Skip to main content

Is Business Responsible for Your Well-Being?

Business isn’t naturally responsible for the well-being of anyone, nor is it responsible for finding ways to make people productive.

It tends to incidentally achieve this end, but it is not out of obligation, but rather due to the perception of mutual advantage, something which is sought consensually by free and independent parties.

Rather, it is the responsibility of the parents, then later the mature offspring, to care for the individual. Bringing a life form into this world entitles it to nothing beyond the mere opportunity to survive of its own might, or in some cases to decidedly reject it.

The failures of such human experiments can then justifiably be traced back to a failure of individual adaptability, or one of incompatibility with the given environment, or that of parental capacity to ensure survival of their offspring.

It is neither the assumed failure of business nor the dearth of identifiable employment options which is to blame.

This is all too often the game played by grandstanding demagogues of the Left who condition the masses to expect so much from fabricated abstractions that are composed of nothing more than sheer human beings.

For this reason, champions of the Left, such as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, avoid naming names and instead point to meaningless generalities, such as faceless corporate entities, broad-brush demographics, hyperbolized personality types, socioeconomic caricatures, tenuous moral absolutes, and unprovable reports of endemic wrongdoings.

When pressed, the core of their untenable argument begins to leak out profusely, unveiling itself as nothing more than ornately-dressed envy and disappointment.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

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 that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…