A Rant And An Award...Saying The Same Thing

A commenter shares:

I vote Liberal provincially because I vote for education, health care and social services. I vote for an equal opportunity for all which of course is not the same as equal outcome for all. You may not want to hear that I vote to act on the "immediate need", but it is true. At the same time, I believe that meeting these immediate needs is an investment in people and consequently an investment in the future. "Help them now so they can help themselves". Train, counsel, rehabilitate, educate and in the meantime, fund until they can fend for themselves. Teach those who are not contributing members of society (those who cannot maintain jobs on their own) to become self-sufficient citizens. No one is being snatched here. I voted for a party to protect its citizens. ...  I vote for the programs that enable all citizens to contribute to the economy. In a Utopian world this would not be necessary. I applaud free market companies that contribute to this cause. However it is not enough. If it were, programs would not be necessary. Explain to me how the free market is looking after all citizens of this province? There is too much suffering. Thus, I vote my conscience and I vote for government to step in where the free market fails.

A reader who spoke from their heart in a past blog entry shared why they vote Liberal: thank you. I tried to shorten, yet respect context.

The logic I see is:
1. The free market has failed to make things equal and better for all Ontario citizens
2. Government has means to make things better, more equal...for all Ontarians, therefore they should.
3. Programs/spending is a means by which government can 'pick up the slack' where the free market falls short.
4. Therefore I vote to enable government to work with the free market to end the suffering of it's people. 

Problem with #1: the free market has not failed.  People within the free market have made choices.  The free market is not responsible for ensuring everyone makes good choices.  The free market is responsible for making choice available.  People who make poor choices typically (but not always) find themselves in though spots.  Taking money out via programs hurts the free market (penalizes success and rewards failure...kinda like the GM bailouts).  The forced transfer of wealth does not create incentive for those without...rather, it enables and reinforces entitlement from others within the free market.  This has the opposite affect that well intended liberals desire. 

You don't teach a person to contribute within the free market by forcing those with, to give to those without. You are subconsciously giving a message to those who receive that says, "you can't make it on your own...you need government programs".  It devalues a person to say they are 'entitled to programs that are paid for by force of law'.  Saying, "you get the benefits of this program because those who have are forced to give to you" is actually demoralizing to the individuals value.  That is not the 'structure' of how the free market works.  

I was offered 8 free weeks (paid for by government) if I hired gentleman on welfare.  I told the job lady, "what an insult to that individual...I don't want to communicate to the young man that he needs government handouts to win a job.  Tell the young man we will hire him without subsidy and allow the merits of his performance to carry him through".  The hiring agent called back and said to me, "Ryan, when I passed on what you said, he broke down and cried in my office.  He said in all his life he never felt so valued".  The reality is we were not built to thrive by 'forced giving' but rather giving of free choice.

I desire all the things this commenter wants in terms of results.  I want to see people cared for, chances given and hope restored.  I simply choose to think a superior way to accomplish this is through free will giving/investing in others lives...not forced giving through incompetent and inefficient politicians.

With respect to #2: I argued in past blogs the free market functions best when left alone and that forced transfer of wealth works against the free market.  Just because there are means to make something better for someone does not mean there is a responsibility.  I argued quite extensively that government is responsible for that which is in it's jurisdiction, nothing else.  Seeing a need does not create jurisdiction for government to spend on programs anymore then them 'seeing a need' to appoint 'watchers' over all of Canadian parents to ensure the kids are well looked after.  There has to be a logical argument as to why jurisdiction is created for the endless list of programs...to which, none have been provided by NDP or Liberal.  Should a strong argument be made, I am game to entertain and likely eventually dismantle it.  Yes, that was a challenge to the left.

If 1 and 2 are true, then government having the ability to pick up  slack has no bearing on it's obligation or responsibility to do such.  The free market's job is not to 'care for those who lack'.  The free markets job is to create wealth.  The heart of man seeing a need and responding to that need in compassion (and free will) is what should be the means by which we take care of those who lack.  You can't legislate a man's heart, either on the giving side, or the receiving side.  It's more powerful to give of your free will (time, talents or money), then it is to benefit from forced giving.  Test that theory, it will work almost every time.  Force your kids to colour you a picture, then force them to give it to you.  Note your reaction.  Then, wait, wait and wait for them to do it of their own accord...when they give you a picture they coloured of their free will then note your reaction.  What option won? Forced giving or Free will giving?  When it comes to government, why do we screw this obvious principle up?  Because of entitlement culture and a thankless people expecting because they are owed.  When we realize we are not owed by the world, and became thankful for what we have, perhaps then we will focus on building meaningful relationships where accountability and compassion reign. From this, the free market creates the wealth that the compassionate person gives and invests.  This is a superior way to handle needs of those who lack in any capacity. 

#4.  Therefore I arrive at the opposite conclusion with the same heart as the liberal.  I want people helped.  I just do it differently. 

Sometimes it's easier to 'throw out a concept' then it is to demonstrate it, so I have included a small blurb below regarding a major award my company won.  What I shared works in real life:

A dozen local employers were recognized Wednesday during the annual breakfast by the Employment Facilitation Network of Cambridge and North Dumfries. Employers received one-of-a-kind awards designed by local artists. Local artist Ron Keachie (left) presents an award to Ryan Jantzi, CEO of B&R Custom Machining. The event’s main focus was to recognize employers that have gone above and beyond by providing training and employment opportunities for individuals facing challenges and barriers in the workplace.