For your convenience, we have installed the link below to make donations to this website easier. Now you can utilize your PayPal account or your credit card.

--------------

---------

A war of sorts ...

Note: The following is the first in a series of columns on subjects of a philosophical or ethical nature by a Schuyler County resident who prefers to go by the nom de plume of A. Moralis -- a reference to what the writer sees as the lack of a moral compass in this country during this rapidly changing Age of the Internet.

By A. Moralis

Has anyone noticed the war that is beginning to take shape in our great country? It is not a war of a tangible nature that produces blood and carnage (such as Iraq and Afghanistan), but rather a philosophical war -- -the kind that revolves around the perceived threat of becoming a socialistic nation. Should we, as a nation, fight off this threat or should we lie down and let it happen? Should we, a body eclectic, accede to a one-size-fits-all form of government, or resist it?

Possibly the origins of Socialism in America -- its point of traction -- can be traced back to Franklin Roosevelt, for he, simply out of longevity, won his quest to have his welfare concept passed by Congress. Should people, not only Americans, become dependent upon public charity, or is private charity a kinder and more effective intervention when assistance is needed?

When people become dependent upon public charity (or welfare), this creates a belief in the state hand-out – a measure that fosters sloth and a loss of the meaning of life. An example of this is Sweden, which is the most highly evolved socialistic nation in the world – but also has a fairly high suicide rate. Is this because public charity has robbed the people of their purpose and replaced it with materialism? Think about our home front and our over-indulged children: when handed everything, they do not have a work ethic, but continue to demand more and more and more. So is the bumper sticker true that states “He who has the most toys wins”?

Maybe the kindest words anyone can hear are “He who will not work, will not eat.” Initially this sounds harsh, but when delving into a deeper meaning, perhaps they become the kindest words we can hear. What I mean is this: when we come to rely on private charity, we are encouraged to give what we can, when we can, based upon the need at the time. Private charity provides temporary help, not help for a lifetime, as public charity tends to do.

Thus “He who will not work, will not eat” becomes a type of kindness, for this motivates us to go out and work; if you think about it, these words have probably led many to prosper. When we become fat and happy on handouts, we are no longer motivated to work or care for ourselves. Is this how we really want our country to be – with ingenuity replaced by learned helplessness?

Socialism is wrong whether it arrives in the form of national health care or a lifestyle such as the one found in Sweden. America was founded upon a free enterprise system, and Socialism undermines this belief like a termite infestation, and thwarts opportunities that currently exist for all in this land of the free. Why are the leaders of this country so quick to promote such as system, and why would we be willing to accept it? The answer, of course, is that there are many who won't without a philosophical pitched battle.

It should prove to be an interesting, and history shaping, engagement.