This is sort of Part Two to "Why You Should Not Take A Village..." and it's the one that may get me in hot water. Ahhh! Perfect weather for it.
I left you on a note of bared-teeth libertarian purity. Okay; we live in a decidedly impure world. Let's say it was my kid, or one of my nephew's kids and insurance and savings didn't suffice. Let's say private charity came up dry.
Am I going to sigh and let little Timmy die 'cos It Is Right? What would you think of an adult who let a child she was responsible for die when help was available?
...Thought so. You'd do what it took, and look down on anyone who would not.
And there's the most pernicious thing about such assistance: no matter how high and grand your philosophical ideals, they're pretty much newsprint in a rainstorm when it's your family at stake. (Some have more steel than others -- I believe Marko would do just as he writes, if it came to that). (Thanks for the link, bro!)
The desperation of good men and women is how such Rob-A-Village-To-Raise-A-Child programs persist. A significant number of those who have had to rely on such assistance will become vocal supporters. Many of the beneficiaries who don't go that far will fall silent.
Why crush dissent when it will stifle itself?
CHICAGO RAILROAD FAIR, 1948
2 days ago