If we were to observe nature at work, and if we were willing to anthropomorphize the cosmos, as if it had human qualities, what might we say that the cosmos “owes” to new humans who are born into it?
For example, we might suppose that the cosmos is obligated to give humans air, since there is an abundance of that here, free for the breathing. And then there’s the warmth of the sun, as well as the day/night cycle. These are free to all. And, of course, you can’t be born without parents….though this one’s a bit messier example for reasons that would distract from the intended conversation if we were to detail them. Then there’s gravity. And what else am I missing? (Things that ALL new humans enjoy here.)
Then, alternately, I’m curious about what things nature does not seem obligated to provide. For instance, not all babies are born alive. And not all are born to good parents. Not all are born into a time of peace or of financial well-being. Not all are born with good looks or from great “stock”. Not all are born healthy. Nature does not feed new arrivals; someone else does, if they are fortunate. Nature does not feed adults; they must feed themselves. Nature does not provide clothing or housing or employment as a rule. Nature tends to corrode and to fade things. Nature does not think anyone’s thoughts for him or dream his dreams for him or plan his life for him. What else am I missing?
Anyway, I wonder whether, by pondering such things as we may freely observe in the nature of the cosmos, whether we might then choose to alter our current view of how things should work in our society. If, for instance, the cosmos does not show up at a house that it built for me and put food that it grew for me in my mouth, perhaps I’m safe in assuming that if I want food and shelter, these are things I will naturally have to provide for myself at my own initiative.
Interestingly, however, some seem to opine that government should be the lifelong “nanny” to feed those who would not work to feed themselves.
But who would fund such a government? Well, that would be funded through the efforts of those who DO work to feed themselves, for the non workers do not produce wealth with which to fund anything. And so these people require from us things that not even the cosmos seems obliged to give them. And when I put it that way, it begins to sound troublingly similar to theft or extortion of some sort. Ask any school child whether another is entitled to take his marbles or trading cards without compensation and you’re sure to see nature at work!
As long as babies grow up and are able by nature to work for their own bread, it will be unnatural if in our society, some class of humans should require others to do their work for them. And I don’t know who is sicker in the head: the freeloaders or those who facilitate their unnatural way of life.
What freaks of nature we create when we support those who can support themselves. We do neither them nor ourselves any favors. Yet this is the fashion in our errant society. We give to them even though that giving stunts their natural human maturation of character. It is no kindness, and it cannot be justly defended even by the tenets of the world’s major religions.
We could instantly cut off a great deal of such entitlement if we would simply limit each politician’s terms in office to one term only. This alone would put an end to much of the pandering that goes on at the expense of the public treasury. It would not fix it all, but it would be a monumental beginning to an ultimately worthy reformation.
But alas, we are in no real mood for reform. Even the Republicans only want to reform entitlements by the smallest of token percentages. (I say this judging not by what individual party members may want, but by how the party behaves through its incumbents in office.) (In case you don’t know it already, I belong to no political party and am deeply troubled by all of them.)
Meanwhile, those natural humans who support themselves are burdened with the extra load presented by the parasites. Naturally, this stunts the fuller development they would have without such a burden. Who knows what else they might invent or build or discover without the burden.
A policy such as ours hurts both the producers and the non producers. The only ones who benefit are the pandering politicians who gain employment as such, and the vendors (such as the bankers) whose business is increased when government gets involved in entitlement.
If a mature deer opted not to feed itself, nature would have it die. Then it would feed the scavengers and the worms and the bacteria until it was all consumed. It would not burden anyone at all. Interestingly, in human populations, the number of those who won’t feed themselves is naturally lower in cultures that do not provide entitlements. Not surprisingly, it is greatest in cultures that provide the option and that encourage people to make a way of life of it. This should come as no surprise. Naturally, we get more of what we encourage and less of what we discourage.
And these are no Einsteins and Shakespeares we are sacrificing to support here, folks. They are not producing anything of value for our society. They are not making the society better than it was when they found it. What, then, justifies the expense from the public treasury? Do they leave new roads behind? Do they solve our problems? No. They are an expense by which someone else is profiting, but not us.
Nature is generally not kind to freeloaders, I observe. The stray dog who approaches Fido’s bowl is run off. And the tick behind Fido’s ear is scratched off. But in America, the family dog is locked up while the stray eats from his bowl, and the ticks are protected by law. And what do you get as the number of unnaturally-supported freeloaders in a society increases? Just take a look around you, folks. This is it.
At some point, the burden will grow so heavy that the producers—who ought to have thrown off the burden from the very beginning—will have no option for further tolerance of it. A pendulum simply cannot swing in the same direction forever. Nature will not allow it.
NOTE: If you are offended by my position, or would like to understand more about it, see also Not Yours to Give and New Definition of “Liberalism”. See also this conversation about this present article, which occurred on Facebook.
