That’s what I seem to have grabbed when I started this blog. How do you reach out to people in a meaningful way and not take it personal? That’s a tough one. As my last post revealed, I am passionate in defending our rights and freedoms. And while I won’t ignore challenges to my integrity, I don’t want to be distracted by clashes of egos either. I certainly hope that pieces like my last screed are rarely needed. Though I must admit, folks seemed to love the drama of it all.
Now, I suppose I could rail against the night, posting away and inviting no feedback, but what good is that? Sometimes the greatest clarity comes in defending the positions you take. On the other hand, I don’t want my blog to turn into "Southern Indiana Bulletin Board #8719". So, I guess I will have to look for a happy medium. For the most part, I hope to convey my passion while being reasonable and constructive. Then perhaps the comments will be about people building on an idea.
If I can accomplish one thing with this blog, it would be to calm everyone the #%&! down. Look, I freak out about life too. The world seems to be hurtling at us, non-stop, 24/7, but it really is not so bad. I promise you that even if it's not all okay, it will be okay. Okay?
You don’t want a perfect world. You might think you do. The drama around my last post is proof enough. I could have farted around in this blog for months, staring at my own navel, without generating half that much interest. I think it’s natural for us to thrive in response to challenges, and that’s precisely why I am fighting against those who are conspiring to make life idiot-proof.
Don’t get me wrong. If you want to play it safe, you should be able to do so, while accepting all of the restrictions that come with playing it safe. However, it is wrong to foist your personal restrictions on others against their will or make them carry the burden of your risk tolerance – both mental and physical (i.e., allergies, lung disease, etc.).
So, when it comes to choices like exposure to second hand smoke, playing it safe may mean staying home or visiting non-smoking places. Outside of the countless public and private organizations that voluntarily cater to your needs, it is wrong to force private individuals and businesses to guarantee your well being. Some will. Some won’t. Do business with those who will. If a bunch of people can agree to be together, smokers and non-smokers in the same space, that should be their choice. That is called freedom of association. It should apply in business as it does for the individual.
If you choose to be safe (and smart) and wear your seatbelt, why is it necessary for you to force the same restriction on me? Children? Sure… but me? I know, I know, the argument always derails at this point, where it turns out that my increased likelihood of injury costs all of society, even if I am insured or independently wealthy. But most people like me -- we are anti-parasites. We don’t want your handouts. We’ll gladly pay as we go, or go without. We may even prefer dying early to life in a gilded cage, and when we do accept your charity, we expect to look you right in the eye, and pay our respect for your generosity, and never assume that we were entitled to it.
No. I don’t want an idiot-proof life. I don’t want to be denied the pride I feel, in the knowledge that I could have screwed up – but I didn’t, not today… well not too bad, anyhow. Am I glad that there are people in the world who want to take care of me (rather, people who don’t strenuously object to having money deducted seamlessly from their paycheck in order to pay for others to take care of me)? Aaaaahh… Yeah, I suppose. Nice people are, well, nice. If it seems like people are not generous anymore, it is only because they don’t have to be. Our elected officials have largely taken that burden away from us too.
I believe there should be some kind of connection between those giving and receiving aid. That connection can be as simple as empowering individuals to voluntarily support worthy causes, so they have a conscious connection with their choice. I want to do away with a cynical system where this connection is lost and people feel entitled to be supported, with no sense that they have a debt of gratitude to pay to those who support them. Feeling gratitude toward people investing in your present and future is far more empowering than feeling the world owes you something. If we leave people to care for each other instead of working towards a centralized, totalitarian solution that can account for everyone, will people fall though the cracks? Yes, and people fall through the cracks today, exactly because we don’t have a centralized, totalitarian solution – not yet.
But have no doubt. Only such extreme measures can create the idiot-proof world that is dreamt of by so many. Having a safe and peaceful society is not enough; for some, it must be voluntary too. Dream a little dream for me.
Dream of unending challenges to come…
3 comments:
Kirk, I doubt you will generate such a response again. You happened to fuel the flames of some sort of Hatfield-McCoy online blog battle that's apparently been going on in New Albany for some time now. I don't know the whole story, but when I see one of their blogs with and inordinate amount of comments on it, it's been because people are taking sides in that personal battle, not particularly about the topic at hand.
Could you elaborate on these two points?
And while I won’t ignore challenges to my integrity, I don’t want to be distracted by clashes of egos either.
If you choose to be safe (and smart) and wear your seatbelt, why is it necessary for you to force the same restriction on me? Children? Sure… but me?
Specifically, the nature both of personal ego and children as they pertain to the ability to refuse "handouts."
In other words, is there a manifestation of ego in arriving at the point of discerning handouts and refusing them, and when do children reach such a point? Is it chronological or cumulative?
My reference to avoiding clashes of ego was meant to apply to my standards and tone for this blog, though I suppose ego has some relevance to the larger question of accepting charity. Certainly there are some that wrap their ego pridefully around their staunch independence, but for many it is less a matter of bravado and more from a desire to be self-actualized.
Liberty oriented people support charity -- giving and receiving -- probably more than most. Again, the point is that we don't consider it charity when you reach into someone else's pocket to pay for it. We prefer voluntary systems over compulsory ones.
As far as children are concerned, I was intentionally sidestepping that complex issue. Let's save that one for another day. I only made the qualification knowing how fond some people are of throwing out "the child card." For now, all I wish to say is that you should not treat adults like children.
BTW -- Sorry for the slow response. It has been a very busy week.
Post a Comment