I had a very interesting discussion with a friend today regarding the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  She said that, given her way, anyone that gets any kind of government assistance has absolutely no right to protest their government.

And that is where I disagree.  I've been on government assistance of the more obvious kind, myself, when I was just out of high school and earning minimum wage at a grocery store--which was barely enough to pay the rent.  I had no car; I walked to work.  In time, my situation improved, and I'm happy to say that I have paid back more so that it can be used to help others that are in a bind.

That's a thought that seems to be gathering ground lately, that anyone who derives any kind of benefit from a policy or a system has no right to express any desire to change it, to have any bearing whatsoever on its practices and its policies.

However, I am a fair-minded person.  Sometimes the best way to test an idea is to take it at face value, see it only for what it is, and then to see what happens when it is applied.

To begin with, we need to consider that we live in a democracy, which is despite its occasional shortcomings, is the most viable, noble form of government that humanity has created so far.  The essence of democracy is that the individual has a right to discuss changes to the system for ways that should be of benefit to all, which includes himself or herself.  To deny any citizen the right to criticize or encourage the functions of this system is to trade democracy for an aristocracy, where man is reduced into a beggar that is told how he or she must live by a class that deems itself "superior."  That is not democracy; it is mob rule.

Given that the idea is inherently undemocratic, let's consider what the effects would be of putting this into practice.  If those that receive any kind of government assistance is to be stricken from the realm of public action and decisionmaking, then who would be the rulers?

Of course, we'd start with the obvious strawmen--the welfare mothers (which in all my long years on the wrong side of the tracks I've never met a single one of), and those that are on any kind of disability or unemployment.  Everyone agrees there, it seems.  But then, that's not even a drop in the bucket considering the other forms of government assistance that are routinely used every day.

Next would be the seniors, who receive benefits in the term of a severely underfunded social security check and through the Medicare and Medicaid programs.  By that same token, as recipients of government money, they would have no right to protest nor to vote.  We would have to include everyone that has taken a college loan or a public education grant, as these are underwritten and often funded by the Federal and State government.  If one ate a single meal on campus during K-12 schooling, then they are disqualified as the bulk of the food costs are subsidized.  If one had a public education, or was taught at a public charter or magnet school, or even at a private school, he or she would be also guilty of receiving government assistance.

Our soldiers, our police, our firefighters, and even our courts are publicly-funded, and any use of these, from protecting our homes and borders, settling disputes and divorces are still ways that we receive public benefits.  If we use a public utility, such as garbage or water departments, we are still getting government assistance.  If we purchased appliances and received any kind of government rebates for energy efficiency, we are getting government assistance.  If we went to the health department to get vaccinations to keep us from getting sick or spreading sickness to others, we received government assistance.  And if we drove on any roads between home and any of these other places at any time between, we are benefitting from the government assistance in the form of those roads and bridges.  We also benefit from the safety of traffic signals, clearcut laws, and drivers' education so that we are all (mostly) trained on how to share a road with other drivers in a way that is much safer than letting everyone drive as he or she sees fit.  And if you're reading this on the Internet, then you are reaping the benefits of public money; the Internet and the protocols that it is built on were funded by the Department of Defense's DARPANET project, and the bulk of the technology in your cell phones, computers, and televisions were researched and developed with heavy subsidies from the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation.

We all receive benefits from public money, and substantial benefits at that! And that is what happens when we work together:  just like the old story about stone soup, if we all chip in our meager contributions for something that we all benefit from, we all reap rewards that are far greater than if we each were left to fend for ourselves.  A government that supports an unemployed woman and her child--who increasingly get no help from the deadbeat dad--is a government that can help you and your child if in a similar situation.  It's a government that can give you a break to get the landlady off your back while you find a job, and even one that can give you training and education to make you a better candidate for employment.

So, in short, I do hope that my friend's assertion never comes to pass, because if it were to be applied honestly and consistently, none of us would have a right to decide how our government runs.  We are all beneficiaries of government assistance, each and every one of us, from the entrepreneur to the soccer mom to the busboys, the Steve Jobs and the Bill O'Reillys, the Ron Pauls and the mythical Welfare Mothers alike.  It is only fitting that we all have an equal say in how this system should be designed. so that it continues to favor the best interests of all its constituents.  I'll take a government big enough to take care of its people, dedicated to their well-being, and subservient to the will of its citizens.