Surely you aren't suggesting a principle that it is the responsibility of the more intelligent to support the less intelligent? The more ambitious to support the less ambitious? The wise to support the stupid?
While I don't know a single thinking person who would say that a moral people does not take care of the most helpless among us, the idea promoted here is not who is or is not more deserving.
The idea promoted here is that government does not serve well that rewards inefficiency, irresponsibility, bad choices, bad behaviior and punishes efficiency, responsibility, good choices, and good behavior.
And in a free society government serves and deals with all equally and without prejudice irrespective of socioeconomic standing or political ideology. The private sector can distinguish and act responsibility on an individual or case by case basis, but our government was not designed to do that and it should not p;resume to do that.
Once government presumes to assume the power to decide who is and who isn't entitled to your money, you are no longer free.
And here we come to the crux of our argument.
The further right among us believe that the people who have shown the most talent, and their progeny, are the most deserving of benefits.
In other words, Social Darwinism. Which always confused me a bit, because in general those same people don't believe in actual Darwinism (though there are exceptions of course).
The left believe that everyone, and their progeny, should have an equal chance at the benefits of society, even if they have not proven themselves to be of use to society.
Both schools of thought have their pros and cons. I always thought that a mix of both was the way to go. A minimum level of social safety net combined with rewards to promote excellence.
One thing I will say though, is that wealth is not always a sign of talent or intelligence. Often wealth is transferred from generation to generation, or between members of elite groups. However, that is not to say that intelligence and talent does not help.
You've almost got it, but it is the Left who draws on social Darwinism in reverse--rewarding the under achievers at the expense of the achievers.
The Right, maybe even more than the Left but I won't quibble, believe that everyone, and their progeny, should have an equal chance at the benefits of society, even if they have not proven themselves to be of use to society.
The difference is that the Right believess that those who make good choices, who put in the effort, who take the risks, and who do what is necessary to get it done honorably and ethically are entitled to benefit from the fruit of their own labor or initiative. The Left seems to believe that others are also entitled to benefit from it.
The Right believes in opportunity being made equally available to all but that hard work, responsible risk taking, initiative, industriousness, along with whatever self sacrifice factors into that, is deserving of its reward. The Right fully knows that the outcome will be unequal because everybody won't bring the same determination, responsibility, or ability to the process, but the Right also knows that mediocrity is the legacy of not rewarding excellence.
Yes some people have a leg up by virtue of their environment and circumstances than others, but that is part of the process of freedom. If some are simpliy luckier than others, it is because somebody somewhere made it possible for somebody to get lucky.
If I spend my life building a better future for my kids, why should they be punished because somebody else didn't do that for their kids? Not only did I make choices to benefit myself and mine, I did not ask for or demand or expect you to do that for me.
I am an advocate of Darwinism as far as it goes, but an honest assessment of Darwinism applies as much emphasis on factors outside the control of any organism as it does on the choices made by those organisms.
Those conservatives on the Right put a much higher value on human life than that. Humans of all of God's creation have the ability to not be captives of their environment and circumstances and possess the intelligence to rise above both. That is not social darwinism in any sense.
While a hand up is often warranted--this is far more likely to happen in the private sector than through any government program--true compassion is recognizing and encouraging people to rise above their environment and circumstances.
