The Power to Nourish or Injure
One person observed that the prevailing problem in our socio-political environment is that anyone and everyone is fixated on the question, “What’s in it for me (and mine)?”
However, I do not begrudge persons acting consistent with what they perceive to be their best interests. After all, what is the alternative … to expect (or to command) persons to act inconsistent with their self-interests?
The problem is not self-interests or even selfishness. The problem is an increasingly pervasive culture of victimhood and a ubiquitous sense of entitlement. Productive interpersonal relationships and economic transactions are never unilateral or one-sided. Each party must CONTRIBUTE something of substantially similar value or provide reciprocal benefit with the effect being that each party is incrementally improved through the voluntary exchange. If one wants more, then (s)he should be expected to contribute (or to sacrifice) more. Because our talents, motivations, and contributions are necessarily unequal, the objective should be equity not equality. Equality of outcomes is a pipe dream, which is incompatible with our singular but imperfect reality.
As persons and peoples, we have removed all too often the necessity or even expectation of CONTRIBUTION. Arising from ignorance, naivete, or SELFISHNESS, there is a growing mindset that an evolving standard of living, which is defined by leisure and comfort, as well as a fulfilling life (entirely devoid of want, loss, and disappointment) should be guaranteed to everyone as a “right.” This irrational expectation exists notwithstanding persons’ lack of contributions to their own lives (and to others) and notwithstanding self-imposed harms and losses. There is an expectation of a “free lunch” or getting something for (nearly) nothing. The math simply does not work. No amount of money or effort can make up for lives squandered or for entire lifetimes of mistakes repeated (personally or generationally).
Capitalism is frowned upon by many because that system expects and requires contribution or sacrifice commensurate with the value conferred or the benefits received. Instead, some persons come to expect equality irrespective of contribution or sacrifice and without consideration of the equities. It is impossible to engage in a meaningful or effective cost-benefit analysis where the parties are far removed (as when government interposes itself between disparate parties so as to compel transactions or relationships in which those parties would not engage voluntarily) or when the benefited parties are entirely unrelated to other parties, who are forced to pay the costs or to endure the sacrifices. In those situations, the would-be beneficiaries are almost certain to deem any incremental benefit worthwhile no matter the disproportionate nature of the corresponding burdens, losses, or sacrifices, which might be imposed (by force) upon “others.”
In order to promote their own job security, professional political minions promise everything to everyone (hence a National Debt in excess of $30 Trillion). An increasingly dependent populace serves as the source of vicarious power, and politicians and technocrats covet the position, prestige, and profit to be derived therefrom. Incessant pandering means that the dependent classes have little or no appreciation for scarcity or cost; therefore, their demands are certain to be both unreasonable and insatiable.
This is why Socialism and Central Planning fail forever and always. In the words of Dame Margaret Thatcher, “The problem with Socialism is that you always run out of other people’s money.” Victimhood and entitlement are like cancers, which eat away at the framework of society until the infrastructure is destroyed. The empty façade stands momentarily before it falls with a calamitous thud. Resources are squandered, misdirected, and misapplied until the economic and societal systems come crashing down.
Rather than being an unfortunate side-effect, such destruction is an intentional and necessary element of “revolution.” All that is must be destroyed on the promise to “Build Back Better.” However, the “new” and “different” must be built from scratch on the crumbling rubble and smoldering ashes of the past. There is no guarantee that different is necessarily better. It is also nearly certain that different is not even new. In fits of hubris and in demonstrations of arrogance, many, who expect to benefit from revolution, fail to recognize that the prevailing zeitgeist is nothing more than the recycling, rebranding, and regurgitation of failed philosophies from the past.
The would-be revolutionaries quickly become enamored with their newfound power. As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty of corruption, and with corruption come abuse, oppression, and tyranny. Far from being distinctly different, those revolutionaries quickly come to resemble, if not exceed in villainy, the petty tyrants, who they were so eager to replace. There will be no Utopia. There will be no phoenix rising from the ashes. Instead, the crumbling rubble will serve as a monument to what once was, and the smoldering ashes will provide testament to all that was lost.
Objectively, the wanton destruction and indiscriminate losses are viewed as wasteful and counterproductive. However, persons who are eager to benefit from revolution, expect such losses to be suffered by “others.” Those others are viewed as excessively privileged. They are seen as unworthy of that, which they had, and their losses are deemed necessary, just, or even morally compelled. No matter the cumulative losses, some are content to gather tarnished trinkets among the rubble and ashes. Their personal position being incrementally improved, they revel in their own selfishness, while condemning it in others.
