Keepers

I have said in a comment to the previous rant that there may come a time when society as a whole needs to say 'if you aren't earning your keep, you aren't worth keeping.' Some people that have heard me say that elsewhere have told me that I was 'cold' or 'heartless' for thinking of such a sentiment.

Is it 'cold', 'heartless', or 'uncaring'? If viewed by those that feel that man has an obligation to assist others in their survival based solely on the 'need' of another, yes it is. To those that feel that man's first and most important responsibility is his own happiness and survival then it is a statement of reality; nether good nor evil, simply true.

But I have the 'right to life!' ... Yes, you do ... neither the government nor any other person has the right to take your life from you ... that does not mean that you have a right to the production or property of another if you are unable or unwilling to provide for your self; and yet that is exactly what every welfare recipient claims ... that their 'need' gives them the right to your money, and that you have no say in the matter.

But let us look at this logically ... what does society as a whole gain from those who are unwilling or unable to take care of their own 'needs'? The answer is, of course, nothing. If they are truly unwilling or unable to provide for their own needs, then they are certainly incapable of producing anything of benefit to society as a whole. After all ... if they could produce anything of value, be it labor, art, craftsmanship, or ideas, they could easily trade that for their needs.

The problem is they don't want to produce, they don't want to work, they don't want to think ... they want to live off of the thoughts, work, and production of others ... existing solely to consume the efforts of others without any cost to themselves.

The government feeds them and like stray cats they just won't go away, so the government houses them and more come. Then the government starts to realize that this is expensive so it takes out its guns and raises taxes because there are still 'needs' to be filled ... and more come. At some point, however, some of those in government realized that this was a great way to grow a base of voters....

The problem is that their 'need' can never really be filled ... They will always want more and one of the main reasons for that is that the 'need' that they aren't meeting is a 'need' that can only be met through self action. What they 'need' is the satisfaction of achievement ... but an achievement that is not earned doesn't provide the same satisfaction as one that is earned through one's own effort.

So we, the producers, the tax payers, pay to provide their survival, but to what end? Why should they survive?

'They are human beings, why do they need a purpose!?'

Everything needs a purpose ... the purpose of something defines its value ... its value defines its survival. That which has no purpose has no value, that which has no value doesn't survive in nature. Except now, we humans have saved those among us without purpose and, by expending our resources to feed their need ... we endanger our own purpose without any real reason.

In nature an animal unable to provide or fend for itself, or contribute to the group in a meaningful way ... dies. If a group of animals were to care for the weak, the sick, or those that otherwise couldn't contribute to the survival (purpose) of the group, then the group as a whole would eventually reach a point where it was unable to survive as a group. Sooner or later the group known as Humans will reach this point ... and when they do ... it's NOT going to be a pretty sight.