Compassion in a Free Societyby Jim Davies
Strike The Root
Aug. 10, 2012
Sweden's Migrant Crime Wave Becomes Top National Story As Media's Lies Backfire
FAKE NEWS: Trump Never Said There Was A 'Terror Attack' Last Night In Sweden
'Trump Was Right': Migrants Riot, Loot, Fight With Police And Set Cars On Fire In Sweden
Denmark: Resolution Passed to Prevent Danes From Becoming a Minority
College Writing Center Director Says Proper Grammar is 'Racist'
One of the ugliest things said about freedom advocates is that in a society without government, large numbers of poor people would be trampled underfoot. Critics say that if all were free selfishly to pursue our own ends, many would be left behind, to suffer and starve. That such a society would be harsh, uncaring, divisive, mean. That it's necessary to have a government, to make sure that even its poorest members can enjoy a decent standard of living.
Such was the view of Bush the First, who famously promised in his inaugural speech that under his Administration, America would be a "kinder, gentler" nation--so signaling an end to the allegedly free-market, free-wheeling, greedy "Reagan '80s", and a return to compassionate, redistributionist Socialism; and in the years ever since, we've seen that he wasn't kidding.
It's a serious charge, for none of us wants to be mean. But is it true? What will happen, in the coming free society, to compassion and help for the helpless?