Called It

For your reading pleasure.

Y’all seem to hate it when I use the f-word.  And yet, here it is.  With the exception of #3 (surveillance state), this is a classic Fascist platform.  I especially dig the “timeless norms.”

Note, please, that I think they are A-1 super ideas.   They are also completely outside the realm of the American constitutional system as it has developed in these last 50-100 years.  None of them could possibly be accomplished, at this late date, without significant bloodshed.

Again: I think these are great ideas.  The first step in the dissolution of the United States was eliminating property qualifications for voting, way back when.  The US was never intended to be a mass democracy — “democracy,” as the Founders understood it, meant mob rule.  That’s what Mussolini was getting at, here:

Fascism is for the only liberty which can be a serious thing, the liberty of the state and of the individual in the state. Therefore for the fascist, everything is in the state, and no human or spiritual thing exists, or has any sort of value, outside the state. In this sense fascism is totalitarian, and the fascist state which is the synthesis and unity of every value, interprets, develops and strengthens the entire life of the people.

And that’s what Roissy is getting at here:

Strip wealthy oligarchs of their power over policy and the composition of the nation’s citizens. Tariffs, big tax increases on the 0.1%, improved government oversight of their backroom dealings, very high minimum wages, and laws designed to limit the ability of the super wealthy to lobby for cheap labor

and here

I don’t want to live in a surveillance state; I want to live in a cohesive society with high trust levels that obviates the need for mass surveillance

and especially here:

Press the point that individual rights will wilt without societal norms to scaffold them.

How is such a high-trust society to be achieved, given modern technology?  How can the monitoring apparatus that keeps the 0.1% on such a tight leash not be turned on the citizenry?

Only if all is folded into the state — the national state, the ethnic state.  In a low-tech world, such as America c.1787-1860, this monitoring could occur at the local level, among essentially homogenous populations which were closely bonded either by religion and custom (the settled regions east of the Mississippi) or by the self-organizing near-anarchy of a universally armed entrepreneurs (the Wild West).  Likeminded people monitored each other.

In a techno-industrial age, though, there’s only one way to go, and that’s up.  Centralize.  The state itself must be the arbiter of cultural values.  They must be imposed top-down, and ruthlessly policed by the state.  That’s why organizations like the Hitler Youth and the Bund Deutscher Madel were compulsory.

You need what Mussolini described as his ideal:  A benign police state, basically.

Again, y’all: People want this.  Many, many people.  And at some point, some charismatic someone will realize that if 5% (at most) of the population can use the state to terrorize the other 95%, and enforce their will through lawfare…. well, the sky’s the limit if  just 6% of the remaining 95% ever get organized.  We’re seeing the first stirrings of it now, with GamerGate and Sad Puppies.  Silly as those are, they’re hammering home one vital point — the total number of SJWs is actually quite small, yet they wield disproportionate influence.  They look like us, they sound like us, they claim to be one of us… but they are not us.  They are implacably hostile to us.  They want nothing more than our downfall.  Could they not be… purged?

When I say Fascism is coming, y’all, this is what I mean.  Y’all think Hitler and the History Channel.  I think Mussolini and Tojo.  As with Our Betters, the liberals, so with any historical movement — look at what they do, not what they say.  1930s-style Fascism looked like comic opera, so we dismiss the ideas behind it.  They lost the war, we think, so therefore they are Losers, and their ideas aren’t worth considering.

Their ideas had broad appeal.  As proof, I offer the millions of people who died fighting for them.  We’d best think very fucking carefully about that.  Because those ideas are still around, and their appeal is waxing stronger by the day.

Perestroika and Puppies – UPDATE

Watching the Sad/Rabid Puppies endgame should be interesting.  At least, it should be more accessible than #GamerGate, which… how did that end, anyway?  I sense much butthurt in SJW bastions like Cracked.com, but I don’t really know, because I don’t play video games and couldn’t possibly muster up enough giveadamn to start.  But even though I don’t read Sci-Fi, it wouldn’t be the special kind of hell “gaming” is to get up to speed… and I dig the Puppies’ author blogs.

Anyway… for the record, here’s my two cents:  It’ll end about as well for the SJWs as perestroika did for the USSR.

“Social Justice” is just Marxism-Leninism, comrades.  We’re all clear on that, right?  They’ve just swapped out one set of question-begging bullshit jargon for another.  And so, because it’s Marxism-Leninism, it suffers from the same problem all Hegelian nonsense does — it’s an all-or-nothing proposition.  You can’t be a little bit SJW, any more than you can have a kinda-synthesis or sorta-capitalism*.  Gorbachev forgot that, so when he tried to loosen stuff up just a teeny bit in the old Soviet Union, the whole thing came crashing down around his head.

Admit one lie, you see, and you’ve tacitly admitted to all the other lies.  And when your whole system is built on lies….

And that’s the best case scenario, mind you.  If the Hugo Award TrueFans (or whatever the acronym is) are smart, they’ll go Gorbachev — grudgingly hold their noses while loudly proclaiming that they’re voting for the “”””””best”””””” of a very, very sorry lot…. and then the Puppies go away, because there’s no more shit to be stirred — all the drama queen antics cease.  That means there will forever be a year with a “wrong” Hugo, and the Hugo will never again be the Unsullied Pure SJW Award for Excellence in SJW Propaganda, but so what?  There’s always the Nebulas or the Galactic Vagina Trophy or whatever.  (If there’s one thing liberals are great at, it’s singing their own praises; they’ll come up with something).

But I’m betting they won’t, because again, Gorbachev’s the best case scenario.  Ol’ Mikhail himself would do it again in a heartbeat — he’s still alive and kicking, not buried two feet under the Siberian permafrost — but many of his kommissars got what was coming to them…. and, of course, the shining beacon of world socialism guttered and went out.  SJWs have no identity of their own; if they’re not shrieking about something, they wink out of existence like quarks.  So they’ll burn it down, No Award everything, because at least that way they can play the martyr role for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever….

 

*In case you don’t recall, “-Leninsm” got added to “Marxism” because Lenin’s successful revolution proved Marx wrong.  Marx said only advanced capitalist countries could ever progress to Revolution, because History.  But Russia was a piss-poor, backwards place, and China was even worse (and North Korea’s worst).  So Comrade Vladimir had to talk very, very, very fast to show that Marx was right after all (and that’s why every vile dictator who still calls himself a commie has penned six thousand volumes of “theory,” to retcon Marx’s theory into their present, shitty reality).

UPDATE:  Thanks to File 770 for the linkage.  They’re on the anti-Puppy side, it seems, so if you want the view from over there, this seems like a good place to start.

A Bad Attitude Towards the Classics

A question for the readership:  How do y’all feel about this?

[Some Social Justice Rabbit confirming that she’s never read a seminal figure in her own putative field]

The political angle is obvious — as Wright points out, SJWs don’t create; they can only destroy.  SJW “fiction” is just a giant mad lib — all the gay black differently-abled Hobbits gamboling through the Shire in search of the One True Hillary 2016 Campaign Button.  The intellectual side is obvious, too — since they’ve limited themselves to only Goodthinkers with at least three Diversity boxes checked, they’re abysmally ignorant of 99.9998% of everything that has been done, thought, and said in the whole of human history.

But what about y’all, dear readers?  What’s your opinion on “the classics”?

I have to make a confession: I don’t really read “the classics” either.  As I am not a professional fiction writer, nor a Fan (Tru-, Wrong-, or otherwise), I find it sufficient, for cultural literacy purposes, to have heard of Jack Vance and possess a reasonable idea of what he’s about.  If I’m in the market for a sci-fi book, I’m likelier to pick up one of his greatest hits than anything written in the last 30 years, but that’s true with just about any figure in any field (if it has been hyped in the last three decades, it is undoubtedly SJW tripe).  But I don’t feel like an ignoramus because I haven’t read The Dying Earth cover to cover.*

And this extends even to things like philosophy.  When I was in grad school, the hardcore kids all read Foucault and Lacan and Baudrillard and whatnot.  In French.  And they actually read Foucault — his original books, cover to cover.  I just don’t see the point of this.  For one, you can read him, if you must, in English.  But you mustn’t.  That is, there are a million Foucault for Dummies books out there that will give you everything you need to know, for all practical purposes.

Unless you’re a professional philosopher, engaging him on an arcane technical point of philosophy, I just don’t see the need to read him cover-to-cover at all.

The only quasi-exception is classic literature — much better to read Shakespeare than to read about him.  But even here, a little judicious browsing is sufficient.  Read a few of Donne’s sonnets, and you’ve got the Metaphysical Poets.  Slog through a few lines of Essay on Man and you’ve got the Augustan Age.  A little Rousseau will give you the Enlightenment in all its smug, smarmy, bloodthirsty glory, and a few of the Lyrical Ballads will give you everything you need to know about Romanticism.  Read more of whatever appeals to you, but for pete’s sake don’t plow through The Collected Works of _____ because “it’s good for you.”

I think this is where a lot of conservatives go off the rails.  Since all the rabbits can do is Disqualify, they immediately throw their five degrees in your face and start spouting jargon.  But that’s actually all it is — jargon.  Here’s a simple test: Can you explain what you mean without the jargon?  Doctors, for instance, have a nearly impenetrable professional lingo, but they can tell you what they mean in plain English easily enough.  A myocardial infarction is a heart attack; your distal phalanges are those little bones at the ends of your hands and feet.  It’s easier to say “distal phalanges” than “those little bones at the ends of your hands and feet,” and that’s why docs use the term.  But a term like “patriarchy,” now… what on earth does that mean?  Heteronormative?  Cisgender?  To unpack “cisgender,” you need to know both “cis-” and “gender.”  To unpack those, you have to start by assuming that the world really works the way the Wymyn’s Studies harpies say it does.

Any jargon that can’t be explained without reference to other jargon is just question-begging.

These days, a liberal-arts education is little more than learning how to spout the proper jargon.  And that’s why you don’t really need “the classics.”  Foucault is just a wannabe-Nietzsche who liked rough gay sex.  Feminists are wannabe-Lenins whose only argument is “because vagina.”  The only response you need to any of them is “I hear your buzzwords, and I disagree; the world doesn’t work like that.”  And you’ll know, because you’ve read Marx for Dummies and Nietzsche for Dummies and you’ve seen the tiny grain of actual thought inside the lumpy, turd-colored pearl of SJW jargon.

There’s absolutely no shame, in other words, in not having read Aristotle’s Politics or The Critique of Pure Reason cover to cover.  A) They haven’t either, and B) you’ve read the For Dummies version, which is more than they’ve done, and you actually know what you’re talking about.  And if conservatives try to browbeat you for not having read The Collected Works of Hayek or whatever, well, the same rules apply.  The chances are much higher that a conservative actually has read whatever he’s citing — we read; they don’t — but the principle remains the same.  If you can’t summarize whichever idea of Hayek’s you’re trying to introduce into the debate in your own words, then the problem is you, you poseur.

That’s my take, anyway.  What do y’all think?

 

*For the record, I actually did take a crack at The Dying Earth, which was four stories set in that world in an omnibus edition.  I can see why people like it, but it’s not for me.

A Nostalgia for Kommissars

Given what we know about George R.R. Martin’s politics, you’d be forgiven for assuming that’s the title of Book 7 of A Song of Ice and Fire.  But it’s actually about this, from Gary’s comments on the previous post:

if we examine each individual … we shall find that at bottom he is filled with the influences of his environment, as the skin of a sausage is filled with sausage meat… . The individual himself is a collection of concentrated social influences, united in a small unit.

They had a certain vulgar talent for idiom, those old commies.  You’re all just society’s sausage meat, comrades, stuffed into the casing of your class position.

Wouldn’t it be nice if SJWs still spoke this way?  They share Nicolai Bukharin‘s politics, and they just adore his methods.  Why not ape his speech, too?  Ponderous tautologies, shopping lists, and faux-archaisms, after all, are one of the many reasons Comrade Martin’s books are nearly a thousand pages per.  If there’s any justice in this world, Bukharin is roasting in hell, but the old murderer had bigger balls and a better prose style than any of today’s sci-fi rabbits.

The Grand Unified Theory of Everything

Since I’m out of stuff to say, I might as well say it all as concisely as I can.  Here’s my Grand Unified Theory of Everything:

Liberals believe

It is not consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness

with all their hearts, minds, and souls.  It’s the only thing they believe.

Now, I’m not saying they all know this particular phrase.  As we’ve all noticed countless times, liberals — especially the ones with multiple fancy degrees — are poorly educated and have nearly zero intellectual curiosity.  I doubt one in a thousand of them has ever even heard the phrase; maybe one in five thousand has read a single word of Marx.  But it explains all the observed facts:

Their obvious distaste for constitutional government.  Constitutions deal with Rights.  You don’t have any.  Nobody does.  Capital-R rights come from God, who doesn’t exist, or from one’s status as a human being, which changes with society.  We only speak of small-r “rights” because that was the form of society in 18th century British North America.  We have only our “class position.”

Their immunity to cognitive dissonance.  I’ve puzzled this one over for years, but it’s actually quite simple — their social being changes; therefore, their consciousness changes.  Most people who haven’t read him think Marxism is about economics.  That’s wrong — it’s about epistemology (study of knowledge) and ontology (study of being).  Marx’s quote up there addresses both.  We only know what our social being allows us to know (epistemology).  That’s why liberal politicians “evolve” on the issues.  They don’t change their minds, or come to different conclusions — that implies that there’s a set of real, unchanging facts upon which they’ve cogitated and come to a different conclusion.  Instead, they’ve changed as Society has changed.  Yesterday’s lie is today’s gospel truth, because Society says so.

Their unabashed elitism.  Social Justice Warriors are the most elitist people on the planet.  We’ve all seen it, and we’ve all wondered how they get all the privileges while yelling at us to check ours.  “Some animals are more equal than others,” we mutter.  But actually, that’s true.  Remember, The Quote is also an ontological claim.  Marx believes there is such a thing as capital-H History, and that he’s plumbed its inner workings.  He knows the end state — communism — and the process by which it will come about (“dialectical materialism”).  Thus there’s a continuum, and they’re simply closer to the End of History than you are.  Their class position, their social being, is of a different order than yours.  You can’t see it — again, you can only know what your social being allows you to know — but they can.  That’s why they’re the vanguard of the proletariat, and that’s why they deserve to run your life for you.

Their fanatical devotion to abortion.  Fetuses don’t have a social being by definition.  Therefore, they don’t exist.

Their argument style.  Liberals have one, exactly one, “debate” tactic — point-and-shriek, a.k.a. disqualify.  By challenging them, you’re implying that you’re of the same class position / have the same social being.  But that can’t be true, because you don’t think like them (remember, History only moves one way).  So they have to prove that you’re lower on the class ladder — and that, in itself, is a refutation of all your arguments.  “Shut up, prole” is really all they’ve got.

Extend those out, and you’ve got every other aspect of liberalism.  Feel free to expand in the comments.

 

I’m Out of Things to Say

I haven’t posted much in a while, and don’t intend to post much in the future.  Partly this is because life is happening offline.  But another part is simply this: I don’t have anything more to say.  I’m  just repeating myself.

For instance, what can I say about this?  It’s sci-fi author Sarah Hoyt’s take on the “Sad Puppies” thing.

Of course the state doesn’t have control over every aspect of public and private life.  But it is undeniable that it’s seeking it.  More importantly, the people who want the state to have ever more power, those who are convinced that the individual can’t be trusted, those who agitate for every group to be considered as a group composed of equally privileged/victimized widgets, are pushing shock-troop like into every facet of our lives.  No facet can be free of social-justice ideology.  You shouldn’t be able to collect stamps or arrange flowers without being told to check your privilege and without being examined for thought crimes.  No fun, no relaxing, no mindless activity can remain free of ideology.  And absolutely no human relationship, be it friends, acquaintances or lovers can remain free of Marxist-Leninist ideology and classifications.

She grew up in a Socialist country.  She gets it.  But here’s the thing: Leftists have always —ALWAYS— been explicit about this.  I’ve quoted this a million times, because it’s leftism in a sentence:

It is not consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

That was Marx, writing in Eighteen Hundred and Fifty fucking Nine.  We’ve known exactly what leftists intend to do with power for more than 150 goddamn years, and we still don’t get it.  Of course nothing can be outside the state — no pleasure, no diversion, no activity higher than the autonomic — because man’s social being determines his consciousness.  Wrongfun is thoughtcrime, because people who have fun in Unapproved ways think in Unapproved ways, and therefore exist in Unapproved ways.

How hard is that to understand?  That’s why they can’t let video game dorks play their own video games.  It’s why they can’t let sci-fi dorks write their own stories.  All of those things are social, and the social is the existential.

You are not you.  You are a worker unit, one of 6 billion identical worker units that make up Society.  And just as one malfunctioning cog can stop a whole assembly line, so one wrong thought, one wrong activity, one minute of Unapproved happiness can bring the whole grand edifice of Social Justice down.  They won’t stop, because they can’t stop.

If you don’t get it yet, read Marx’s quote until you do.  You can spend a lifetime unpacking all the sheer, anti-human horror of that one little sentence.

What’s left to say?

Puppies!!! Part II

Damn it, I really liked the “evolution makes Social Justice impossible” post, below… but this is too funny not to share.

George R.R. Martin himself — the biggest gun in the SJWs’ arsenal* — tries the ol’ “can’t we just debate the isssuuuuuuuuuues?!?” tactic, fails hilariously.

The comments are an especially rich source of lulz.  But seriously, though: See what I mean about this “SJWs are all autistic” thing?  Some knucklehead comes in white-knighting for Martin, says GRRM debating Vox would be like Bush or Obama debating some city councilman, so wide is their disparity in status.  Which would be both true, and an effective insult, if the President HIMSELF hadn’t called for the debate.  No cognitively normal person can fail to see that the President of the USA running from a debate with some city councilman he himself called out would only make the President look like a weakling.

But that’s the script, so that’s what they’re going with.

 

 

*Biggest, I mean, in terms of “influence in the sci-fi/fantasy field,” not in terms of sheer bulk.  Though GRRM has to be pushing four bills at this point, I’m sadly sure there are more massive SF/F authors out there.

Evolution and Social Justice*

Our Betters, the Liberals, believe the sacerdotal version of Evolutionism preached by Dawkins et al.  Not believing it, we’re told, is sure proof of stupidity.  Very well: I believe it.  But…. y’all know that makes Social Justice impossible, right?

We’re basically chimps.  We share 99% of our DNA with them.  We also share 99% of our behavior with them, because that behavior — competition, dominance, hierarchy, everything that falls under “survival of the fittest” — is what enabled our primate ancestors to survive and thrive and evolve into us in the first place.  That’s Evolution 101.

Social Justice requires us to deny this.  Social Justice requires complete equality of outcomes.  Thus, Social Justice requires us to override every single instinct we’ve evolved in the 2.8 million years since we stopped swinging in trees.

28228-Thats-Unpossible-Ralph-wiggum-PcuIWell, ok, there’s one way out of this dilemma: Forced Evolution.  Marx wrote most of his stuff before Darwin, but that’s what he was getting at in one of his most famous utterances:

It is not consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

I think the High Priests of Evolutionism — socialists all — must agree that a permanent change in Man’s social being would have effects on his DNA.  They would surely agree that it works the other way: Coding everyone’s DNA for increased altruism would produce a vast change in society, most likely in a Social Justice direction.  No matter which end you attack it from, though, if Evolutionism is true, we must rewire those evolved competitive / hierarchical instincts to achieve Social Justice.

This, indeed, was the point of Forging the New Soviet Man.  Humans must be rewired to accept their place as interchangeable cogs The Collective.  To put it in Dawkensian terms, the New Soviet Man is the Kind Gay Uncle of the kin selection hypothesis, altruistically sacrificing himself so that his siblings’ genes may live.

And that’s where the Social Justice Warriors fail.  While they’re perfectly happy to run your life for you, they have absolutely no intention of becoming New Soviet Men themselves.  They’ll mate with whomever they please, thank you very much, and god forbid they ever get assigned a shift on the production line at People’s Heavy Tractor Manufactory #202.

[And yes, I realize that every Proletariat must have a Vanguard, comrade.  But who says you get to be in it?  You can’t even keep your story straight about Evolution, fer pete’s sake, and that — or so you keep telling us — proves you’re a mouth-breathing racist sister-humper.  Off to Siberia with you!  It’s only Social Justice….]

 

 

[A much simpler explanation for observed social behaviors in humans is neo-Malthusian r/K selection theory (Darwin got his breakthrough idea from Malthus).  As resources expand, so does r-psychology.  Most r’s become typical hedonistic, nihilistic liberals — Rabbits.  Some become complete resource-consumers and join the priestly caste, removing themselves from the gene pool entirely (the best educated in Western society are the least fertile, as has been true since at least Malthus’s time).  Others flip completely and become Kind Gay Uncles, again removing themselves from the gene pool while becoming complete resource-consumers.  The dwindling band of K’s become entrepreneurs, soldiers, or criminals; they are ideally positioned to survive and thrive when rampant rabbitry pushes the environment past its carrying capacity].

 

 

*This is a slightly expanded version of a comment I left at House of Eratosthenes.

Puppies!!!

I have to say, this “Sad Puppies” Hugo Award sci-fi thing is more fun than a barrel of monkeys in people clothes.  I think our three regular readers know all about it, but on the off chance:

The SJWs who run the Hugo Awards claim they’re not doing what SJWs always do — blackballing badthinkers.*  So sci-fi authors Larry Correia , Vox Day, and Brad Torgersen got a whole shitload of conservatives on the slate, and now the SJWs are threatening to destroy the Hugo Awards by voting “No Award” on everything, or rigging next year’s rules so obviously in favor of goodthink that they might as well name the Hugo the Golden Circle-Jerk Award for Excellence in SJW Propaganda and leave it at that.

You’d think some Christian bakery refused to make a cake for a transgender lesbian wedding, the freakout is so hyperbolic.

For me, the most fun part is yet to come: Watching the fallout.  My theory is that the SJWs are SJWs first and sci-fi fans only a dim, distant second (I know, I know — earthshattering insight, that is).  But still — “sci-fi nerd” is a pretty all-encompassing identity in its own right, especially for people who actually attend fan conventions and vote on awards.  It’s bound to be traumatic.  I wonder what they’ll do?

I suspect that the Sad Puppies have cut the pinkshirt contingent in half in one blow.  I’m not an SJW, obviously, but I do have experience being a rabid fan.  I used to be a huge fan of NBA basketball.  I wasn’t quite a sci-fi nerd-level fan of my particular team, but I was pretty emotionally invested.  But by about 2001, it was abundantly clear that the league would do just about anything to guarantee an LA / New York or LA / Florida finals matchup (go ahead and google “2002 NBA playoffs” — one of the first auto-commplete options is “fixed”).  My team simply didn’t have a legit shot at ever winning a championship under the current power structure.

To actually enjoy watching the NBA, then, I’d basically have to become a Lakers fan.  Which wasn’t gonna happen.  So I just stopped watching basketball, full stop.  I see highlights on ESPN now and don’t even recognize half the teams.

My guess is that a lot of erstwhile pinkshirts are going to take this route.  They love sci-fi like I loved basketball — a lot, but not enough to see my guys take in in the ass from David Stern every fucking season (I’m not still bitter about this).  Another group of ex-pinkshirts will probably go another way, pretending to enjoy the game purely on technical merits while not caring at all about particular teams.  In this scenario, sci-fi is the WNBA — nobody ever says “watch the WNBA, it’s so entertaining;” they always go on and on about how it’s a much “purer” game than the one with all the slam dunks and defense and excitement and whatnot.

The hardest of the hardcore, I imagine, really will embrace the Hugos as the Golden Circle-Jerk Award for Excellence in SJW Propaganda.  Each year, six or seven people with multicolored hair and seventeen piercings will get together to gush over crap like Ancillary Justice and “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love.”  Did you hear the author doesn’t use gendered pronouns?

 

*I see this all the time in academia.  Eggheads swear up and down that they don’t blackball conservatives; it’s just that all conservatives are, by definition, too stupid and evil and dumb and evil and stupid to ever get an academic job.

Big Charity and Real Charity

Here I mean the difference between macroscale charity vs meoscale or microscale (personal) Charity.

The bigger the charity, the less control over the conditions, and the greater the likelihood of scamming, for more than one reason.  One is that the bigger the pile of money, the bigger the potential payoff for a scammer, and the more angles scammers will come up with.  Big money attracts corruption — and not just in politics.

The other biggie is the further the separation, speaking in the community sense that goes from the small end to the big end… personal, family, friends, church, town, county, state, federal … the less the giver is actually involving himself in actually helping the recipient, and the less the recipient feels any obligation to use it wisely.

I don’t think it was intended as an illustration, but a … let’s say cousin-in-law who is a minister relayed this story:

A lady who came to the church a few weeks ago with a broken insulin bottle asking for a gift card to fill the prescription showed up again today with the same broken bottle and the same story.  This time he told her that if the only way they could help her was with cash or a gift card, they couldn’t help her.  So she wandered off, dejectedly, probably toward the next church.

He said I feel bad for such people – some may actually be poor and have real needs. But, like the woman who left a voice mail message looking for aid and gave one name at the beginning of the message and a different one at the end of the message, I’m afraid that I’m just not willing to use what limited resources I have for people who aren’t going to be honest with us.

This illustrates the kinds of controls that happen on the meso and micro levels that just don’t out toward the macro end of the scale.

And this is essentially the conservative view of Charity.  First of all, mandatory charity isn’t charity (I always say “forced charity isn’t”), and the wider the gap in relationship between  the source and the recipient, the more easily it is gamed, and the more counter-productive it can be.