What annoys me is the attitude of the big-government people that, if you disagree with their methods, then ipso facto you must totally disagree with their ideas: i.e., you hate people. I personally don’t “hate” anybody. I tolerate some people less than I tolerate others, based on their specific actions and behaviors. I certainly don’t hate the billions of people I have never met and never interacted with. Some of those billions annoy me, based on what I have seen or heard them say or do, but mostly, I have towards them the same sort of feeling most of them have towards me: indifference, disinterest in the minutiae of their lives until they do something which directly affects me, or makes compelling video on YouTube. Otherwise, I figure that other people are going about their lives pretty much as I am: some days good, some days not so good. If I have an opportunity to assist people I know, or people I don’t, and it doesn’t cost me too much of my resources to do so, then I will (just look how helpful I am being with this blog); otherwise, I am fairly well occupied with my own life and my own peeps.
     So I tend to resent members of government telling me, sometimes forcefully, that I owe other people, and I owe them exactly what the members of government tell me that I owe them. What especially galls me is when the government people have been telling me for years that the particular method of assistance they have fussed over, compromised on, tweaked in favor of one group or another, have hired hundreds of people to enact, enforce, administer, and oversee, is the ultimate, the only way of dealing with the issue of the moment. Especially when that method turns out, after years of existence, to leave us in the same, if not a worse, position, than when we started out down this path.
     Take, for example, the war on poverty. That war has been going on for more than a year or two, with what results? Since its inception, the war has progressed so well that now, almost half—half!—of Americans are deemed to be living in poverty, or near poverty!!!! For me, that raises more than a few questions.
     If half the people are living in poverty, or near poverty, how in the world can the other half have enough resources to lift them out of poverty? And even if they did have the resources, the present system of dealing with poverty can’t do it—how can dribbles of transfers of wealth, sufficient only to maintain a lifestyle, to subsist, possibly lift anyone anywhere? A life jacket only allows you to bob—it don’t lift squat. How can the situation possibly be worse now than it was at the beginning? And if it is, doing more of the same can’t possibly be the best possible solution.
     And let’s use some common sense. Look around you—does it look like almost half the people you know are living in poverty? When I think of poverty, I picture the starving, sickly hordes of sufferers, collecting their drinking water from miles away, or from the open sewers running past their hovels. Amazingly enough, most of those images come from other continents, not from down the road a piece. Access to television, cell phones, and rent-controlled apartments on my dime doesn’t fit my definition of poverty.
DSCN0507     All around the world we Americans are castigated for our out-of-proportion-to-our-population energy use. I don’t get so exercised about our use of energy, because our productivity is also way out of proportion. It is the poor-mouth, woe-is-everybody-but-me sanctimonious I-have-the-only-solution-because-I-am-the-only-one-who-cares posturing that gets my goat. I may or may not have the opinion that your problem of the week is the single most important item for my agenda, or that government holds the best method of funding it.  Plus, there are hundreds of government-philes who each have their own agendas, and thus their own top-of-the-list, to choose from. And if I don’t happen to believe that each of those agendas and each of those solutions is the only way to deal with the problem, I am branded as a racist people-hater. It can’t possibly be that I don’t agree with your concept of what to do, after all, it is the right thing to do!, so it must be the color of your skin or your method of speech that is eliciting my hesitation to endorse your wonderful idea. Lots of time and energy is spent demonizing people for not following the party line, whichever party may be doing the demonizing, instead of allowing citizens to actually accomplish what they want to accomplish, and support what causes they think are important, they way they feel is most effective.
     Introducing governmental control into the equation inevitably introduces waste, centralization and thus lag-time, regulations, impersonality, and inability to adapt to changing conditions and personal circumstances. Even those who are involved in enacting legislation claim that what they have accomplished is less than perfect, but assert that just a little tweaking will achieve the desired results. This despite years of tweaking, and not one instance of achievement of desired results, just compromise, which is then touted as an admirable goal in and of itself. The only certainties in all of this process is that people will be hired by the government, and that the program will never die.
     Somehow this country managed to get itself built without a whole lot of government interference, but somehow since then we have turned from external enterprise to naval-gazing: forget productivity, what we have to do is help those poor people who can’t help themselves. I can fully understand from whence came these ideas—equal opportunity for former slaves and for women are noble and necessary concepts. But we have swung the pendulum too far: nor longer is the object of governmental intercession to remove obstacles from our path—now, if the project isn’t actually funded by the government, that is seen as the same as being denied to those who want it. If someone else doesn’t pay for it for you, then you are forcibly being prohibited from accomplishing your goal. ‘Scuse me?
     It is true that there are people in this world, in this country, who are richer than some countries are. It is not our job to make sure that that wealth is equally spread around, much as that might inure to our benefit. Let those people decide for themselves how to spend their money—if they were smart enough to accumulate it, they must have some idea of what to do with it. If members of government are so smart, they need to come up with some reason for those people to fund their pet projects voluntarily. I assume that there is some reason those wealthy people, those one-percenters, don’t give the government more than they absolutely have to, and it’s not because they hate people.


Filed under Critical Thinking, Politics


  1. Keep speaking Victoria. As an American you have the (if you were born here… inherent) right to do so no matter what the frogs sitting in a pot of water are trying to bully you with. Worrying about what the rich(er) man has and wanting it is called coveting. Forcing one man to give to another is called slavery. Forget the color, class, religion card etc…its Machiavellian tactics and or others coveting what some WORKED for. (It’s funny to watch when one of them gets hit in the pocket by the machine of their own design…they scream and cry like infants…they want you to give your money… not theirs (lol). The current throne room is handing out “Bread and Circus'”( welfare and Hollywood) to make the people happy and remain simple minded. The sheep that can’t be reigned in by promises of FREE! from the backs of others (benefits and welfare) are reigned in by Hollywood “Circus'” Like you, many are tired of it and clearly see it.

  2. Pingback: włazy żeliwne

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s