One massive element to this debate is the issue of depriving families desperate for a better life from coming to an obviously better country.
Many ask the question, "How can someone deny another person or family the right to be in a country that constantly claims to be the freest country in the world?"
In consideration of this matter, people have to realize one important thing - the word free has more than one meaning. This issue alone can reshape how people view this issue.
In simple terms, 'Free' means both 'without bondage' and 'at no cost.' Now, those two definitions can seem mighty similar, but when one puts both into perspective, its obvious they differ greatly.
As anyone who has studied slavery - whether American, British, Roman, Chinese, Egyptian - knows, the free was not 'at no cost.' There is always great cost to acquire one's freedom. People die, both the enslavers and the enslaved. A price must be paid continually so that those who seek to oppress cannot do just that. To hold the evil at bay, the righteous must rise and hold fast to their beliefs that each man is individually responsible for himself, and has the freedom to go where he pleases and do the job he pleases according to a greater system of rule and law, by which all who are free agree to follow so that all can live in harmony with each other. i.e "I won't steal your crops, you don't steal my cows. I won't kill your family, you don't set my house on fire."
The other form of free is used so often in society (i.e. Free Backrub when you buy a new Kia! or You can get a FREE new iPod if you sign up for this contest today!) While there often is some form of cost involved to get this kind of 'free,' it's not advertised as being so, and many people begin to confuse what each means.
This country is free, but by no means does it come at no cost. While compassion is often a good trait, to offer this country to all who seek it 'at no cost' are damaging the greater harmony and sense of unity that the rest of these 'free' people enjoy. We enjoy that 'free'dom because either we have, ourselves, or our fathers and their fathers have paid the very high cost so that we can have it. To give that 'free' away is an insult and a disservice to all of those who have died, or given up so much of their lives to that beautiful red, white and blue.
Be compassionate, but stand for our rights and rules of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as essential elements of what it means to be an American, which means all immigrants who wish to come to our fair country must abide and adopt those elements into themselves. They must become American.
What immigrant in their right mind would come to a country 'at no cost' and feel in any way obligated to adopt that lifestyle?
So save your morality speech if all you're looking at is one side of the picture. To give this country away 'at no cost' cheapens the country, devaluing it for my children and my children's children. How dare you claim I have no heart when you choose not to exercise your mind.
Shame on you all,
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Friday, June 15, 2007
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The Dangers of Limitless Altruism
I'll admit that I'm not the most altruistic person in the world. I grew up with a: you take care of yourself attitude until you honestly need help, and then I will honestly want to help you, kind of attitude.
I can't help but think that Democratic demagoguery is crippling to so many they claim are victims of rightist cruelty. "But they can't!" or "Life's hard on them!" or "They don't have the same opportunities you do, so we should help them reach the same level of success!"
Who are you kidding? Making anyone feel they're victims to life when they're really just at the bottom rung is not helping them. When someone reaches bottom, they need to learn to fight their way to the top, not wait for handouts.
This country was built on a "Do-It-Yourself" attitude. It's quickly becoming a "Do-It-For-Me" attitude, and if you don't, I'll find a legal way to make you suffer for it.
Altruism is noble, but only when it's honestly to help people. I'd honestly say that being altruistic for altruism's sake is still a disservice to yourself, because you're doing good because it either makes you feel good or because being right makes you feel good. Or the 'act' of helping someone else makes you feel good, rather than actually setting out to truly help people.
Often that means helping them through a hard time. Sometimes, it means Not helping them. It means letting people fight for themselves.
When a baby bird hatches, it must do it itself. It's a law of nature. It's a matter of primal strength required to overcome a hurdle to survival. While those living in the ghetto are not baby chickens, they are being treated with no respect by those claiming the altruism to help them, but instead use them, keeping them weak while saying they're helping them. It's no different than a human breaking the shell for the chicken. It cripples the chicken when life dictates that the chicken should do it for themselves.
I'm all for assistance, and I understand how a mindset can be so crippling that someone who is at the bottom rung sees no way up the ladder, but until that person is honestly willing to fight their way up, any and all help does little to actually help.
People living in ghettos and illegal immigrants, obviously at the bottom rung of America's ladder, are being treated like victims by the altruistic elite, who are quick to point out that anyone who doesn't think these people are victims are likely reason these people can't climb, and that such way of thinking is archaic.
This nation was very backward during the Civil Rights movement, when whites dominated blacks and allowed them no chance to rise. Guess what? That's changed. Sure, there's still racism, but that's the case from both blacks and whites, on both sides. Racism can never fully be eradicated, but we've done a fine job of it.
It's time to let the poor be poor and the rich be rich. We should focus on keeping the rich from taking advantage of the poor, but still allow them to be rich. We should allow the poor to get so tired of being poor that they fight to get out of it.
Anyone who thinks that poverty is a curable disease isn't considering the one factor that makes that possbility impossible: Humanity.
That says it all.
I can't help but think that Democratic demagoguery is crippling to so many they claim are victims of rightist cruelty. "But they can't!" or "Life's hard on them!" or "They don't have the same opportunities you do, so we should help them reach the same level of success!"
Who are you kidding? Making anyone feel they're victims to life when they're really just at the bottom rung is not helping them. When someone reaches bottom, they need to learn to fight their way to the top, not wait for handouts.
This country was built on a "Do-It-Yourself" attitude. It's quickly becoming a "Do-It-For-Me" attitude, and if you don't, I'll find a legal way to make you suffer for it.
Altruism is noble, but only when it's honestly to help people. I'd honestly say that being altruistic for altruism's sake is still a disservice to yourself, because you're doing good because it either makes you feel good or because being right makes you feel good. Or the 'act' of helping someone else makes you feel good, rather than actually setting out to truly help people.
Often that means helping them through a hard time. Sometimes, it means Not helping them. It means letting people fight for themselves.
When a baby bird hatches, it must do it itself. It's a law of nature. It's a matter of primal strength required to overcome a hurdle to survival. While those living in the ghetto are not baby chickens, they are being treated with no respect by those claiming the altruism to help them, but instead use them, keeping them weak while saying they're helping them. It's no different than a human breaking the shell for the chicken. It cripples the chicken when life dictates that the chicken should do it for themselves.
I'm all for assistance, and I understand how a mindset can be so crippling that someone who is at the bottom rung sees no way up the ladder, but until that person is honestly willing to fight their way up, any and all help does little to actually help.
People living in ghettos and illegal immigrants, obviously at the bottom rung of America's ladder, are being treated like victims by the altruistic elite, who are quick to point out that anyone who doesn't think these people are victims are likely reason these people can't climb, and that such way of thinking is archaic.
This nation was very backward during the Civil Rights movement, when whites dominated blacks and allowed them no chance to rise. Guess what? That's changed. Sure, there's still racism, but that's the case from both blacks and whites, on both sides. Racism can never fully be eradicated, but we've done a fine job of it.
It's time to let the poor be poor and the rich be rich. We should focus on keeping the rich from taking advantage of the poor, but still allow them to be rich. We should allow the poor to get so tired of being poor that they fight to get out of it.
Anyone who thinks that poverty is a curable disease isn't considering the one factor that makes that possbility impossible: Humanity.
That says it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
