People complaining about government sticking “their” nose into “their” private business disturb me. Seriously, what do you think the purpose of government is? How many of us ask that questions yet, no matter what the government does, we all question government activity. We all seem to agree government is there to serve and protect us from each other and our enemies; army, navy, police, national guard, which degenerate into an un interpretable alphabet soup of acronyms FBI, CIA, SEC, etc. Personalize the question by asking, who are your enemies.
The results are invariably shocking; everyone and everything is or can be your enemy in a give and take world. It is difficult to realize the complexity of all of this in modern society; however, but by looking at primitive society even going as far back as looking at bestial organization we can realize the inevitable nature of conflict with government. We often are casualties of government just as primitive people could be casualties of innate social order. Government is social order. Some object to being equated with chickens or other birds and beasts; however, we obviously are; we have “peck order”. We all have love, hate, fear, jealousy, greed, envy, etc, etc. Of course, our humanization has ordered and refined these traits, emotions, and feeling. We call social order politics but refuse to acknowledge the bestial origin; thus nature, of this activity.
Explain how we can have peck order without having someone being second or being last and not capable of surviving—is it disturbing to you to refer to these people as the dredges of society, human trash, or casualties of society? Our humanization prevents us from the cruelty of Darwinian natural selection—if you can’t take care of yourself you die —or in the words of Herbert Spenser, “survival of the fittest”. Although Spenser well-deserved reputation was made by his applying evolutionary theory to philosophy, psychology and the study of society but even then his survival of the fittest remark was an extreme. The modern political conflict arises out the fact that some of us do not to want to recognize this biological reality; there are people who are just not capable of survival. Although never quite as black and white as this politically, those who do not sense such cruelty in our political vernacular as a social injustice are conservatives while those who sense it but are not in that situation themselves, but who are willing to act on it, are liberals.
Of course, conservatives not only deny this but also assert they are more compassionate than liberals are. They live in a not so real world. They justify their feels or lack of feelings for others by saying such attention diverting things, as liberals are lazy and want to live off the hard work others, are not patriotic, sleep on grates because they want to sleep on grates, etc; to conservatives, this describes all liberals. Story after story in our political history proves conservatives have replaced compassionate feeling with greed. For example, Reagan massively cut funding for aid to care for marginally capable citizens; those who could not live and work without assistance. We find them sleeping on grates in Washington D.C. and read how Anne Coulter feels they should get up, work hard as she did, go to Harvard, get a job, and make something of themselves. Do you have to ask which political party cut food stamps, refuse to increase minimum wage, and want to cut social security. Old age poverty is not a pretty things; I have been to countries where this is a reality.
I am here to tell you the expression of not capable of surviving without assistance means just want it says; these people exist. If you are a conservative tell me what we as a society should do with them—to ignore them is not an acceptable answer.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
No comments:
Post a Comment