By ALEXANDER DOLITSKY
July 3, 2026 – A wise man once said: “Offer a favor once, and it’s a gift. Offer it twice, and it becomes a pattern. A third time creates an expectation, and a fourth time it becomes a permanent demand.”
The first time (the gift): A favor freely given is recognized and appreciated. It highlights your kindness and strengthens the relationship.
The second time (the pattern): The favor begins to look like a habit or a routine. The receiver starts to anticipate the same help in the future.
The third time (the expectation): The favor is now written into the receiver’s mental blueprint. They rely on you instead of their own initiative and motivation.
The fourth time (the permanent demand): True entitlement sets in. The receiver views the assistance as their right rather than a privilege, and if assistance discontinued, it could breed resentment.
A deep ideological divide exists in the US regarding the size of the welfare state. Critics across the traditional conservative spectrum argue that expanding programs like Medicaid, Universal Basic Income, or unemployment insurance undermines the incentive to work and fosters dependency from others.
The danger of “Toxic Generosity”
This common behavioral principle highlights how quickly favors transition into obligations. While helping others is virtuous, excessive assistance can do more harm than good. This principle warns that continuous generosity often breeds entitlement, transforming what was once an appreciated gesture into an expected demand.
Indeed, providing continuous, unchecked assistance trains recipients to rely on philanthropy and public assistance, creating a toxic dependency from others. This can influence a destructive addiction that stifles personal growth, confidence and self-sufficiency—e.g., Soviet socialist system of governing.
US Affirmative Action programs of the 1960s
This concept (Affirmative Action) intended to actively counteract systemic discrimination in the United States, originated in federal policy and was primarily enacted through the following key milestones.
Executive Order 10925: Signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, it required government contractors to take “affirmative action” to ensure equal opportunity.
Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibited employment discrimination and established the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce the rules.
Executive Order 11246: Signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, it mandated that federal contractors take affirmative action.
The Philadelphia Plan (1969): Implemented by the President Richard Nixon administration, it required federal contractors to set specific “goals and timetables” to integrate their workforces.
While Affirmative Action opened doors for marginalized groups, its implementation in the 1960s and subsequent decades sparked major criticisms that resonate until today. Opponents argued that the policies led to “reverse discrimination,” tokenism (the practice of making a superficial or symbolic effort to be inclusive), and the stigmatization of beneficiaries whose qualifications were unfairly questioned. The specific negative outcomes and legal controversies that arose from these programs include the following:
Accusations of reverse discrimination: Aggressive hiring and admissions targets led to lawsuits from white applicants. For instance, the landmark Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) case highlighted claims that racial quotas violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Stigmatization: Association with diversity initiatives often subjects beneficiaries to the negative stereotype that their selections stem from demographic quotas rather than personal merit. This perception perversely undermines the proven achievements of women and minorities in academia and the workplace, casting doubt on their legitimate qualifications.
Intragroup tensions: By prioritizing specific racial categories, affirmative action created conflict among different minority groups who felt overlooked in the competition for limited seats or contracts.
Focus on the middle class: Critics have noted that these programs disproportionately benefited already privileged or middle-class minorities, often failing to address systemic, generational poverty in deeply marginalized communities.
Erosion of public support: Over-reliance on numerical goals and timetables alienated working-class voters who felt that race-conscious policies disregarded their own economic struggles and the belief that social, political, and economic power or rewards should be distributed to individuals based on their talents, abilities, and effort, rather than their wealth, class, or social background.
Long-term legal rollbacks: Legal battles over reverse discrimination and inequality ultimately culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down race-based admissions at universities (e.g., the 2023 rulings against Harvard University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
Soviet-style socialism and the U.S. affirmative action are both forms of social engineering designed to rectify historical injustices and elevate historically marginalized groups. Social engineering is the psychological manipulation of people into performing actions or divulging confidential information by phishing, pretexting, baiting, and quid pro quo.
While the Soviet socialist system focused on state-directed propaganda regarding class and nationality, the U.S. primarily targets race and gender. Nevertheless, both frameworks utilize group-based preferential treatment; that is, the practice of providing benefits, opportunities, or advantages based on membership in a specific demographic or historically disadvantaged group.
- Group-based redress
Both systems recognize that equal opportunity is impossible without compensating for past systemic oppression or disadvantages.
Soviet Union: Early policies of the 1920s and 1930s, like Korenizatsiya (nativization), actively promoted non-Russian ethnic minorities in government and education to correct historical subjugation by the Russian majority.
United States: Policies aim to increase ethnic minority and female representation in universities and workplaces to correct historical discrimination and exclusion.
- Quotas and numerical targets
Both approaches utilize metrics to enforce inclusion.
Soviet Union: Implemented formal quota systems for various social groups—including ethnic minorities, women, and the working class—for access to university education and Communist Party offices.
While the Soviet Union implemented affirmative-action quotas to boost ethnic minorities, women, and the working class in universities and politics, Jews were largely excluded. Instead, the Jewish population faced harsh, humiliating and unofficial antisemitism that restricted their access to higher education and government jobs.
United States: While explicit quotas are largely banned, the US has historically utilized targets, timetables, and “holistic” reviews to ensure diverse representation in institutional admissions and hiring, often undermining the merits approach in selection of candidates.
- State-directed upward mobility
Both frameworks involve the state intervening in the free market or meritocratic systems to distribute opportunities.
Soviet Union: Central government planners actively favored the proletariat (working class), peasants and oppressed nationalities, lifting marginalized groups into the technical and scientific intelligentsia (the intellectual elite or status class in a society).
United States: Government agencies (such as those monitoring compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964) require institutions to implement diversity initiatives to ensure equal access to public goods and employment.
Key differences between Soviet and U.S. policies
Foundational ideology: Soviet policies were deeply tied to Marxist-Leninist doctrines of class struggle and a gradual evolution of the socio-economic formations. U.S. policies, on the other hand, evolved from liberal democratic principles of equality and civil rights.
Scope of control: The Soviet central government controlled the entire economy and used direct, authoritarian mandates and collective notions of ideological dominance. US policies primarily operate within a capitalist supply/demand framework, private property rights, incentivizing or legally compelling private and public institutions to change their hiring and admission practices.
We have had long-standing debates within contemporary American political and social philosophy regarding the welfare state. It describes an evolution from a voluntary, charitable “safety net” to a mandatory obligation, suggesting that routine dependency on government assistance can change public gratitude into a sense of personal entitlement.
The “Welfare Cliff”: In the US, social programs (i.e., SNAP food stamps or housing subsidies) are often structured to phase out as an individual’s income increases. This creates disincentives to accept promotions or work more hours, which critics frequently cite as an institutional mechanism that breeds entitlement and traps citizens in cycles of reliance and dependance—a very common practice in the low-income U.S. population sectors.
Shifting the social contract: This article highlights a conflict between individual responsibility and state provision. It argues that as state aid becomes the default, society shifts from a mindset of self-reliance toward viewing public assistance as an inalienable (inherent), foundational right.
Political polarization: This philosophical divide fuels contemporary political friction. Liberal and far-left voices views expansive social programs as essential for protecting vulnerable populations (including illegal immigrants), while opposing mostly conservative voices warn of the moral and political hazard of transforming temporary relief into a permanent obligation (including illegal immigrants).
The author was born and raised in the former Soviet Union before settling in the U.S. in 1978. He moved to Juneau in 1986 where he taught Russian studies and Archaeology at the University of Alaska Southeast, and Social Studies Teacher at the Alyeska Central School of the Alaska Department of Education. From 1990 to 2022, he served as a director and president of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center, publishing in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. Find him on Amazon.com.
9 thoughts on “Alexander Dolitsky: Toxic generosity, and the high price of free lunches”
I see the term “illegal immigrant” used in this article. There is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.” Those using this phony term have drunk the Kool-Ade of leftists who are perverting our common language to promote their communist ideology. Webster defines an immigrant as a person who legally migrates into a nation and becomes a citizen thereof. The term the author should have used is “illegal alien.” To be clear, there are also legal aliens. Let’s repossess our common language.
Good observation, Wayne, as usual. I appreciate the feedback. My writing prioritized getting the core message across rather than debating semantics between “illegal immigrants” and “illegal aliens.”
While “illegal alien” is a US Code Title 8 legal term for non-citizens lacking legal status, “illegal immigrant” is the more common vernacular. However, major journalistic guidelines like the Associated Press (AP) have shifted. The AP Stylebook now advises against labeling a person with the word “illegal.” Instead, it recommends describing the specific action, such as “living in or entering a country illegally.”
It goes the same for the expectation Alaskans should have before promoting someone into management and how we view the employees. Managers and their little field supervisors have to be Alaskans who are HARD WORKERS working seven times harder than the team members.
I hate it when Alaska supervisors try to enforce and they get mad because Alaskans refuse helping someone slower or under performing. It’s the supervisors job to do the extra work of another slower or less experienced worker rather than delegate it to team members who have no problem meeting their time which is punishment to them for doing well. So what it builds in their stronger workers is to intentionally slower so they look busy and can’t take on more work from their under performing co worker.
That’s why I no longer help co workers at work. Having me come to work should be appreciated enough so they don’t have as much work assignments than if they were short-handed.
There is actually a book with a similar name to the title of this article. “Toxic Charity” by Robert Lupton. An excellent read about the damage of misguided ‘assistance’ and charity. What comes to mind also is the quote “If you give a man a fish he eats for a day, if you teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime.” Albeit that is simplistic, essentially it is about rising above adversity with dignity and self effort. Pulling one’s self up by the proverbial bootstraps. It is stunning to me that whole generations now think they are ‘owed’ and there is no concept of working hard, self motivation, or contentment – its all about the ‘get’, from someone else of course. There can be self satisfaction in figuring out one’s own situation, setting goals and making changes to improve that situation. It seems we are losing that as a culture.
“ . It is stunning to me that whole generations now think they are ‘owed’ and there is no concept of working hard, self motivation, or contentment.” This is quite overstated Henry. I suspect the kind of laziness you object to has been around for many decades.
If capitalism worked as well as we have been told corporations would not need tax breaks, subsidies, exemptions, grants, bailouts, legal protections, and trade barriers in order to survive. Corporations are the welfare queens and rely on socialism. The government buying 10% of Intel is literally socialism. I was waiting for the author of this drivel to boast about the USAID cuts which will result in 100’s of thousands of children dying.
It sounds like your problem with capitalism as practiced in America is more of a problem with socialism.
Dear Damon, you are describing “crony capitalisim”, which is a perverted and manipulative system and not pure capitalism. The IRS’s complex , endless and ever evolving codes enforce this control of capital and society. This sanctions Non-profit (?), tax- exempt corporations/organizations /foundations, NGO’s and some for profit business to distort capitalism and free markets.
USAID was a colossal money laundering scam.
Reverse discrimination is finally being exposed and thank Pres. Trump for his efforts to restore reality. Ps. Damon, stay out of the girls bathrooms
Complaining about “Reverse discrimination “ reveals that previously, discrimination belonged to the whites (and proudly so).