Sunday, September 28, 2014

Why I Have Rights Most People Don't

Just received my new U.S. passport. This document allows me to travel faster, cheaper, more easily and to more destinations than most people can. An ugly truth but still the truth. Why am I more entitled to access the world than billions of other folks. I will now explain exactly why.

The founders of my country were not mega religious. Yet, they acknowledged the existence of heavenly management and the existence of divinely given rights that governments cannot take away without showing contempt for both the masses and the Creator.

However, despising both the little people and the Big Guy is not really an uncommon feat for politicians. The God-given rights that people are born with are much less sacred to politicos than the government-given rights that they can take credit for and buy votes with. So, primal rights that go back to the dawn of time like migrating freely in search of work to feed one's family or fleeing quickly to escape rapists and murderers are now curtailed freely by global chieftains. Mexican Monarch Butterflies and Canadian Geese migrate across the friendly skies, while starving oppressed humans watch in envy.

Meanwhile, politicians are constantly applying the term rights to more recent benefits like education for children and medicine for the elderly. Those with a basic grasp of mathmatics understand that these can never actually be rights, because people receiving these wonderful benefits without having the resources to pay for them can only do so when someone else has enough resources to subsidize such benefits for others.

It is mathmatically impossible for these freebies to be universal rights, though they may be benefits that a society should provide. Nevertheless, politicos like George Bush and Barack Obama are not that interested in providing the benefits, only promising them to voters. How do we know that? They have little or no interest in the fact that they have no sustainable ideas for funding their promises. The U.S. gets broker and broker as the promises get grander and grander.

Even worse, the countries in the world that offer citizens the "right" to collect the most benefits regardless of effort to earn those benefits must also be the most aggressive in screening migrant workers and refugees. The societies with the best social safety nets must likewise have the best border fences, since they can't respect humanity's right to migrate and work for food without throwing in the promised benefits fraudulantly labeled rights.

So, an American who thinks real work is beneath him can backpack to Bolivia any time he wants tossing coins from a social security fund to the locals, but a brown guy wanting to come to America and work his ass off is a potential freeloader who might interphere with a love affair between politicians and homegrown freeloaders.

What country in their right mind would want to trade a proud native-born citizen, who has been on unemployment for 5 years because he's afraid or unmotivated to retrain or relocate, for some dirty hungry foreigner - like say Albert Einstein? The answer: any country in their right mind. However, as long as voters are more interested in getting new benefits labeled rights than in respecting and protecting their God-given rights, societies must actually promote curtailed liberty and injustice for all. Promoting laws of compassion designed by legislators is good.  Respecting the laws of nature designed by its maker is even better. The most compassionate thing global politicians could do would be to let hungry people travel and work wherever they can find a job ... and to hell with the consequences.

1 comment:

  1. One of the many problems with politics: it caters to the small, petty side of humanity.