Friday, March 31, 2017

A Consideration For Aid

          Health, security, and prosperity are the three main factors we must consider when speaking about giving aid to the less fortunate. A common rebuttal against any form of aid is that an individual must be in control of their own wealth, which is an argument that will get no complaint from me, however, I must beg a consideration of assistance to those less fortunate with the above three. It is true that the modern welfare state allows certain, unethical individuals to take advantage of the system, demanding its reform. Never will I preach in favour of an unregulated system to aid the needy, but we must also be aware of the fact that while there are those who abuse this system, be they the majority or the minority of its users, a fair number of those people genuinely require this aid.

            For every welfare queen out there, there is a child who may go hungry. For every pair of expensive sneakers or frivolous cell phone, immorally received from taxpayers, there is a man or woman on the street living a destitute life, without a desire for ill intent, only a roof. I grow just as angry as the next hardworking man when I see my tax money going to those who do not deserve it, but I cannot bring myself to wish revenge on the entirety of humans in need because of that anger. When poor healthcare, poverty, homelessness, and hunger are allowed, it is a sign of an ill government, an ill community, and even an endangered population. Such social ills can bring about unnecessary disease to a community. Further, the link between poverty and crime is undeniable.

 Why then, is it the government’s job to handle such matters? The answer is right above us. Except to the most strictly and, frankly, mentally ill of the anarchists, a key part of any government must be to secure for its citizens a healthy and safe environment for them to prosper in. A plague, pandemic, or crime riddled nation may present a challenge to a good politician, but should not even occur under a great king. If nothing else, even the greediest of libertarians must agree that a healthy, san, non-incarcerated populace is central to the market.

 This can be achieved, not by draining the populace with taxes, but by embracing and encouraging charity projects to a wide variety of individuals. Encouraging a healthy society in all senses of the word while, at the same time, encouraging projects that seek to widen the skills and connection of every citizen in order to encourage the best out of each of them. A homeless man does not contribute to society. A hungry child becomes an ill student. An incarcerated woman is a drain and a terrible role model. And an infected, greedy, corrupt government is not legitimate. It is not time to allow people to coast on welfare, nor is it time to punish the hard working for their industriousness, but it is time that a new government, a monarchy, proves the philosophers right and has a superior population. One that is healthy, educated, safe, hardworking, and prosperous. If we allow our monarchy to throw the needy into the gutter, we will already be failing the people we promised better lives to. Monarchy is not superior because of its potential to assist the few, it is not meant to be a kleptocracy, it is meant to be pure and better for all. How shameful if our new kingdom has as many sick and hungry as democracy and other forms of degenerate governments? Monarchy is better and it is up to us to show them why. 

No comments:

Post a Comment