Skip to main content

Leftism and the Rejection of Personal Responsibility

This past weekend, I witnessed a woman drop a carton of almonds on the floor at the grocery store. 

She was talking on the phone and decided against picking them up, allowing them to remain scattered around the check-out lanes. 

This is the attitude of the San Francisco Bay Area resident, the paragon of the modern Leftist, who’s obviously far too important to assume responsibility for herself, as that responsibility is reportedly reserved for those with “privilege,” whatever that means. 

It appears that we are witnessing a developing competition to the bottom, whereby every resident aspires to outdo the other in terms of struggle, excuses and handicap instead of responsibility, triumph and success. 

The glorification of struggle — even self-imposed struggle — has become some sort of twisted yellow badge of courage celebrated by the community empowered to assume that some other abstract body (of people or institutions) is responsible for their failings. 

Of course, their stations in life are manifestly nothing short of their daily attitudes and routines that have coalesced to produce every conceivable reason to fail, to render their failures a foregone conclusion on the basis of merely visualizing themselves this way. 

In many of life’s purported mysteries, we assume that there are poetic explanations behind them, but most phenomena are the consequence of extremely basic factors. 



When faced with the problem of trash lining the streets of the East Bay, the problem of academic or professional underperformance, the high incidence of suicidality or incarceration, the dissolution of the family unit, the relinquishment of personal responsibility, it all appears to stem from the decline (or transformation) of household and community values. 

In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, the results are unequivocally driven by the abolition of the concepts of community and personal responsibility in favor of transferred obligation and culpability to a faceless entity known principally as government.

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

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

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