| | Yes, the sophists have successfully introduced the paradigm that one owns something by needing it or wanting it enough.
The self-appointed emperors of 'enough' serve as the arbiters.
Their argument is, when one is focused on what they own, they are playing 'mine, mine, mine,' and is guilty of the sin of greed. The penalty for that sin, they declare, is the loss of the right to be asked for subsidy. The emperors of enough grant themselves the right to take by force, based on that, and take away the right of individuals to be asked and to grant.
There is no sin of envy in their universe; when they focus on 'yours, yours, yours,' they are not being selfish, just emperors.
They decry a focus on mere money, even while focusing on your money. In that battle of focus, it is only your focus on your money that is sinful gluttony, not their focus on your money.
They, after all, are only focused on your money for a very good cause; painlessly implementing their worldview for them. Some were born to have their worldview painlessly implemented for them, others were born to implement it.
We can ask, what drives folks to such clearly immoral positions? It's not just paternalistic megalomania.
No, it is the same thing that drove Hitler: irrational existential terror, in his case, the hunger of his childhood. It shuts off human reason, and delivers to mankind the spectacle of bodies clawing over other bodies in a sinking lifeboat. The terminus of caving in to a politics based on irrational existential terror is the pathetic image of two miserable beings in rags showing each other their runny sores as their claim to the not-so-maggoty-piece of rotted meat. It is an accelerated race to the bottom, I think, by design, a deliberate attack on a once free nation, rendering it impotent.
A nation today barely able to define freedom, and so, totally unable to defend it.
|
|
