We cannot expect to ever have a free market utopia. Americans (and no one else, so far as I can tell) are inclined to the illusion that we can because for a time, we had the closest thing possible. Our ancestors crossed the ocean on a leaky boat and had to carve a civilization out of the wilderness. Their government was more than two thousand miles away. Conditions were, in the beginning, so harsh that everyone worked and no one who was unable (or unwilling) to do so would have survived. And the struggle for survival was so difficult that few people even had time for crime. There was nothing to steal anyway. After a few generations of governing themselves and supporting only their own families and relying only on themselves, Americans were disinclined to give up much of their money to support governments or layabouts, and for centuries, we didn’t. This, incidentally, was one of the elements that caused the colonists to respond to the mostly quite reasonable demands of England with the excessive and regrettable response of revolution.
But what is possible on a frontier is not in a settled civilization. On a frontier, people too shiftless or stupid to provide the essentials for themselves are apt to be eaten by wolves before they reach adulthood. Urban civilizations have their predators, but they don’t eat the unfit.
Further, while it is an inescapable fact that when the wilderness is close at hand people will be eaten by wolves, this does not mean that the more able people want them eaten by wolves. We lower the wolf population, we teach them fear of man, we chase them away, we build fences. When we can, we protect human parasites from the predators who would otherwise relieve us of their care. This is why only socialists are able to seriously propose killing people so that they will not be a burden upon the state – though they are of course selective about what sort of burden they want to kill and what sort they want supported on the public purse indefinitely. (For more on this, google “euthanasia”.)
Humans, like animals, will survive if they can figure out any way for them to do so. It is thus inevitable that some degree of welfare, of people getting the government to rob others on their behalf, is going to develop over time. It is also inevitable that not everyone is going to have the innate ability and the confidence in that ability to become a capitalist idealist, as I discussed last night.
In short, human parasites are inevitable as death and taxes. What we have to be asking ourselves is, how can we minimize the unavoidable damage.
We must reward those who do the real work, and limit the amount that we exploit them.
For ways to do this, we can look at history. To begin with, in all civilizations, men do most of the productive work. (In primitive and Third World countries, men force women to do most of the work. This is possible partly because agricultural labor is almost all there is in such societies.) There are numerous reasons that men do most of the work, ranging from brawn to temperament to the fact that they don’t spend years getting pregnant and looking after their toddlers. Every society needs its women to bear children and to take care of them; if they don’t bother to do the latter, as many are not bothering today, the children will not grow up mentally healthy enough to become productive and law-abiding citizens, and will not absorb the values and codes of their culture. The only way to free women from the necessity of earning a living so that they can do this important job is to have men create the goods and do the labor necessary. For all of Western history until the last few decades, men have been induced to do this by offering them important rewards. Female companionship. The confidence of paternity, and the right to teach one’s own children one’s own values and leave them the wealth (however small) one has created. The guarantee that, however small and humble it might be, a man’s home is his castle.
Today an ever-increasing percentage of men is deprived of these basic rewards, yet are still expected to provide from women and children, through welfare and alimony. How long will they surrender to this exploitation? The only thing that keeps many of them working is that their temperaments will not allow them to be idle and unproductive.
What political power is not invested in the Crown properly belongs with those who can and do produce. This, by the way, is a major reason that for most of known history, women have been allowed little place in government. This is sensible if only because women have, as I keep pointing out, a much more important job to do than mess about with campaigns and policies. One of the reasons democracies become corrupt is that politicians are eternally tempted to give votes to new classes of people, counting on their gratitude to win the next election or two, without regard to whether these classes are qualified for or entitled to any say in government. Thus, for example, left-wing politicians keep importing outrageous numbers of Third World immigrants; they are importing voters for themselves! This is a slap in the face to those who built these countries with their sweat and defended them with their blood, and the descendants of those men. They are the ones who are qualified to direct the nation, not new arrivals who have as of yet contributed nothing. Voting is viewed these days as a basic human right, but it is not one. It is a privilege, and today it is being given to people who have done nothing to merit it.
We must also, out of simple decency to those who do the work, limit the number of people on welfare. The current system encourages unmarried women to start producing bastards before they are even old enough to drive. Three-fourths of violent criminals come from fatherless homes, as do the majority of substance abusers and other dysfunctional people. That the majority of women having illegitimate children on welfare are black or Hispanic only perpetuates racism and handicaps the groups which can least afford it.
To limit this burgeoning dependent class, I make a reasonable suggestion which is guaranteed to induce a stroke in any Democrat: require any woman who wishes to receive welfare to have a tubal ligation and to surrender any children she has for adoption by a married, employed couple. This will be good for the taxpayers, good for the children who will be given a stable home, good for the citizens the children will not grow up to assault, and good for the mother who will be forced into a measure of responsible behavior. Democrats, naturally, will be outraged at the idea. Even though this doesn’t have a prayer of being implemented.
(“Anchor babies” are a parallel phenomenon that also needs to be done away with.)
Children with high intelligence, creativity and morals should be sent to separate schools, with classmates who are their equals. These days, the idea is that if we shove duller children into a classroom with smart ones, the dull children will catch up by osmosis. What it does in practice is robs the smart children of their due, as the teachers are forced to dumb everything down so that the dull children can keep up.
The teachers themselves are also a huge problem. Today they are chosen from the lowest common denominator of society. Nearly all teachers are below average in intelligence and far below average in morals. They are chosen by their readiness to recite Marxist propaganda. It is unavoidable that the profession will attract people of low moral character; it always has, which is why old novels are so full of complaints about the incompetence of governesses and tutors. Remember how fiercely the gentlefolk snubbed governesses in Jane Eyre? There was a reason for that. Naturally inferior people will gravitate towards the only people to whom they can ever feel superior: children. They cannot cope with other adults, with people they must deal with on equal footing. Only a deeply unhealthy person is likely to have any desire to spend large amounts of time with children who are not their own. Being around children who have not had enough time to acquire information or make achievements enables these inferior adults to experience a temporary illusion of self-respect. That even well-raised children have imperfect self-control enhances that illusion, and since so few children today are well-raised, most teachers have many opportunities to gloat over their own nonexistent maturity and high moral character.
The problem comes when they encounter an intelligent and moral child. Encountering someone less than four feet tall who is obviously your intellectual and moral superior handily destroys delusions of self-worth. Not only are these children deprived of adults who comprehend subjects well enough to teach them, who are moral enough enough to be able to guide the development of the children’s nascent integrity, they are actually imprisoned with adult scum who enviously hate them for their best qualities. And in a classroom, for the most part unsupervised and unanswerable to their charges’ parents, teachers have a great many ways to inflict revenge on children whose mere existence shows the teachers their own worthlessness. By the time these children are in their teens, they are frequently permanently emotionally damaged, and many turn to drugs to dull the pain or to suicide. And these are the best of our young to whom we are allowing this to happen. It is bad enough to put the average and below average children in the clutches of these women; at least they will not be as harmed by it. But putting the best children, the people we need to grow up to be leaders and innovators, where these harpies can get at them is civilizational suicide.
Smart parasites don’t kill their hosts. That is exactly what we seem set on doing today, however.
Finally, to keep government growth and bureaucracy in reasonable bounds so as not to overburden the productive, elected government must be abolished and power returned to hereditary aristocracy. No king ever burdened the public purse by showering his mistress with jewels or building new palaces a fraction as much as the useless bureaucracy spawned by democracies does. A king can only manage a handful of mistresses, even if he’s Charles II. There is no limit to the amount of useless paper-shufflers a bureaucracy can spawn to inhibit productive work in the suckers who do it. For more on why monarchy is a less costly form of government, consult the monarchist blogs in my sidebar and read the essays and books in their sidebars. They have done a good enough job of explaining it that I see no reason to cover that ground again.