The Tuesday series now has a name! Or at least a working name! If you can think of a witty way to integrate the concept (random profundities that reveal themselves to me while showering), I'll use your name.
I've decided to write this article in the form of a mini-play, so enjoy!
Rich Guy: Life is good! I'm enjoying my lunch break from my job at the bank. Wow! 20 years ago, I stared up at these skyscrapers and wondered if I'd ever make it. As a broke college student, I never could have imagined my current life.
Poor Guy: Hey, Mr. Rich, I really need some food, do you mind sharing half the sandwich with me? I mean, I need it a lot more than you and half a sandwich is very filling. *looks hopeful*
Rich Guy (thinking to himself): Hmm....
The scene freezes. The Capitalist suddenly enters the scene!
Capitalist: Aha! Hey Rich Guy! Let's take a step back! This isn't a case of just giving a man some food! You worked hard to get where you were! This country has equal opportunity! You had a chance to better yourself and you did! Poor Guy on the other hand - well, he had the same opportunity. But he chose to fool around in high school, he didn't go to college, and he's not willing to work manual labor or go look for it. Rather, he's trying to prey on people like you. It's the story of the red hen all over again! Poor Guy is the lazy man!
Also, if you encourage such behavior, these beggars will start to feel entitled. They'll get aggressive and almost force you to give them handouts. These people are eyesores and discourage tourism! I say that you not give him the food to set an example, and second, you pass a law discouraging panhandlers. If you really want to help the guy, tell him where he could get a job! That's better.
The scene un-freezes.
Rich Guy: Sorry, no food for you! But, here's a place where you could --
--The Liberal suddenly crashes into the set, while the scene freezes.
The Liberal: WAIT! Hold on a second! My friend the Capitalist is ridiculously wrong! Let's take another look! Doesn't it seem unfair to you? The poor man is hungry and starving. The rich man has enough food for himself and more to spare. Why should he not share the food? It is unjust to deny a man his sustenance.
Also, you don't know that the poor man didn't try. Maybe he was a victim of a debilitating disease. Maybe he was cheated out of his money. Maybe he has huge debts to pay off. What if his environment discouraged him from getting educated, and he went to prison? Now he can't get a job even though he reformed? There are many factors involved! You can talk about the little red hen all you want, but I say that no one should go hungry just because of selfishness!
The Rich Guy: But what if I don't want to?
Liberal: What? You selfish pig! You are greedy and evil! Well, there's this handy thing called the government!
Capitalist (cowering in horror): Not the evil government!!
Liberal: Yes, the government! The benevolent restorer of equality and societal well-being! We'll pass a law that Rich Guy and others like him are required to give half of their sandwiches to the government who will then distribute them to those we deem worthy!
Capitalist: Idiot! Now, to avoid your law, the Rich Guy will simply not buy a whole sandwich! He'll buy half to avoid the tax! This means that Panera will make only half its profits! The economy will suffer! Also, you're encouraging the poor guys to be poor! Why should they bother taking advantage of opportunities if they know they will end up with food anyway! You've created a safety net for them!
Liberal: Precisely! That's exactly what we want. People should have a safety net in case of illness or environmental influences like I already talked about. You are a selfish pig.
Capitalist: But I don't want to be forced! It is wrong for the government to engage in income redistribution! I believe in equality of opportunity, not results! You, sir, are a dreamy pig! You want the reward of hard work without the work!
Poor Guy: So under the capitalist plan, I starve? No way!
Rich Guy: Under the liberal plan, the government taxes me higher? That's ridiculous? Why should I work so hard then if I'm just going to get taxed at higher and higher rates. Might as well take some vacation time, stop being so productive, and stop buying a full sandwich!
Poor Guy: You elitist!
Rich Guy: You bum!
Hordes of sign-waving college students appear and camp in the street in front of Rich Guy's bank. They loudly demand the government to enact Mr. Liberal's plan. Their moms and dads show up (just for the afternoon because they were working in the morning) and chant, "Down with government and taxes"! The two sides try to drown each other out. The orchestra should bring the music to a huge cacophonous crescendo.
Suddenly, a hooded figure floats down from above.
Me: Wait! Hold up! Quiet the racket for just a few minutes!
The crowds and our 4 characters look up and quiet down.
Me: Why does this have to be a zero-sum game? Poor Guy, it's possible that you could have had extenuating circumstances, right?
Poor Guy nods vigorously.
Me: And Rich Guy, you worked hard for your sandwich, right?
Rich Guy emphatically nods.
Me: But Liberal, your plan puts too much faith in the government! You may achieve equality, but everyone will get poorer! If you try to redistribute, Rich Guy will start to buy on the black market or hire an accountant to do a funky tax return. He'll cut down on his sandwich purchases, and maybe he'll buy a house in another country and relocate his bank there to avoid the sandwich tax. Then the whole economy will suffer and our sandwich source will disappear. We'll kill the golden goose.
Also, the government always tends to botch things! They get corrupt, they take a few bites of the sandwich before handing back anything to the poor guy. They take the whole sandwich, use half of it, and then promise the rest later. And no one can stop them! Forcing someone to be kind doesn't make it kindness!
But Mr. Capitalist! You lack compassion. Yes, the little red hen deserves to eat the bread herself. But she has more than enough! She will do a good deed by giving some away! Rich Guy can thus personally decide who to give his bread away to. If he believes that he's been undeserving of any divine favor, that may motivate him to give his bread away. Thus, his local church should be encouraging him to be charitable!
Liberal: But we can't guarantee that he'll give the food!
Me: Of course not! Maybe his church needs to be more obedient to God's Word and preach about charity a bit more. Maybe he needs to grow in that area. But your alternative is worse! The government never solves anything. It will depress the economy, anger the rich guy, and even make the poor guy unhappy because he's no longer getting a gift - he's getting an "entitlement".
It is true that there needs to be a safety net, but that safety net should not be the government. Rather it should be Poor Guy's family members, his coworkers, his friends, and his church. It could even be Rich Guy if Rich Guy so chooses to help.
The best thing the government CAN do is encourage job opportunities and alert Poor Guy to them. The cost of offering career advice is less than the benefit to the country it will be if Poor Guy starts being a productive member of society.
To summarize, the church needs to step up and the government needs to continue to create equal opportunity, even for those who missed their first one.
Everyone: Wow! Thanks so much! But what's your name?
The hooded figure smiles.
Me: Me? Call me Compassionate Conservative.

Hahahaha. :D Awesome. I was laughing out loud at "You bum!" "You elitist!" and my brother was like "What are you laughing about?" Me: "Oh a play about socialism, philanthropy and government dependency." Brother: "O.....kay....."
ReplyDeleteName suggestions:
1. The Suds of Sagacity
2. Wisdom Will Never Go Down the Drain.
3. Cleansed in Common Sense
Lol, LOVED this :P You need to perform this play.
ReplyDeleteExcellently done, Daniel! :) I thoroughly enjoyed it - this is a subject that is not infamiliar to me. If only the church did what the church is supposed to do (a.k.a. be Christians in the real sense of the word).
ReplyDelete