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

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. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi