Think about that. Did the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution involve taking something away from one person to give to another? Of course not. Those were real rights, not the kind that Liberals try to foist upon us today in their constant effort to buy votes from those people who are willing to take, but not give.

Some of the laws promoted by Liberals (also known as: power seekers, forced altruists, looters) continue to scare the dickens out of me. I can't believe that intelligent people can even conceive of such laws, much less take them seriously enough to actually introduce in a legislature. Such is the bill introduced in Congress by Ron Dellums, US Representative from Oakland, California.

A Shiny New Right

It was designed to create what would have been the biggest forced altruistic rip-off of productive and creative achievers in the history of the world. One that created a shiny new right. The right to a job with a living wage. The right to have the government take money away from someone else to provide it.

There is no such thing as the right to a job with a living wage, unless the person looking for a job has something to sell to the employer in the way of talent and ability, or at the very least, dependability and the ability to do simple things competently. If one has nothing to sell to the employer, he is not entitled to a job, with any kind of a wage. You can't say "here I am, you must hire me and pay me out of what you're earned, even though I have nothing to offer you," and expect to be taken seriously. But many of today's lawmakers seem to take them seriously.

The Way Forced Altruists Think

This bill is an example of the way forced altruists think. All they want to do is guarantee everybody something (with your money, not theirs), regardless of the impossibility of providing it--just to gain those people's appreciation and, more importantly, their vote--so as to be able to stay in power. Never mind the fact that such a bill could not possibly be enacted (Good Lord, I hope not!) nor enforced, the people to whom this largess is promised won't find that out until later. Not until after the next election, and then they (the looters) will always have someone else to blame its failure on, usually big business.

Who Provides The Jobs?

The first question that comes to mind is: "Who is to provide these jobs?" And "Why should they?" The forced altruists' answer [to "Who is to provide these jobs?"] would be "big business." As to: "Why should they?" "Because they can afford it, that's why." Right! Because they've got a lot of money, they should give some of it away to provide jobs for the poor. This completely ignores the fact that, unless there is a job there for a person to do, to give him a job is a gift, which he did not, and will not earn.

By What Right?

My question is this: "By what right do people demand gifts from the rich, just because they're rich?" Why does the need of one person, who earned nothing, create a right to the money and property of another who has earned it?

I see people on the street all the time near homeless shelters, just killing time until the shelter opens for the night. None seem to be at all interested in going after one of the many burger-flipping jobs that are going begging for lack of applicants. All these people seem to do is laze around drinking their booze, smoking their cigarettes (and their pot), doing their drugs, and having sex in the shadows. Has anyone ever wondered how people who can't afford to pay for their lodging can afford such things, not to mention the new fancy sneakers and the multicolored, expensive sports gear I see so many wearing?

Are They Bums?

When I was a kid, they called such people bums. As there weren't nearly so many of them, most people never saw them. Now they've got lawyers as well as political advocacy groups who routinely lie about how many of them there are--groups lying in order to enhance their own power. Now Politically Correct speech (Newspeak) won't allow people to call them bums anymore--and their numbers are predictably increasing as more and more lazy people figure out that, if they become homeless, someone else will give them things. That they're no longer "bums," but are "homeless," a term that confers upon them a certain kind of respect they couldn't get from being bums.

It galls me every day I go to work to earn my living, and every time I see a help wanted sign in somebody's window, to think that my tax money (which with all the types of taxes I pay being considered as more than half my earnings) goes to this safety net these people demand of me and everyone else who earns his or her own living. Why should these bums--er, uh, homeless people--be allowed to laze away their days on my money? Sure, I know a burger-flipping job does'nt pay much. Neither does security work, to which I've been condemned since my profession was "computered out of existence." But it allows people the dignity of knowing they're paying at least part of their own way. (It does pay more than burger-flipping and they do need people all the time.)

They seem to think they're above taking such jobs. But they're not above going, "hat in hand." to welfare agencies or up to others on the street and begging for what they will not earn. They're not above such jobs, they're just lazy, and are "gaming the system" after the forced altruists have convinced the system that it ought to support them so they'll vote to keep the system going.

I've Been There

There have been times in my life when it would have been easier for me to have taken the dole, and instead, I took one of those low-paying jobs so that I could retain my self-respect by paying my own way. Such jobs are, of course, stopgap jobs, to be held while preparing for, and looking for, something better. Welfare is supposed to be for the same purpose for those who won't or can't work. But they stay on welfare for generations and teach their kids to do it, too. Maybe you can't live very well on what these jobs pay, but unless you've got lots of kids, you sure can't live on welfare, unless you're willing to live very simply indeed. And each new kid costs more than they increase your welfare, anyway.

The thing that really bothers me is that, in this day and age, Dellum's bill or others like it might even have an outside chance of succeeding.

If it does, we're done for.

This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics, civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.

POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS

POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE

Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.

Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs, International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests, Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy

INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

---

THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA

An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis

Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor

Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic, Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues

Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity