Skip to main content

Socialism: Survival of the Least Fit

Any mechanism which artificially suppresses the cost of living for any person, or class of persons, is bound to inadvertently yield a measure of undesirables, in the form of unaccountable, deluded takers and psychological, behavioral traits which are thereby increasingly likely to be passed on to the subsequent generation of growing expectants.



Any shortfall thereto will then be characterized as oppressive or evil while the mechanism which caused this outcome eludes scrutiny to instead increase in size, reach and power. 

The most insidious of these effects is the distortion over the organic cost of living, which alone proves a powerful distiller, or filter, for non-viable human qualities, those which are unfit for any given environment at any given time.

This is planet earth's way of communicating what works and what doesn't. 

It's not a moral play, nor an ethical appeal; it's purely the ante to play on this planet.

And though this may at times appear unfair or disadvantageous, the terms of personal responsibility are negotiated at that same level; not on the level of social obligation or what is owed to me, but how I might structure my own life for my own personal betterment.

Anything beyond this feedback loop serves merely to obfuscate the deadly serious truth of one's existence, to conjure up some fantastical fairy tale which establishes a higher meaning, or superior form, of life. 

What's more, this mechanism relieves the individual, or class, of personal responsibility for his or her own survival, irrevocably confounding the calculus of life by which individuals commit to change, and in some cases even suicide, or self-sabotage, at one's own expense or the limited expense of a still limited group of others.

In this case, the mechanism reduces to near-zero the real costs of living, enabling the individual and his unsuited traits to survive into a space in time which exists ever-starkly at odds with them.

Meanwhile, the impetus for change, or suicide in the alternative case, is eradicated in favor of sustaining the very style of living which had all along proved to be problematic, non-viable and incompatible with the counterparts who would largely become responsible for that self-serving individual's marginal breath.

So instead of allowing that individual, and his traits, to perish as they might along their natural course, the mechanism coercively employs measures, people and resources to sustain someone, and his traits, who would have likely failed to endure in that state without this aid, effectively catapulting into the future individuals with a far less disciplined approach to life and a far lower appreciation for it, all while their personal responsibility for themselves diminishes, even rationally, as that mechanism insulates the individual from those enduring threats of life on earth.

And yet the carnage whips up a vicious cycle of dependency and accompanying negligence which replaces sensitive, reciprocal peer-to-peer charity with the faceless machine of hand-outs, altogether depriving the dependent of that soul-searching impetus which originates from that sense of obligation to that donor.

Instead of devoting oneself to ends which might pay it forward, the dependent collects benefits through a bureaucracy full of nine-to-five under-performers who have no interest in serving those forced donors or effectually disbursing their funds.

So the dependent is left with a digital abstraction accompanied by a dollar sign, along with a host of reasons justifying this profit and a lack of interest in anything which might jeopardize this regular and predictable payout.

The dependent may even convince himself that he has indeed earned this compensation, that he had been victimized, in order to grapple with the personal guilt of being a taker. 

And without the personal or terrestrial feedback loop, the dependent is deprived of the forces which might compel immediate change. 

Instead, he is left alone to his contrived victimhood narrative, without the skills and the rational interest to spring toward self-sufficiency and independence. 

In fact, that first dollar of earned income could effectively prove to be his most expensive decision, as he would face the immediate loss of steady benefits and unlimited vacation time, among the other benefits attending a life free of work and responsibility.

In a space where work and wealth are vilified and victimhood has become the national treasure, and where the latter has become far more readily attainable, expect swaths of support for the orators who endorse that arrangement.

And expect still greater numbers to pour into these ranks to get their hands on that which is rightfully theirs.

In the frenzy of fortifying this mechanism, freedom will yield to free stuff, as the latter is always more thrilling and socially practicable.

And while freedom recedes, the masses will lapse into a space of vanishing appreciation for it; they will also continue to relinquish control over their lives for the expedients promised in return. 

What's more, the expanding bureaucracy will be met with an increasingly-illiterate electorate, at least as measured by their tolerance for any thought beyond bumper stickers or 140 characters, or as gauged by meaningful comprehension of the words they read and the concepts they represent, such as those tremendously important canons of history, economics and science. 

In the end, the rational being will be left to fend off the unyielding, deluded pressures of unthinking social inertia.

And while the devolution proceeds, it will all be done under the name of progress or some confused iteration of the Three Musketeers motto: all for none, and one for all. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes