Society Didn't Fail You, You Failed Society

Conservative streamer Asmongold suggested a list of things he’d like to see an ideal political candidate support, and most of them are probably things a lot of law-and-order conservatives would also nod along with:

However, there’s one thing on his list that stands out, and that’s “deporting net negative taxpayers.”

So, three caveats about this:

1) We’re not legally allowed to do it.

2) Obviously, we wouldn’t want to deport EVERY net negative taxpayer every year. For example, if Elon Musk has a down year, he shouldn’t be deported.

3) Also, people who’ve put in a career of paying in shouldn’t be deported the moment they retire and start eating up more seed corn than they add.

Setting those things aside, yes, it would be a better country if we could deport all the welfare queens, homeless bums, junkies, career criminals, disability frauds, and lazy parasites that add nothing to somewhere else.

As the great Thomas Sowell said:

Yet, because Democrats view Americans who are dead weight as an asset since they will vote for liberal giveaway programs, we find ourselves in exactly that situation. We have “a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce” in America, and we’re endlessly told about their rights and the responsibility our society has to take care of them.

Granted, even as a conservative, I would agree that you could make an argument, IN LIMITED CASES, for having the government support someone. For example, that’s what unemployment insurance is. Also, if let’s say someone cuts trees for a living, falls out of a tree, and breaks his back, rendering him unable to work, wasn’t he trying to do the right thing? Doesn’t he deserve some support? Similarly, we might want to help a family down on their luck that ends up on the streets for a couple of months while they look for new jobs and a new place to stay. There’s at least a case to be made for the state helping them get back on their feet.

On the other hand, California has what Elon Musk likes to call a “homeless industrial complex” that makes billions as long as there’s plenty of homeless people around. So, guess what? No matter how much money California pours into homelessness, it only gets worse:

(California) spent $24 billion on the homeless, and it got way worse.....Like the homeless population doubled or something. People don’t understand the homeless thing because it sort of preys on people’s empathy. And I think we should have empathy, and we should try to help people. But the homeless industrial complex is really. It’s dark, man. It should be. That network of NGOs should be called, like, the drug zombie farmers, because the more homeless people. And really, like, when you meet somebody who’s, like, totally dead inside, shuffling along down the street with a needle dangling out of their leg. Homeless is the wrong word. Homeless implies that somebody got a little behind on their mortgage payments, and if they just got a job offer, they’d be back on their feet. But someone who’s, I mean, you see these videos of people that are just shuffling, you know, they’re on fentanyl, they’re like, you know, taking a dump in the middle of the street. You know, they got like open sores and stuff. They’re not like one drop offer away from getting back on their feet... So, and then these sort of charities in quotes, they get money proportionate to the number of homeless people or number of drug zombies. So their incentive structure is to maximize the number of drug zombies, not minimize it. That’s why they don’t arrest the drug dealers. Because if they arrest the drug dealers, the drug zombies leave. So they know who the drug dealers are. They don’t arrest them on purpose because otherwise the drug zombies would leave, and they would stop getting money from the state of California and from all the charities.

We hear a lot about society’s responsibility to help people like this, but what’s their responsibility to society? How is it that society is supposed to owe them, but they owe society nothing? Why are we supposed to care more about their own success than they do?

There’s something in most of us who aren’t sociopathic or badly damaged that wants to see people who are struggling, but trying, succeed. That’s why stories like this one resonate with people so much:

This guy DESERVES a hand up.

Does this guy? He thinks taxpayers should fund food, rent, transit, shelter, Internet – pretty much everything he thinks he needs:

So, as a taxpayer, let me ask: What do I get out of this deal? I’m going to fund this guy like he’s my own child, and in return, what? If his answer is, “I owe you nothing,” then why shouldn’t we owe him nothing?

These days, a lot of people don’t want to just tell you about their charity; they want to put it on video so they can try to get clicks out of it. I think that’s gauche, so although I have things I could tell you about, I’m not going to list them here for you. What I will do is tell you is that even though I do help people, I wouldn’t give a guy like this or a homeless person one dime, for the exact same reason I don’t feed wild animals; I don’t want to encourage that behavior.

Along similar lines, we heard a lot of bitter complaining about people not getting their SNAP money when Democrats insisted on closing the government to try to get healthcare for illegal immigrants and make Chuck Schumer look tough, so he wouldn’t lose his seat to AOC.

Meanwhile, there’s no lifetime limit on how long you can be on SNAP. Some people can be on the program for three years at a time, and there were lots of videos like this during the shutdown, featuring welfare recipients promising to steal food if we didn’t give them food stamps:

How does society benefit from having a lazy thief like this around? What’s the upside to carrying people along on welfare for three years at a time? What do the rest of us get out of the deal?

We could ask the same thing about career criminals. Liberals claim society has failed THEM. Really?

Remember mentally ill, violent Jordan Neely, who made threats on a NYC subway and died while being restrained by Daniel Penny? Do you recall what liberals said after that career criminal died?

Wait a second; WE all failed HIM? He had 42 arrests. How is it not exactly the opposite? Why is society supposed to have unlimited, unending responsibility to the worst people that live here while they owe nothing at all to the rest of us?

Our problem is not that our society doesn’t do ENOUGH for people, it’s that we do far too much and expect nothing in return. Why shouldn’t society have a right to expect people to meet the lowest, most bare minimums for being a good citizen?

What’s wrong with saying to people, “YOU have a responsibility to PAY YOUR OWN WAY, not commit any serious crimes and help make the country better instead of worse.” Why is that supposed to be some huge imposition? A society that hands out rights, but doesn’t expect people to fulfill their responsibilities, is a society without a future.

---