Strategic partnerships vs. the nanny state

Liberals fail to realize the difference between strategic partnerships & contracts versus a nanny state dropping manna. Strategic partnerships and contracts rely on human cooperation, reason, and voluntarism. Each party won’t get all of what they want, but, barring some post-agreement breach of contract and the need to resolve it, stability and certainty would be implemented.

The nanny state, on the other hand, requires coercion and extortion. Rules you have no direct role in drafting are imposed on you, restricting access to and the amount of resources you need in order to survive and thrive. Your freedom to engage your economic and social eco-system to get the amount of resources you determine to be sufficient is usurped by the state’s pre-determination as to what you need.

That used to be called slavery, until the very system that enslaved us managed to tweak the parameters just enough to convert slave rations into welfare benefits …

Are we so desperate, so afraid of the consequences of losing the battle of life that we feel compelled to bow down to a mechanism that promises us a revamped version of crumbs from the master’s plate in exchange for our freedom? That we allow a few over-educated bureaucrats in our national and state governments to dictate to us what is sufficient for our survival? Are we so blind to the vicious cycle of poverty that we are willing to have our resources reinvested in programs that for the past 50 years have shown consistent failure to achieve the goals they boasted about upon their inception?

We need a new model … one based on real freedom … not one forced on us by condescending PhDs and lawyers with “god” complexes …

About Alton Drew

Alton Drew brings a straight forward and insightful brand of political market intelligence. Alton Drew graduated from the Florida State University with a Bachelor of Science in economics and political science (1984); a Master of Public Administration (1993); and a Juris Doctor (1999). You can also follow Alton Drew on Twitter @altondrew.
This entry was posted in Economy, free markets, government, libertarian, liberty, Political Economy, public benefits, regulation, self regulated markets and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Strategic partnerships vs. the nanny state

  1. kenski2013 says:

    It’s true that government programs have not solved the problem of poverty. Such programs may have been some help, and/or actually been an impediment. that’s open to discussion. The question is, what concrete methods based on freedom as Alton describes it will do a better job than the government provided welfare previously and presently provided?

    “The nanny state, on the other hand, requires coercion and extortion. Rules you have no direct role in drafting are imposed on you, restricting access to and the amount of resources you need in order to survive and thrive. Your freedom to engage your economic and social eco-system to get the amount of resources you determine to be sufficient is usurped by the state’s pre-determination as to what you need.”

    I think the more difficult question is, are the poor reasonably well-equipped to be successful enough on their own to lift themselves out of poverty? Some apparently are, but it would appear that many are not, otherwise, they already would have done so. I’m not criticizing the poor for being poor–people are poor for many reasons, including being born into poverty, It just seems to me that with or without government assistance, some people don’t know how to do better. Maybe with some help, some community organizing, some training and education, more could do better.

    It’s true that accepting welfare assistance does create a “Catch 22” in that if you make more than so much money on your own, you might lose those benefits. The thresholds set for this are such that some might be motivated not to try harder. Whether that can be fine tuned to change the incentives is worth exploring.

    Perhaps the key word is “incentives”. What incentives can be offered to help people rise out of poverty, and what disincentives need to be minimized?

    .

  2. kenski2013 says:

    In the end, the poor have to want to do better, and work at it.

    There is a story in one of Malcolm Gladwell’s books, as I recall, of a school in NYC that was set up to improve education. Attendees were chosen by lottery, and were told that they had to be fully committed to the educational program if they were to be successful. School days were long, there was lots of homework, and even classes on Saturdays. One young girl who took up the challenge was featured in the story about this school. She commented that she no longer had much in common with many of her neighbors, her life was completely different than theirs because of her commitment to her education, where they were not so engaged.

  3. kenski2013 says:

    “We need a new model … one based on real freedom … not one forced on us by condescending PhDs and lawyers with “god” complexes …”

    I’m not sure that those who set up and administer welfare programs have bad intentions or are condescending or even arrogant. Many of them are trying to help and do what they think is helpful. Their efforts have not done enough, in the opinion of many. It may be possible that their efforts alone can’t solve the problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s