Rich vs Poor; Deserving vs Undeserving?

I got thinking about this most recently when I read something that has been circulating on the internet:

A Father Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she 's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

Though I think there is some merit to this analogy, it is based on the assumption that all people have equal ability and opportunity, which is clearly not the case. Fact is, when you live in a competitive society, you have winners and losers. There are great aspects to this--it leads to great innovation and better mouse traps. On the other hand, some people are just not born with the same abilities and opportunities that translate into "if you work hard enough you can be on top." There are many, many people that simply cannot be competent enough to compete--especially on the higher levels.

My point is that this analogy is too simplistic, not that we should be a Socialist society--or not the Democrats are better than Republicans, or vice versa. I think capitalism is great and I can't think of anything better except perhaps a true United Order lead by a prophet of God (and even then I don't completely understand how it would pan out--how some people would be as motivated to build the better mouse trap if they don't fain financially from it--though others will find sufficient motivation from their covenants with the Lord)--but that is not the position our country is in. I am not knocking the idea that working hard matters. I just think it is simple-minded to break everything down to effort vs no effort--I just don't think it is that simple.

The Church welfare system should be "exhibit A" (in part because it exists and in part because it is not just a handout). It also doesn't force people to pay for the less fortunate, which is nice. Again, I'm not saying the government should play Robin Hood per se, just taking issue with how the girl with poor grades is being overgeneralized as a caricature of the less affluent.

I warned you this was about rambles.