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.
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
Post a Comment