Not amused

I have no idea what's going on here but i'm not impressed.

- Pug

This is just some thoughts on liberalism that i'd written down and wanted to make a more concrete paper but I couldn't really nail down what I wanted to say. In the end its all good stuff (I think anyway) but its a little disjointed. Pug unrelated

In the wild if an eco system isn’t abundant enough to support the population of a species then the species starves and the population is reduced until the eco system can support them. Equilibrium. In the wild no animal has the right to live. If it can live, through luck, skill, desire, trickery, thievery or stubbornness: then it does. If an animal isn’t able or desirous or otherwise fortunate enough to make ends meet then it dies.

The individual only has the rights it can keep from being taken. Here life isn’t sacred and the causing of another life form pain is simply a byproduct of you attempting to continue your existence.

This is the very essence of a free market system. You and I can start whatever business we want and it is allowed to succeed or fail depending entirely on its own merit. It doesn’t matter if the family is depending entirely on its success to survive if its doesn’t make money it goes under no remorse. If a leopard can’t kill anything then it and its cubs die the slow and miserable death of starvation.

We can apply this principal to economies, if allowed to naturally grow or fail then the system will get stronger and stronger, or more accurately the strongest system will rise above the rest. How strong do you think the population of African lions would be if every weak sick old and injured lion was allowed to eat an even portion of the zebra steak? The fact is that the only way for a pride to maintain itself is to leave behind those who fall behind. BRUTAL!!!

We are not animals, we don’t eat our young and we shouldn’t be indifferent to the suffering of others. So what should we do when we see our fellow man falling behind? Should we feed him? Should we ask our government to feed him? Should we tell him tough luck? This is where the great divide comes between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to be short sighted and emotional in their thinking. “Pain (or misfortune or any bad thing/situation) is the worst thing on the earth and we can’t allow it.” This is why liberals are the ones trying to spend our money feeding needy Nigerians or creating other socialist programs.

These principals are no more real when considering human families/populations/economies. The reality is that our increasingly pseudo-socialist situation is very similar to this idea of a pride of lions who feeds its weakest members. To apply this rule of the jungle to human lives is a difficult thing to do. Its not as though our ability to perceive pain, hunger, or cold is any more real than that of raccoon but the fact remains that people don’t generally like to watch others suffer when they live in comfort. The problem is that when they start asking their government to just give food to people to keep them from starving they don’t realize that its being taken from them.

Economics was described to me as managing a world of unlimited wants with limited resources.

Take the struggle to end world hunger. To illustrate the principal we’ll try ending lion hunger. We don’t drop a dead zebra out of a plane every time we see a hungry pride trying to make ends meet while they watch the cubs starve and they elders grow lean. Why not? Don’t you have any compassion?! Can’t you see their pain and anguish!? Its because life is brutal. The problem here is that we’ve been taught we have rights and we don’t. Lions don’t have rights! And though we’re different from lions in that we have souls we are exactly the same in that we have unlimited wants and limited resources. If we get more resources what happens? The same thing with lions there’s just more mouths to feed. There’s always going to be the unlucky ones no matter how great our ability to grow food.

Feeding hungry people is something liberals do to feel good about themselves but it really just perpetuates the problem. People look to their government to do something about so they don’t have to feel personally responsible. When you look at how the poor were treated in the bible they never became wards of the state it was always up to individuals to take pity on them and provide. When you treat the symptoms instead of the disease all you get is more disease.

The reason its left up to the individual to decide who gets a helping hand and who doesn’t is because individuals can tell when they’re being manipulated and a government can’t. If a man and a woman have a family but neither of them can find work and that’s all the information the government has to operate on then it has to either help all families in this situation or none of them. However if it was left up to the individual to invest their own hard earned money into helping their neighbor they can take into consideration the fact that this family has worked hard their whole lives and are honest and want nothing more than to have work to do. Or that the family is lying, manipulative, lazy drug addicts and proud of it. This is what being a “player” is maybe you’ve heard people use the phrase “I’m a playa!” There is an America sub-culture of people who make it their job\livelihood taking as much as they can get with out working and they are proud of it. They play the system. The government it too big picture to tell who is who. But individuals investing their own money aren’t.

This is why I don’t care if its humiliating for your neighbors to have to go get food stamps. What’s humiliating is that you won’t help your neighbor yourself. You have your government deal with it so you can sleep an night. In the mean time the system is bleeding money in inefficiency, unnecessary jobs, and red tape beurocrosy.

So what is the solution? What do we do about it?! The same thing as lions do, work your hands off; strive, struggle, fight, grow, sniff and scurry, win at all costs. Our nation can ‘fight world hunger’ itself into irrecoverable debt because its not a hole we can fill. You don’t help people learn to work for themselves buy giving them the fruits of your work, you teach people to be ‘players’. America needs to stop getting played and refocus.

The fact is that if a system is broken, take communism, to the point that its people will starve then the people who invested in the system deserve to starve just like lions who crossed a river to an area where there’s no food. The people die and then other systems that aren’t bogged down with false ideals rise up and take their place (hence a reduction in net suffering after a temporary increase in current suffering) Liberals are never able to do this because as stated above they’re short sited. If every time someone took hostages we just dropped a bomb on the whole building and said “sorry hostages, guess you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Know what would happen? -a reduction in net suffering after a temporary increase in current suffering- In other word people would quit taking hostages.

Ok this has been mostly an rabbit trail of disjointed thoughts. Hope you enjoyed, post thoughts to comments.