In celebration of the fact that the temperature will surpass 90 degrees today and that I managed not to carve up my legs in that time-honored feminine ritual of shaving, I go pantyhose-less today. Personally, I think hosiery gives a more professional look, but my office doesn’t really mind the other way.
I’m currently reading Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand, for an essay contest. Those of you who have read or at least seen the tome will ask, “why?” Well, the top prize in this contest is $5,000, so I’m digging into the 1,100-page work. Actually, I’m enjoying it. I immediately felt sorry for the maligned and demonized industrialist, as well as sympathy for the de facto head of the Taggart Transcontinental, who has to constantly and carefully navigate the shark-ridden waters of ineptitude and cross-purpose machinations of others, including (especially) her own brother.
A theme running thru the book is the concurrent dependence on and contempt for those benefactors on the part of their “dependents.” Rand really describes well the toxic environment. These folks constantly bite the hand that feeds them, yet refuse to do anything for themselves and in the same breath, demand more “food.” Which leads me to another observation: the same applies to aspects of our own society. Some folks advocate for more and more public (read: government programs – new and expanded existing ones) support for those “poor” and “disadvantaged” in our country. More support would be fine if it was voluntary and private, but these folks want to impose (and have imposed) this on the taxpayers at large. I’m especially sensitive (read: chafing) to this as I consider my options for school and the accompanying financial burdens. If I get a second job now, I’ll be putting even more money into the public coffers. Is it worth the hassle and energy to earn a few more tidbits and see even more go into the grasping hand? It gives me pause.
In Atlas Shrugged, the unsympathetic (at least to me) characters go on and on about why others should get a “fair share” and it’s wrong for the successful to hoard their wealth and opportunities (even though they’ve worked and sacrificed for them). Gag-worthy, indeed. The sentiment sounds phony, just as the same socialist sentiments do in our society. Some people actually believe in (forced) redistribution of wealth as a higher good. Others, politicians in particular, use it as a way to keep the underclass at bay and to guarantee votes from the dependents of the system. The latter, while veiled in slogans, is at least practical, the former just perpetuates the status quo (offers recipients no impetus for self-sustenance) while punishing those who actually work. Yes – when you take away our money, it is punitive.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You may be onto something here: concentrating wealth and power in the hands of fewer people so the unindustrious won't waste it. Why didn't the Founding Fathers think of that? Oligarchies everywhere would be glad to have your endorsement.
Post a Comment