Social hypocrisy

At a time when I care about someone, I don't need to push the state to help them. When I see an old helpless man, I don't need to stand to tell me to help him - to let him sit in public transport or to help him with a bag. It is normal. However, I am not calling for a law to dictate this.


At 4 o'clock in the morning I woke up with an SMS - a colleague wrote that his shift had broken down and that he needed help to close the day, because he had almost no one in traffic.

So at 4 in the morning, after the morning of the same operating day, I got up and went to help him. It was a form of my solidarity with him, on a rare day off I got up so early in the morning and went free to work and help put the traffic together. I was already working at half past four.

At a time when I care about someone, I don't need to push the state to help them. When I see an old helpless man, I don't need to stand to tell me to help him - to let him sit in public transport or to help him with a bag. It is normal. However, I am not calling for a law to dictate this.

I'm not a superman. I'm normal - when something is normal to me, it's normal to someone else. If I let an old man sit down, someone else will let him go. If not, I can think about him as much as I want, but I have no right to force him into anything.

Every time I talk about the need to reduce or abolish state social systems, I hear the classic: "And who would take care of the poor and the sick," I answer simply: it would be us. Just like today, but without the need for state bureaucracy, more directly and more efficiently.

When someone says, "And who will take care of them," it means that the given one thinks of the fate of the old and the sick that he cares about them. This means that there are people in the world who would like to take care of the old and the sick. Either the person is serious about his question - then all the honor and the question is unnecessary because it already contains the answer; or not - then it's just about false and false pose and such people have nothing to command me. Either way, we don't need the state to help - the state is just a necessary bureaucratic obstacle to aid.

Proponents of social policy are thus either either poorly informed when they think that state bureaucratic systems are really needed and that they are really helping, or they are hypocrites who refuse to admit that they are indifferent to the fate of other people, and so they pray for a state policy that forces others to pay so that they can say, "They are taken care of." They argue for state policy, which forcing others to pay for their bad conscience.

If it weren't for the state, some might go and start doing something - really help. Without the state, thanks to the elimination of bureaucracy, they will have more resources to implement aid. Not to be a state, will help people who they really want to help instead of anonymous officials somewhere in the office, who may be indifferent to the situation of the needy.

If it were not for the state, we would see reality in others. We would see who is just talking about solidarity and who is really solidarity. Hypocrites would not be given space to command those who are morally much higher than them.

I suspect that many important supporters of state "relief" systems are, in fact, smart and educated people, and they are more or less aware of all these things. However, it is all the more obvious that it is more power-hungry hypocrite, which it doesn't matter to help othersas they say, but rather for their own benefit at the expense of the needy.

This is quite normal and I don't blame them. It rather annoys me that everyone they lie and make people idiots. They are deceiving those who really want to help. And such that they should rule us?

No thanks. I can help people on my own.


  1. and to be clear and to narrow the room for maneuver to you:

    It does not strike you as strange that today, in times of relative peace, the debts of ADVANCED countries are dangerously close to GDP ??????????????????
    (however far I can canonize VAT on a universal wealth meter)

    and that a poor citizen (perhaps there can be no question of real poverty in the Czech Republic) must ask the state to return to him in various benefits what he had previously taken from his salary?

    you took a bite of history, do you really think that people lived here a hundred or more years ago like Neanderthals and couldn't take care of the less successful members of society? that there were no church or federal charities and hospitals? after all, both are probably the most significant contribution of our civilization to humanity! and it did not fall from the sky by the blessing of the state, it was simply built by the people who lived by it and some state was stolen from them

  2. it will be a misunderstanding
    child allowances are, of course, a sign of the welfare state, whatever the cause / excuse, just as estabilishment is not interested in removing this (in exchange for, say, lower taxes, because it would reduce its influence)

    thesis that 1 million paper Catholics have the power to keep alive child allowances alive, did you come here how ??? in the same way, someone can claim that the benefits are a relief to CSSD voters because most of them will not reach the average wage (probably would like some evidence, but you did not submit any)

    the collapse of the 30s was, of course, exacerbated by the well-known events around the beginning of the Fed and the tragic interventionism of the US government (without this it would be a common, albeit strong, crisis that would be found only in economic histories and not in world ones)

    no one claims that the social sector is the only vampire that can suck up the economy, previously it was usually wars, or the whims of a royal suite
    we are now free of the two (except for the USA, which leads two expensive foreign expeditions at the same time)
    yet our budgets are faltering like a pig shot in corn kuku

    answer for yourself what will happen when a disaster really comes (flood, tsunami, big storm, harsh winter…) and states will need resources not for benefits for gypsies / Catholics / CSSD voters, but for evacuation centers and basic needs !!!

    PS: why do I have the impression that you are not even trying to have a dialogue with the author, and therefore to have a dialogue with me, and you are just grinding yours to be in opposition? was his (my) message really so incomprehensible that you have to look in it for what is not there?

  3. that piranha:
    Again, the exchange of cause and effect and again idealization. The welfare state was not behind the crisis in the XNUMXs. Deliberately find out how many times Austria-Hungary went bankrupt. Again, it was not a welfare state. Not to mention the Ottoman Empire.
    So is the example with the gypsies. They have a lot of children precisely because they receive contributions to them and they think, quite logically, that it is a desired behavior, not the goodness of society. Why is the number of children covered not limited? Well, because Catholics also have large families. and they are conservative voters.

  4. The exclusive ones. This reads especially well to a former homeless :-). But the homeless kujva sows that when he works illegally (purposefully and after agreement with the employer), he still works one and a quarter days out of 5 days "on the lord" (VAT, excise taxes, RES support…). And under feudalism a slave worked every tenth day on a man's estate. Do you sometimes have the impression of Lukáš that there are other people than the "socially minded" who could make a "mess" in Prague? Personally, I'm already willing to take the batten in my hand at the word "tax"… Yeah, and if you could give me a tripe, beer and a Cuban cigar…

  5. BCL: I don't think the assumption that Luke wants to help everyone is valid. In a society where help to one's neighbor is market-driven, everyone helps where they want.

    If no one cares about the homeless, for example, in time there will be someone for whom it will be a topic and they will start. Then, for example, he will use marketing to persuade other people to help him with that. But other people are not convinced, because other people prefer to help Burmese refugees, who are stolen from the first one. And then there's another company that will do the same thing differently, and that's competition, the engine of progress.

    The degree of solidarity of society is then determined purely by the degree of solidarity of society, not by a central regulation. Calculated in money, people would probably give much less, but also much more efficiently. After all, in areas that the state does not care about, it works that way.

    The main problem is that the market can no longer promise anything. No one can say that the market would solve something "so and so" until it happens. While a fascist dictator may say, "I'll have exactly 10 retirement homes built," or "I'll set up a public hospital in each county town," a market advocate can talk about probability.

    Another problem is that the market chooses completely different paths than central planners, and you can get the impression that the central plan would do better. That there could be less help in Prague and in return more in the regions. To take the rich, give to the poor…

    It's the same as with public transport - people think that state support is needed, because otherwise there would be no train or bus to many places at all. That's likely, but would it be wrong? Nobody forces those people to live there, for some reason they chose it, why should we contribute to their comfort?

  6. re: BCL, sampis:
    you forget what is and what is not visible - today it is quite evident that unaddressed social (and other) help is 90% harmful to society, to the recipient's surroundings and apparently to the recipient himself (if not smart enough or strong in self-control )

    it is no coincidence that welfare states are wading over the abyss of bankruptcy, that families and marriages are falling apart, that people from the third world are emigrating to Europe not for work but for social benefits, on the contrary companies are fleeing to developing countries they do not value our help at all and take it for granted

    we let ourselves (or our ancestors) gossip, either greedily or in good faith, about what should be the interest, privilege and responsibility of relatives, family, community… (as is normal in viable cultures outside Europe)
    and ended up handing over over half of the funds to the state, which disappear unaddressed into the unknown

    PS: I will present HOSPICE as proof that even in today's semi-total communities they work - 100% of them are private! (The state is the worst farmer and has fallen hopelessly asleep when it comes to leaving this world!)

  7. This article talks much more about the fact that you hate the state and that you do not trust the state as an institution helping the socially weaker. I assume that if you want to help, you want to help everyone and not just your work colleague. And I assume you want to help effectively. Then you can't do without an organization that has a general idea of ​​where and what help is needed. An idea that an individual cannot have. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you on one. Unfortunately, today's state often does not have a similar idea, and social assistance is somehow disappearing in the black holes of the system. The state makes us idiots and dairy cows.

  8. The welfare state is the result of the emancipation of the middle and lower middle classes after IIWW, when these classes wanted to share in the welfare for helping to save the system. There was no welfare state between the wars and before the IWW. Thus, these direct participants in the change had specific experience.
    I understand that someone who has been pampered by the welfare state since he was a child and feels strong, perceives states before welfare states as a beautiful and romantic time. I understand that there are some who would like to return to her. But arguing nonsense, such as letting someone sit down (etiquette) or helping a colleague (collegiality) and confuse it with the welfare state, is quite a strong coffee. You confuse concepts. Please try again.

Comments are off.