Investment Rarities Incorporated
History |  Q & A  |  Endorsements  |  Portfolios  | Flatware | Gold Coins  |  Silver Coins  |  Contact |  Home


Jim Cook



Every once in a while I switch the TV channel from Fox to CNBC to see what the liberals are saying.  After listening awhile I get a deep sense of hopelessness and foreboding for our country.  The most important thing for the left is giving money to people.  They are happy to see the growth of food stamps, disability payments, housing subsidies, free healthcare and all the other welfare benefits.  They utterly fail to see the damage it is doing to the recipients.  Whole cities that once flourished have deteriorated into rotting eyesores populated with shambling hulks of chemically dependent drones.  These people are no longer employable.  They have become incompetent and helpless and the liberals can’t see that it’s their doing.

..Read More »

The Best of Jim Cook Archive

Best of Jim Cook
June 20, 2006
archive print


Whether in Europe or America, if those who misbehave are part of the subsidized underclass, they're excused as victims. In Toronto, Canada six shootings in 24 hours recently made the headlines. Former mayor, John Sewell, obviously a liberal, claimed that much of the violence stems from "treating black kids in a way that has made them give up generally on the traditional roots we have for success in this society.... We’ve got to rush in with big programs quickly."

That’s the liberal mantra; if people misbehave, rush in with programs that give them more money. But, big social programs cause more problems than they cure. Years ago, management guru Peter Drucker summed it up, "despite ever larger and constantly growing expenditures, the ‘welfare mess’ in the United States is getting steadily worse. In fact, a strong case can be made - and has been made - that the poor in America…. have become the poorer, the more helpless, the more disadvantaged, the more welfare money is being spent to help them. American welfare spending encourages dependence. It paralyzes rather than energizes."

Why is it that proponents of subsidies never catch on to the error of their ways? Why don’t they see the harm in giving people money they didn’t earn? It’s really not that hard to figure out why people who are subsidized misbehave. They don’t have anything to do. The operative word is boredom.

In 1966, Robert Ardrey wrote a controversial inquiry into the nature of man entitled, "The Territorial Imperative". He theorized that there are three principal needs of all higher animals, including man: the need for identity, the need for stimulation and the need for security. Ardrey wrote, "Identity, stimulation, security; if you will think of them in terms of their opposites their images will be sharpened. Identity is the opposite of anonymity. Stimulation is the opposite of boredom. Security is the opposite of anxiety. We shun anonymity, dread boredom, seek to dispel anxiety. We grasp at identification, yearn for stimulation, conserve or gain security."

"There are few exceptions," he wrote, "to the rule that the need for identity is the most powerful and most pervasive among all species. The need for stimulation is not far behind. And security, normally, will be sacrificed for either of the other two." Then, ominously for the welfare state he wrote, "The structure of security is the birthplace of boredom," and "Our means of satisfying innate needs are precious few, and sacrifice of any must mean replacement by another."

Mankind’s requirement to feed, clothe and shelter themselves fulfills many of the human needs Ardrey wrote about. Work relieves boredom, and even a humdrum job brings far more stimulation than idleness. Success at a job brings status and identity that relieves anonymity. And security is by definition the result of work and labor.

Social welfare provides security, but deprives the recipient of the stimulation and identity that come from work and struggle. Writing in a biology book in the mid-60s, almost as though he could foretell the failed future of "The Great Society," Robert Ardrey stated, "We may agree, for example, that our societies must provide greater security for the individual; yet if all we succeed in producing is a social structure providing increased anonymity and ever increasing boredom, then we should not wonder if ingenious man turns to such amusements as drugs, housebreaking, vandalism, mayhem, riots, or - at the most harmless - strange haircuts, costumes, standards of cleanliness, and sexual experiments." Nowhere else has anyone written a more apt description of the welfare predicament.

Work is part of the growth process of life. A job forces people to maintain certain standards of good character, effort and temperance. If you steal, lie or take drugs while at work, you lose your job. Subsidies do not weaken you so much as excuse you from the normal pressures of employment and self sufficiency that make you stronger, and improve your character.

The time is overdue for society to conclude that human nature does not harmonize with income supports. The longer people receive economic assistance, the worse their social condition and behavior. Welfare reform has been undermined by numerous subsidies. Now the subsidized underclass is growing as much as three times faster than the general population. Where's it going to end?

Jobs are available despite claims to the contrary. All too often unemployment is used as an excuse for misbehaving when jobs are within walking distance. At the very least, people who get subsidies should have to get up in the morning and do something, even if it’s a make work job. But most liberals would oppose even this simple test of responsibility.