I found this image on Facebook, where a friend of mine had posted it for all of us, his lucky friends, to see.
Apparently, my friend, who is 48 years of age, still harbors the fantasy that others will pay his keep.
I was tempted to comment, sarcastically, on his post, "You should not have to pay your fair share."
But, of course, that's the way to lose friends.
Why do I want to remain friends with such a childish man? Because he's a nice guy, a good artist, and a soldier in the war of individualism. He truly is a brave man, fighting still to be truly himself, in a world where most give up their dreams by the time they are 30.
In short, I do admire him.
But, I do not admire his childish fantasy.
It was then that I noticed that he "Shared" this image from another Facebook page called "Being a Liberal". The "Being a Liberal" page has over a half million followers.
Many of my other Liberal friends share "thoughts" and images from the Being a Liberal Facebook page on an almost daily basis. These friends of mine are Lawyers, Teachers, Firemen, Government officials, etc.
"Being a Liberal" is, apparently, representative of mainstream Liberal thought.
This is important to note, because, as is obvious, the sentiment shared here, among a half million Liberals is, "It's not fair that we humans have to pay our share in order to live on this planet."
And yet, Liberals are always going on and on about how "The rich aren't paying their fair share."
This is the eternal contradiction of Liberal "thought".
Liberals/Leftists believe they should not have to pay their fair share, but instead, others should pay their share for them. They call those others "Rich people".
"Rich People" is a Leftist construct based upon on a ever-changing equation of however many people it will take, at any given time, to pay the way of all those who do not believe it is fair to have to pay their keep, times however much money they may need to get all the stuff they believe they need to "live" on this Earth.
In other words, however many people we have to loot to get enough money to buy us food and iPads, that's how many people are "Rich".
Get it?
Ultimately, this contradiction in Liberal/Leftist thought is a symptom of primary problem with Leftism; that is, it is based on the childish fantasy someone else should take care of you for the rest of your life.
It is also worth noting that this fantasy is based upon a wrong understanding of the animal kingdom, and of nature itself. All animals, plants, and even minerals, do indeed pay their fair share for the resources they use while they exist on this planet.
Lions and apes hunt and share the food with their mates and with their young. Plants breath in oxygen and produce Carbon Dioxide. Additionally, decaying foliage provides nutrition for soil which helps new plants to grow.
Even rocks give and take from the environment around them.
But, Liberals and Leftists don't think that's "fair."
Maybe they could start a Union for Rocks, so they won't have to sit on the mountainside all day crystallising and shedding detritus.
5 comments:
GREAT POST!
all payment means is "fair and free exchange for publicly determined value".
as such, payment for goods n services represents a just trade. JUSTICE.
people who don't want to pay or be paid are the ones seeking injustice.
"Pay to live on" = others will do favors for you. (You don't have to hunt your own food, construct your own shelter, etc. on a solitary basis.)
They will do favors for you if you compensate them. Meaning: promise to do favors for them, or enable them to have favors done for them by others.
You are able to compensate them by giving them markers ("money") of favors that you, in turn, have done for others in the past.
This is amazing. It's wonderful. Just think: you can get someone to do you a favor simply by reminding them "I did a favor for Joe last month". Then they are able to remind someone else, next month or next year, of the favor they did for you.
So, to rephrase the idea that "humans are the only species that pays to live on the planet Earth", what it really is saying is that humans are the only species that has learned to cooperate with each other and do favors for each other in such a ubiquitous and efficient way.
The opposite of all this is solitary, nasty, brutish and short existence where no one helps each other and all humans live in a completely anti-social way.
That 'liberals' (really meaning socialists) would want this indeed is a huge contradiction. The state of affairs they claim to seek (no cooperation) is actually highly antisocial. Of course, in reality what they want is for people to do them favors ('cooperate' with their desires) without them having to do anyone any favors (cooperate with anyone else's) in return. Which is even more antisocial.
Magnificent post, Pastorius. Thank you for writing it up.
Thank you to RP and Punditarian.
RWCG,
Very good points.
Contrary to popular opinion, Liberals don't really like cooperation. They only like forcing people to give them money at the point of a gun, which is really the opposite of cooperation.
Post a Comment