Rent-seeking – it’s not just for corporations any more! As The Economist noted:
…in how many other countries would a powerful populist movement demand less of government, rather then endlessly and expensively more?
Indeed! The article where this was pulled from actually was talking about the French reaction to the worldwide fiscal crisis (where the instant reaction is to revert to "Government must do something!"). This, however, is from Greece (you know, that bankrupt nation that is still in the process of being bailed out by the "adults" in the EU (mainly Germany)). Yet, even with the stark austerity measures being applied (after all, Greece is nothing more than a charity basketcase, living at the suffrage of others), they still don’t seem to get that the free ride is over:
Vassilis Theodorakopoulos, a 53-year-old dental technician who works for the country’s main public health-care fund, said he was protesting a 20% cut in his salary, as well as a plan to expand the working week for public servants to 40 hours—in line with the private sector—from 37½ hours currently.
"Personally, I don’t think there should be a difference between the public and private sector," he said. "What we are fighting for is a reduction in private-sector working hours."
He said he also objects to a plan to eliminate free dental braces for children, his specialty.
Again, we see the effects of a government that has tried to be all things to all people, and we see that once things are given, people are selfish in giving them back even as their society has already tipped over the financial cliff and has started to head to the bottom of the chasm below. When one is dependent upon Government, WHY would they advocate for less? In this case, Vassilis is saying "screw the taxpayers – keep me employed" even as he wraps up that demand in a nice looking bow.
Dennis Pragar had a must read article over at National Review on the nature of a socialist state vs that of a more capitalistic state: which is the more compassionate one? And it is NOT the one that current conventional wisdom would imply; dependency is not compassionate (emphasis mine):
…It is depressing to listen to that applause. To be told that one can be dependent on one’s parents until age 26 should strike a young person who wants to grow up as demeaning, not as something to celebrate.
Throughout American history, the natural — or at least hoped-for — inclination of a young person was to become a mature adult, independent of Mom and Dad, and to become a grown-up. But in the welfare state, this is no longer the case…
…What handouts do, and what the transformation of handouts into rights does, is create a citizenry that increasingly lacks the most important character trait — gratitude. Of all the characteristics needed for both a happy and morally decent life, none surpasses gratitude. Grateful people are happier, and grateful people are more morally decent. That is why we teach our children to say “thank you.” But the welfare state undoes that. One does not express thanks for a right. So, instead of “thank you,” the citizen of the welfare state is taught to say, “What more can I get?”
…They succeed in part because demonizing conservatives and their values is a left-wing art. But the truth is that capitalism and the free market produce less selfish people. Teaching people to work hard and take care of themselves (and others) produces a less, not a more, selfish citizen.
Capitalism teaches people to work harder; the welfare state teaches people to want harder. Which is better?
Indeed. This last election was about the rising TEA Party – and its call to be self-reliance. Becoming a welfare state is a dependent state – and that nation is doomed long term as the size of its population becomes indolent simply because they will accept the lowest living standard instead of striving for better.
Our Republic was built on the assumption that only a virtuous people could maintain it. Sorry, but "layabout" is not a virtue I hold high. Dependence isn’t one either.
