Intention vs. Consequence

I was talking to Cracker a while back about the idea of ‘Intention vs. Consequence'. It really got me thinking. About where we’re at as a society, about how we got here, and who did the getting.
Anyone that’s been within 100 yards of my blog knows which side I butter my bread on. So I will start by stating, the Left has good Intentions. I believe this. They want a better, fairer world. They want the best for their children, for their loved ones. Again, this I believe.
The trouble begins, it would seem, when they start to think of ways to build their better, fairer world. And the problems then mount when they actually implement these plans. But the true horrorfest comes, at last, in the form of the ultimate consequences.
I am a pragmatist. And I tend to believe progressives are utopian idealists. I see them as somewhat naive to the ways of the world. I see it in the urbanites Disney-like view of nature. I see it in the way they worship government as a healing power. I see it in the way they praise the feminine as the more evolved. I see it in the way they dismiss much antisocial behavior as slightly humorous, but mostly harmless. I sense it when I hear them demand tolerance without requiring personal responsibility.
But the point here is that often they do not view the world around them in realistic terms. Possibly this is due to fear, but I’m no psychologist. Or it may be intellectual elitism, but neither am I a professor.
Let us look at the poverty stricken in New Orleans and the dire straits in which we find them as an example.
Ending poverty is a noble cause. It is a noble Intention.
The Left has for years thrown government program after program at what they view as the singular problem of poverty. Poverty, they feel, is simply a lack of funds. That is all. And as such, it can be cured simply through redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots.
They do not see, or if they do they deny, that it is much more a problem of chaos. Chaos of mind, of self-control, of relationships, and of personal ethos. But this is neither here nor there. The point is, the Left feels all poverty can be cured by feeding it money. And if poverty still exists it is merely because enough money has not been spent. And yet poverty still exists. Well, more money then. An endless cycle.
But what of the psyche of the poverty stricken.
How are they to react to money unearned, yet available? Possibly as an entitlement?
And how are they to live when everything is simply given to them? Possibly as a child?
How are they to feel about themselves as a valuable part of society? I don’t believe they do.
The Consequence of the welfare state, of the Intention to end poverty through money alone, is to build a human who is needy and reliant. Who has little true self-esteem as he has no real accomplishments. Who becomes lazy and begins to hate a world that has so little respect for him that it expects nothing from him. Who feels entitled to another man’s property...what really is looting after all, but redistribution of wealth?
This is the product of the welfare state. A looter, too reliant on mother government that he cannot even get up and walk out of a sinking city. The Left sees this man and wonders how he got to this point. The Right would smile if it weren’t so sad.
Well ladies and gentlemen, here it is...Intention vs. Consequence.