With the whole debate about welfare one question is rarely raised - why does compulsory state welfare only apply to the poor in your own country? Why are the poor in other countries less needy?
Now the obvious answer is that it would be unaffordable to tax everyone to pay for people in other countries to be relieved of poverty, then, in which case, as with anything that you fund, you prioritise.
What is more important, a family with a TV, bed, clothes, car and ample nutrition, or a starving family with nothing?
For to simply say it is "none of our business" you're admitting you're a nationalist. Human beings not residing in the country you live in are a lower priority to you.
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating a global taxpayer funded welfare system. I don't advocate the state based one.
However, given it is the left that is the source of the welfare state and defender of it on moral grounds, on what moral grounds is there to give money to people who, by any measure, are better off than the vast majority of humanity?
Could it simply be that socialism is nationalist too?
and isn't that rather racist?
2 comments:
Of course socialists are nationalists. Marx envisaged socialism as an international movement and Lenin harboured ambitions in this regard, but their more pragmatic comrades that followed, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, realised that international socialism was a pipe dream and that socialism within national (and, particularly in the case of Hitler, racial boundaries) was the only attainable goal. This is what 'national socialism' means.
Similarly most people moan about apparent growing inequality within their own countries but never celebrate reducing inequality between countries.
Post a Comment