Skip to main content

Passive Bigotry

I had an interesting conversation last night while playing free online poker that I would like to elaborate on.


Some people are only looking out for themselves. Some people don't care what happens to others because it's never happened to them. They don't care about the health or well-being of other people, because it doesn't "benefit" them. I bring this, albeit common occurrence of the sheeple class, up because of the impending presidential election. These people have a candidate too, oh yes they do. And his name is Ron Paul.


Government shouldn't care about whether people starve. It shouldn't be concerned of whether or not its people get a good education or health care, food or warmth, whether they are discriminated against or not. Why? Because it would give government power over people. Oh horrors. Surely this would be horrible. We cannot possibly give people a good education or health care. People don't deserve food or warmth.


Of course not.


Actually they do. It is our responsibility to care for all of those who cannot care for themselves. This is the meaning of civilized society. If you don't want to be part of civilized society then by all means move out of this country. If you are unwilling to help those in need, you don't deserve to live in a country that protects your rights, especially because you don't want them.


Life sucks and then you die or survival of the fittest. That's their motto. As if there's nothing that we sentient beings can do about it. Why should we let people live in pain and suffering through no fault of their own

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reagan, Deregulation, and the Fruit It Now Bears

President Reagan had an idea about how the world should run. He deregulated Big Business. That is, he removed the restrictions put in place that kept companies from cheating. He removed, primarily economic oversight. He said that it was unAmerican that in this capitalist society that such oversight, such restrictions should exist. To him, these concepts flew in the face of that illusive, figmentary idea we like to call freedom. He wanted Big Business to have the freedom to do what it will and believed that in doing so, said companies would check themselves. They would check themselves because it was in their best economic interest to do so. Yet, what he didn't realize is that what was in the best interest of Corporate America could be unknown to Corporate America itself! That Big Business could be akin to a compulsive gambler who as they fall further and further into the hole panic and begin making riskier and riskier bets, thus then subjecting themselves to even more debt ...
2 comments
Read more

My Last

 My previous post was found as a blank page in draft form this evening.  I found the existence of it to be rather poetic.  So I published it blank as is over a year later.  Seems fitting to be honest.
Post a Comment
Read more

There's a Reason Why There Are No Good Politicians

That is to say there is a reason why there are no politicians with genuine interests at heart. Genuine interests can be defined as points of view on which you are inflexible to opposition. For instance, you are either for human rights or you're not for human rights. You don't have to be AGAINST human rights necessarily to not be for them. Politicians are not political activists. A political activist's interest is the success of a point of view. A politician's is not. There comes a point where a political activist, which I believe all worthwhile politicians begin as, cease to be an activist for an issue and begin to be a politician whose focus is politicking. There are of course politicians from different lines of work, particularly corporate America, but that plague is best left for discussion at a different time. The crux of the difference between an activist and a politician is flexibility. Activists are inflexible on their positions. Politicians are born o...
Post a Comment
Read more