The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

1972 STATUS: END PRODUCT OF WELFARE 311But their proliferation results inthe cre·ation. of privileges andrights based not upon what any individualis doing or has done butrather upon the status that theindividual can persuade legislatorshe is entitled to claim. Not theleast. among the claimants arelegislators themselves. Among themore extravagant in recent timeswas the status accorded Torontoaldermen when they voted themselveslife pensions after fiveyears' service on the metropolitancouncil. The value of each pensionis estimated to total in excess of$50,000.. Their own contributionto the scheme is to be about $3,600.The balance, of course, is to beloaded upon the backs of the dociletaxpayers. Rights and responsibilitiesare based less and less uponwhat a person does and more andever more upon who he is. Thefeudal principle of status has beenrevived unde'r the guise of "progress."In fact, the principle is asretrograde as it is outrageous."50 Long as th'e Sun Shines .. /'Was this not .the very samepremise upon which the Treatiesbetween the Queen and the Indianbands of Canada were drawn ahundred years ago? "So long asthe sun shines and the watersflow," Indians and their descend­;Rnts were promised the government'scontinuous benevolence andcare. The Queen promised thatthey and their descendants wouldbe saved from pestilence and famine;their children would be educated;the medicine chest wouldalways be at the agent's office tocure their ills. A special statuswas thus created not only for theIndians who signed the Treatiesand their families who were'thendirectly affected' by their terms.This special status was to continueforever. In the result, Indianswere reduced to the status ofwards of the great Queen Mother.The legislation creating this sp~cialstatus was regarded as an actof benevolence and kindness. Butin the result, the legislation hadthe effect not only of taking fromthe Indian his lands - this was aloss of comparatively minor dimensions- but also of takingaway his independence, his selfreliance,his chance' to succeed, andthe possibility that he might fail.The status of beneficiary in awelfare state especially designedfor him robbed the Indian of alldesire he might have had to createhis own niche in the new burgeoningsociety that was in themaking everywhere about him. Ineffect, the Indian traded his freedomfor treaty money and thepromise of perpetual care in thewhite man's happy huntingground. Even the hunting becamea thing that the white man was to