I took some flak yesterday for disagreeing with Candidate Elizabeth Warren. In her video, she claims that nobody got rich on their own, with the premise that your stuff isn't really your stuff, because people you never met played a part you never saw them do and have a right to it. What she essentially argues is that other people have a right to what you have if you have something, but what she ignores is that that door swings one way. Do you like it when other people get credit for what you do? Warren thinks they deserve the credit, in the form of the money you earn transferred to their bank accounts. She forgets that government is a mode made necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world. If she really is that virtuous, she should prove it.
Society really is a blessing. We come together because it's a mutually improvement association, where we both benefit from community. Some people specialize so that we can be more efficient and more productive, but her argument holds very little water. Ms. Warren seems to think that the barnyard animals in the community with the Little Red Hen somehow have a right to the bread she baked in that fairy tale despite bowing out of the actual work all along simply because they perform some ancillary function in the barnyard community. They had very little to do with it. Just because they might be involved does not mean that their presence made it possible. Otherwise, we're all responsible for the bad just as much as we're all responsible for the good. This is bad science, and I protest.
Social contracts are entered because they are mutually beneficial. They are the epitome of Covey's 'win-win or no deal' mentality. However, the contract is voided when one side breaks the terms. Too many of the violators still require that we keep our end of the bargain even as they abandon theirs or do the opposite entirely. When you find yourself in the position where the conditions of a contract have changed, it's really up to you what kind of relationship you have with those people in the future. It isn't that you don't forgive them. It isn't that you're suspicious of trusting them or holding it against them. It's that you choose to avoid entering into future contracts with them, especially when you can enter into contracts with alternative parties.
Over a year ago, a girl I attempted to date tried to reestablish a friendship with me. I told her that the burden of proof was on her, as I was not the one who changed my mind and tried to alter the terms to benefit one side at the expense of the other. I realized she was abusing our relationship, and after she attempted to borrow money from me with the assumption that all was forgiven without any attempt on her part at restituteion where I refused, she left, and I have heard nothing since. After you prove I cannot rely on your word, I choose to enter into contracts with people whose credibility remains intact.
They say we need to share and 'just get along' as a community. Obama made an asinine comparison to the sand box where your parents make you share. When I was young, my parents forbade us from playing with Christmas gifts given to our siblings for the first two weeks because they were not OUR presents. If my stuff is not my stuff, does that mean your stuff isn't yours either and that I can walk in and take whatever I like? It's legalized plunder, like Bastiat wrote, and it's not made right because government does it. They say it's because I don't care about other people. How can you really love your neighbor if you hate yourself? i do care about other people, but you can only share your oil and meal if you have some with which to start.
We hear a great deal of talk about rights without attendant responsibilities from the Monarchists at our head. In an attempt to get their way at your expense, they will leverage your guilt and your principles. They don't stand for anything worth defending. If you doubt me, go watch Mr Smith Goes to Washington and compare the modern politician to Stewart's character. They talk about equality, but they really mean that they want things to be better for them, especially Obama. He overreaches. Of course we want to pay for things, but we can't pay for everything everyone wants at every time.
Monarchists have different goals in sight than we do. They meddle. They are really after you. They are in our homes, and in our heads, and in our bank accounts, and they haven't the right. Notice when they are investigated, they claim special privileges, which they would never extend to you. When it serves their ends, they appeal to Jesus and religion and charity, when they are a bunch of impeached perverts. Then they will trash religious observance as the reason why terrorists attack us, as if we're supposed to pretend that religion, which is the fertile soil in which morality can grow, is somehow controversial, unless they're leveraging it to serve their agenda.
Politicians think they can make us better through force of law. In doing so, they attempt to use the adversary's method as a means to enforce the Father's plan of happiness. They always swing back to the belief that they can make people better, focusing on what they do rather than on what they are. Remember that although doing might lead to being, being always leads to doing. A liberal is someone for whom compassion and charity are doors that swing one way. While they expect you to, out of Christian compassion, share what you have, if the roles were reversed, they would feel under no such reciprocal obligation.
Beware when politicians paint themselves as moral authorities and talk in sweeping gestures of Judeo-Christian principles. Most of them are irreligious and generally talk of such not because they mean to be virtuous but because they know that you do. Politics and economics reward people, not for their virtue, but for the advancement of their interests. If virtue were rewarded by society, then I, and not Hollywood socialites, politicians, bureaucrats, and sports figures, would be among the richest and most respected on the planet. Nothing is greedier than government, be it in Congress or around the Board, and nothing is more generous than a moral and religious citizenry.
No comments:
Post a Comment