- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
An interesting point made by Robert Nisbet is that this is because of increasing gov't control of functions like charity/welfare. Most associations such as those that used to provide such things require functions that the state has gradually usurped. It moves into an area, weakens those associations that used to provide for such functions and then declares its intervention necessary.I don't agree. In the modern era where so few people concern themselves with volunteer work and dedicating genuine time to their communities, there is often no fall back for people on hard times.
Indeed, in a economy so invested with pro-rich state intervention it is necessary. It would simply fall apart without redistribution, the demand would not be there for our massively demand-push, consumerist economy. In the end Marx, Keynes et al were right about corporate-capitalist crises, they are fundamentally caused by a structural imbalance at the core of the system itself, caused by the state maintained massive inequality. They simply erred, aside from their solutions, in believing that this was mostly a natural part of the "free market"(a rather meaningless term itself.) rather than seeing that capitalism and certainly corporate-capitalism has always been riddled with state intervention.I do believe that there are those on welfare who are not in genuine need, but to say that none are deserving is an extreme. Redistribution of wealth, to some degree, is important for a stable society. This is why the rich fall into a higher tax bracket than the lower classes.
Last edited: