, it should be taken from him? You may say the former worked hard to obtain an education so that is his just due but what of him who with the same education and expertise find great difficulties in obtaining the same salary? The inequities are far too great. So much more so when the mean wage for basic sustenance is perhaps $7,000 dollars a month and the wealth of the nation is such that each man can have 10,000 a month for himself and live comfortably if the government was properly managed and all men  were honest and good.

This brings us to the nature of subsidies and transfers as provided by governments. These are meant to impose some equilibrium within the system and so neutralize the harmful effects of natural human instincts. If governments were to eliminate make-work or unemployment benefit programmes or grants and other social services what would happen to those who benefit therefrom? Wouldn’t the social consequences be disastrous and public sentiment grossly affected? Wouldn’t you who earned $30,000 dollars a month find your property more of a burden and your wealth in turn confined to your own protection rather than for your joy and benefit? How can one man have plenty while the other, who must live with little, have that taken from him? It is a completely erroneous and dangerous thing in terms of the consequences. In fact, by what presumption do the rich and well off salaried worker take it upon himself to shift the course of the public purse when the natural order of capitalism and the spirit therein which is already present would ensure the incentive to work is no less affected in those who wish for more?

Hence the reason I scorn the view of the emotionally detached intellects or more properly the intellectual fools who scorn wisdom, presenting theories and statistics to justify their claims and arguments as if people were simply numbers and arithmetic. If governments were responsible and uncorrupted then such questions about economic deficiencies would not be commonplace. It is the general corruption and the lack of determination to seek the public interests which creates such realities. Nevertheless, it still would not eliminate the necessities of life which are always beyond some while in the grasp of many.

In every society, there will be men who contribute greatly to some particular aspect of the whole while others are sluggard, face limited prospects and are naturally disinclined to any adventurous pursuit by psychological forces. They too must be catered to for they are but children, not needing to be scolded, reprimanded or punished but treated as part of the whole of society. They are not burdens to the public purse, the rich exact more than they do from treasuries. They are simply the consequence of the realities of a system that caters to some more than others. Who sees when they contribute to commerce, business activities and sometimes some find their way to greener pastures through their natural will to improvement and so lift a whole mass with them? Indeed, they too do work and the little they do based on the standards set by man should not be counted any less than the greatest of works done by others, for it is character that shapes and determines the true extent of a man’s output  regardless of his circumstances or qualification.  Moreover, in the absence of their general felicity all are affected, institutions  are weakened and the authority of governments rescinded.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s