The case for hatred, Volume one: Talking off the cuff with a room full of robber-barons.
This series is my attempt at writing more often as thoughts come to me. This is in no way an attempt at anything coherent or even academic.
The date is somewhere late in September of 2012. Were currently working our way through the election season of one Mitt Romney versus President Obama.
Now to start, allow me to state that I dont particularly like either candidate and that this series of blog posts aren't designed to shill for one side or the other. Or to put it into laymens terms, I dont give a damn about the race, nor do I think your candidate is worth a damn. I only mention the race as Romney made a statement regarding 47% or something like that of the American voting population expecting things such as food, healthcare and housing to be provided for them and that they are basically a group of entitlement losers who depend on the government.
Of course, much like anyone who is not a parrot for talk radio, I shook my head and rolled my eyes at the stupidity of the comment. It wasnt until I recalled a conversation that I had with an older friend of mine in which I mentioned something about might makes right. He turned and looked at me with disgust in his eyes.
The problem is that, in our society, might does make right. Its just that might here in America is based off of wealth, not strength or ability.
You see, it dawns on me that there is something intrinsically wrong with the idea that we as a people have no right to any of these things No, that doesnt sound quite right. Perhaps I should state it in a different way.
There is a basic belief among a number of philosophers (or at least in my experience) that the reason that we agree to being held under a set of laws and government is that we get something out of the system such as safety, security and so on.
So, my question is simple. What am I getting out of this system? Why shouldnt I simply take what I want? I ask this outside of the pesky ideas of morals and ethics. I mean this in simply a transactional type of view.
More specifically, if the system doesnt provide me with an even playing field (and dont bother pretending that it provides the population with anything even remotely resembling an even playing field), doesnt provide basic necessities and doesnt even provide a fair and unbiased system of justice, why should I play according to the rules?
I think Mitt, living in a world where struggling means having to sell a bit of stock to pay for school, misunderstands how few people actually think the government has ever, or will ever provide anything even remotely resembling basic necessities. But I also think Mitt misunderstands just how little disincentive there is keeping someone such as myself from breaking him and claiming his gear.
This series is my attempt at writing more often as thoughts come to me. This is in no way an attempt at anything coherent or even academic.
The date is somewhere late in September of 2012. Were currently working our way through the election season of one Mitt Romney versus President Obama.
Now to start, allow me to state that I dont particularly like either candidate and that this series of blog posts aren't designed to shill for one side or the other. Or to put it into laymens terms, I dont give a damn about the race, nor do I think your candidate is worth a damn. I only mention the race as Romney made a statement regarding 47% or something like that of the American voting population expecting things such as food, healthcare and housing to be provided for them and that they are basically a group of entitlement losers who depend on the government.
Of course, much like anyone who is not a parrot for talk radio, I shook my head and rolled my eyes at the stupidity of the comment. It wasnt until I recalled a conversation that I had with an older friend of mine in which I mentioned something about might makes right. He turned and looked at me with disgust in his eyes.
The problem is that, in our society, might does make right. Its just that might here in America is based off of wealth, not strength or ability.
You see, it dawns on me that there is something intrinsically wrong with the idea that we as a people have no right to any of these things No, that doesnt sound quite right. Perhaps I should state it in a different way.
There is a basic belief among a number of philosophers (or at least in my experience) that the reason that we agree to being held under a set of laws and government is that we get something out of the system such as safety, security and so on.
So, my question is simple. What am I getting out of this system? Why shouldnt I simply take what I want? I ask this outside of the pesky ideas of morals and ethics. I mean this in simply a transactional type of view.
More specifically, if the system doesnt provide me with an even playing field (and dont bother pretending that it provides the population with anything even remotely resembling an even playing field), doesnt provide basic necessities and doesnt even provide a fair and unbiased system of justice, why should I play according to the rules?
I think Mitt, living in a world where struggling means having to sell a bit of stock to pay for school, misunderstands how few people actually think the government has ever, or will ever provide anything even remotely resembling basic necessities. But I also think Mitt misunderstands just how little disincentive there is keeping someone such as myself from breaking him and claiming his gear.