According to one school of economic thought, each of us is a Homo economicus—a cold, calculated actor seeking to maximize pleasure and avoid discomfort while expending an absolute minimum of effort.
Despite implying that the humans are no better than amoebas, this school of thought took significant hold in the late 19th century and even influenced such economists as Vilfredo Pareto, known for his 80-20 rule.
This theory has been largely abandoned today, as it tended to dismiss whatever data didn’t neatly fit into its mechanistic model. Simply put, it presumed people were orderly cogs in a machine that could be easily turned and manipulated by the unseen hand, for their own good, of course.
Today, we have behavioral economics, which essentially acknowledges free will by combining psychological and cognitive research with understanding of market dynamics to explain why people make the choices they do.
However, there is a looming influence that wants to revert the human economic actors back to their most primitive form and remove all agency from them, limiting their free will and providing them with just enough money to survive, but not thrive. This influence is the government with its welfare programs.
Boiled down to its essence, welfare represents undiluted social justice—to equalize wealth among everyone by using appeals to emotion, coercion, or pure violence. Simply naming a program “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” is generally enough to get it widely accepted and enforced unquestioningly. Wait, are you against helping the needy children?
Obviously, no matter how we call the welfare program, wealth won’t get generated out of thin air—it simply gets redistributed between a larger number of parties. The wealth still needs to be created for the government to control it. This wealth includes material goods, products, and services, all created by actual hard-working people.
The devious way a government controls wealth indirectly is by producing the currency which is used in the market by unwitting buyers and sellers instead of real goods and services. The truth is that money produced by the government has no value, except the one we assume it has. This is exactly why Bitcoin was created and why the governments around the world are wary of it.
In an ideal world, the producers of goods and services would print their own currencies, in a 1:1 ratio. This means that for each bill printed, there would be a backing of a single unit of goods or services by that producer. However, when the government, which doesn’t produce anything substantial, gives itself the exclusive right to print the currency, the result is always inflation and the destruction of purchasing power. There are more and more bills to go around, but they are worth less and less.
Note that only those who belong to the elite layer of the society can actually avoid having their wealth redistributed, by using their connections and knowledge of the system, which leaves the middle class between the hammer and the anvil. The welfare represents taking wealth from the middle class, dragging it down into poverty, and giving it to the poor, while doing very little or nothing to actually improve their lives.
Welfare programs create an environment in which careless women get supported for their lifestyle choices and absolved of any responsibility by the government, using the wealth of men she will never meet and towards whom she has no obligations whatsoever. The government will make sure that these men continue to be the collective husbands of women, whether they like it or not.
It is easy to justify welfare and other wealth-distributing methods as a noble way to uplift the society, but the problem is that this should be a personal choice of the individual, rather than a mandate. If a person is strong-armed into donating to some purpose, then the very essence of that purpose becomes questionable.
It’s in the nature of men to be rebellious, challenge the authorities, break the rules, and play the game of life whichever way they please. This unpredictability scares the government, which aims to create a heavy net of rules and regulations that is supposed to force men into behaving as is expected.
The latest example of this is Obamacare, which was actually created to surreptitiously tax the “unbreakables,” a demographic of young adult males with no health insurance, and redirect their money to the healthcare system, which mostly benefits women.
Instead of taming women, a modern Western government tries to give them all the benefits a man has, without imposing any restrictions on them. This makes women absolutely entitled, obnoxious, and unworthy of any long-term male attention. Men withdraw from the society, working just enough to avoid murderous tax rates, the marriage rate plummets and the happiness of women takes a nosedive.
To keep women happy, the government initiates another program that benefits them at the expense of men, financed by money created out of thin air, and the cycle continues.
Eventually, the entire system has to collapse as men wise up to the game and refuse to breed another generation of economic slaves to women in this marriage by proxy. To satisfy its female voters, the government will have to resort to more and more ludicrous methods of forcing the men to create wealth (including children), until there is an outright revolution.
It’s impossible to predict the exact breaking point, but keep an eye on welfare programs and enjoy the decline in the meantime.