6/14/2011
Social Responsibility
There is a strong movement in America today that those with money have a social duty to "spread the wealth." Even among conservatives so-called, this idea is very strong. Now, I, like any other red-blooded human being, love it when I get money without having to work for it. However, just because some person, somewhere has money does not mean that I am entitled to a portion of his wealth. I am responsible for me and my actions. I am responsible for taking care of myself and laying up for my family. Indeed it is wrong for me to expect someone to give his money --- money he legally earned from the fruits of his intellectual and physical labor --- to me or anyone else less blessed than he. The man who earns what he gets is the sole rightful reasoning force determining how that money is spent. Now, there are many arguments claiming that those with wealth have a duty to help feed the poor, the elderly, the sick. But that is a fallacious argument. As a man, it is not my responsibility to help anyone except my family. Yes, the Apostle James says "15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?" (James 2:15-16). And similar sentiments are echoed in Proverbs. And I am not discrediting that. Lest I be misunderstood, the giving of money by anyone should be voluntary and not expected. What James is saying is that the giving by an individual is between him and God, and if one gives because federal, public or private expectations demand he give X amount, then it is no longer charity, but rather coerced giving. To conclude this, no man is entitled to any thing. Not insurance. Not healthcare. Not even food. No man is entitled to it. It is the responsibility of every man to wisely and prudently oversee his finances to adequately meet his needs. And if perchance a man falls on hard times and cannot support himself, the answer is not turning to the Church. The answer is to ask family. A close-knit, tightly bound family unit will watch out for each other and, insofar as each and all are able, not allow one to fail. This is the system God designed and ordained, but this system has been perverted nearly universally, and condemned as too harsh. But if God ordained and established it, who is man to say it is anything but good?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In Old Testament Israel, landowners were required to leave the corners of their field for poor people to harvest. It was also permitted for people to eat grapes from a vineyard that was not theirs providing you didn't collect them in a basket and they ate them in the garden. This seems to me to have been a form of social welfare mandated by the state (through God). It also puts an interesting twist on the concept of personal property and the right to keep people from trespassing - if you can keep them off your land then you break the commandment by not allowing them to eat your grapes. Although this is a welfare system to keep people from starving, they still had to work for it. So I would say that that is not how God ordained and established it, at least when it comes to food.
ReplyDelete