<A conservative knows that real compassion comes from himself and his own resources, not from hitting someone with more money with a blackjack, rolling him for his wallet, and then handing the cash to the destitute.

Leaving aside the implication that the only way any liberals give assistance to others is through the government, and that all conservatives support private charities which don't benefit either their own group or groups like them...

Where did the cash come from that the wealthy person has? Did he dig it out of the ground like one of the '49ers? Did he make it all by himself manufacturing and marketing some clever device that he invented in his garage?

Sometimes these self-made individuals appear, very sympathetic examples of worthy wealthy people whose earnings are literally due to their own intelligence, hustle and moxie.

More often, though, individuals have money because someone else (Mom or Dad) had it first. Even the self-made must usually have the help of many people who work for his company. His company, perhaps with his own direction, seeks to defeat the competition, and in doing so puts the competitors' workers on the street. He then has had their help too, though not the kind they were happy to give.

Capitalism has many virtues. Playing dice with the lives of laborers is not one of them.

Taxes to support social services to those put at a sometimes life-imperiling disadvantage due to the movements of a competitive economy is not charity. It's a way to manage social change and economic upheaval in a way that provides hope and some semblance of equal opportunity to those on the lower rungs of the economy. It in fact provides the kind of stability necessary if a market-driven, confidence-supported economy is to survive. Unless, of course, we accept the idea that no one is really upwardly mobile unless they're already close enough to the top to jump there.

Any government that was founded on the premise that all men are equally entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must carefully consider what that definition includes. Does it include the opportunity for those with more resources to eliminate their equals' jobs without contributing towards providing the means to live while searching for new work? Does it include the opportunity to deprive their equals of liberty by declining to support training opportunities (i.e., decent, affordable education) so the non-moneyed may have knowledge and mobility with which to choose their futures? Does it include the opportunity to profoundly circumscribe their equals' pursuit of happiness by keeping mortgages on properties in better neighborhoods unattainable without a patron in the moneyed group?

Government stepped up to level things about 100 years ago because private enterprise and private individuals failed to help people unlike themselves. The people near the bottom of the structure used the power of the ballot box to get a behemoth in their corner, because if they didn't have more money, by God they had more people. This trend continued through most of the last century. It also explains the rise of organized labor. (For that matter, it explains the rise of the guild system, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.)

Now we are surprised to discover -- gasp -- that the government that was supposed to act as a balance has developed into an empire itself, and that the people it's supposed to be helping are now caught between large capitalist concerns and large government. They have far more in common with each other than they have with the lower middle class and the working poor.

This is why government agencies act in collusion with big business. Once again, it's easier to be charitable toward those who resemble one's self.

The search for social justice is full of this. It's a seesaw. It achieves balance every so often, but it usually needs adjustment. We need one now. But let's not jump off and let the other kid fracture his skull on the macadam in the fall, hmm?

Regards--
Mary Anne