In response to:

Pathological Altruism

wtmoore1 Wrote: Jun 27, 2013 9:11 AM
What is the point of this column??? She seems to implicitly tie this state of pathological altruism to those attempting to better the "welfare" of others with no attention to objectivity. Is that not the problem identified by BOTH sides of the partisan divide? What I mean to say is, it seems both sides have mountains of their own "objective data" to point to, it's just a matter of not being able to agree on what those numbers mean or the conclusions to be drawn therefrom. The vagaries contained in her analysis of this study can be generally applied to both parties. The Iraq war has been a study in altruistic motives with unintended consequences. The Farm Bill has apparently degenerated into the same. It's never as bad on your side as it is on the other, eh? Too bad, it almost always is equally bad, everywhere.
Love of Liberty Wrote: Jun 27, 2013 11:03 AM
Don't be so sure the consequences of government programs are "unintended". LBJ knew he was buying black votes forever when he signed the laws allowing unwed mothers to forget about marriage and depend on the government for support.
Cloward and Piven wrote about this whole scenario years ago and the trees are beginning to bear fruit. At first people were reluctant to go on welfare or accept food stamps. Now so many take advantage of these handouts there is no stigma and they want even more. It's never enough. Even the government-who should be encouraging people to support themselves brag about how many are on food stamps and urge more to sign up.
Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jun 27, 2013 12:36 PM
I take your point but there is a difference between unintended and surreptitious.
Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jun 27, 2013 9:51 AM
The point of this column is not the validity of the 'objective data'. It is the unintended consequences of the actions otherwise justified by that data, accurate or not. The intended consequences may even prevail but be unacceptably devalued by the unintended consequences. That said your attempt to involve 'both sides' ignores that it is one side, the Democrats, who consistently propose to intervene inh the life's of others for their own good.