To answer your question, Scott--my view is this.
Our founding fathers left a fatal flaw in the founding documents. And I’m not blaming them at all, because there’s no way that they could have even conceived this being an issue. (And here is the issue...) Society is nothing more than a macrocosm of the show “Survivor”. Everybody needs to contribute; and as the numbers of contributing people increase, the amount of contribution can decrease. This, however, is a finite closed-loop system. Once the threshold of takers exceeds that of the givers, the Survivor-like macrocosm will become to collapse upon itself, or otherwise implode.
I predict this is what will happen to the United States of America. All great powers will eventually fail; we’ll just fail sooner than previous global super-powers, because we have a flawed democratic republic. Once the number of voters receiving government support exceeds the number that are not, the system will collapse or implode. Couple this with a sense of entitlement and a loss of personal accountability (the two deadly sins of a Survivor-like microcosm), politicians will pander to the voters by promising something for nothing: Equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
This end-result is invariable; it’s only a matter of time. But in any event, to state this and then become a part of the problem due to this reality’s pending nature is irresponsible. We have children, after all. And I believe that it is incumbent upon us to provide them with the best possible opportunities relative to the quality of life. So to go down with a sinking ship is selfish and shallow thinking, as the sinking process can be slowed by a bucket brigade, thereby extending the American standard of living for at least 1 future generation.
And re: a comment that Matt made... It seems that Giuliani is banking on the notion that the conservatives value (born) lives over (unborn) lives. And I wonder what the Christian ramifications of that are. If we support a presidential candidate that may “get” the war on terror (thereby preemptively saving (born) lives, but who also supports the murder of (unborn) lives--well, that (to me) seems a little prejudicial toward the concept of a born life. Isn’t a life a life? If so, then we’ve got problems, Rudy. If not, then why are conservatives so worked up over this abortion issue anyway?
Our founding fathers left a fatal flaw in the founding documents. And I’m not blaming them at all, because there’s no way that they could have even conceived this being an issue. (And here is the issue...) Society is nothing more than a macrocosm of the show “Survivor”. Everybody needs to contribute; and as the numbers of contributing people increase, the amount of contribution can decrease. This, however, is a finite closed-loop system. Once the threshold of takers exceeds that of the givers, the Survivor-like macrocosm will become to collapse upon itself, or otherwise implode.
I predict this is what will happen to the United States of America. All great powers will eventually fail; we’ll just fail sooner than previous global super-powers, because we have a flawed democratic republic. Once the number of voters receiving government support exceeds the number that are not, the system will collapse or implode. Couple this with a sense of entitlement and a loss of personal accountability (the two deadly sins of a Survivor-like microcosm), politicians will pander to the voters by promising something for nothing: Equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
This end-result is invariable; it’s only a matter of time. But in any event, to state this and then become a part of the problem due to this reality’s pending nature is irresponsible. We have children, after all. And I believe that it is incumbent upon us to provide them with the best possible opportunities relative to the quality of life. So to go down with a sinking ship is selfish and shallow thinking, as the sinking process can be slowed by a bucket brigade, thereby extending the American standard of living for at least 1 future generation.
And re: a comment that Matt made... It seems that Giuliani is banking on the notion that the conservatives value (born) lives over (unborn) lives. And I wonder what the Christian ramifications of that are. If we support a presidential candidate that may “get” the war on terror (thereby preemptively saving (born) lives, but who also supports the murder of (unborn) lives--well, that (to me) seems a little prejudicial toward the concept of a born life. Isn’t a life a life? If so, then we’ve got problems, Rudy. If not, then why are conservatives so worked up over this abortion issue anyway?
posted by Greg | 4:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home