You can either be an adult, or a whining, crying, feet-stomping little child. It's your choice. In fact, it's all up to you.
One of the most pernicious effects of the Bismarkian Welfare State is the infantilization of society, the destruction of adulthood. This infantilization renders people incapable of caring for themselves. It places them in a state of permanent dependence. Unable to live without the state, people are put in a position where resistance to the rulers, even in small areas like a personal preference for ingesting one mind-altering substance rather than another, risks their ability to practice their professions, the services they depend on, their children’s education, their access to modern financial institutions, in the future, even possibly affect their access to medical care.
If you want to be free, you must become an adult, which is difficult in this age when society, the media, the state, your family are all suggesting that you continue behaving as a child.
What is it to be an adult?
Quite simply, an adult is widely described as a person who is aware of the consequences of his or her actions, is capable of reason and holds himself accountable for the results of his or her choices. An adult is prepared to provide for his or her needs or to do without.
The modern state discourages adulthood for the simple reason that a person who is prepared to only consume that which they have earned will not accede to being plundered. If the state is to gather the vast riches its rulers desire, the state must place the producers in a state of dependence and fear – two conditions guaranteed to make men malleable.
Dr Stephen Covey has spent his life studying what made people and organization effective – capable of exerting influence over the people and organizations they come in contact with. He observed that the most effective organizations and people all first turn inward and master themselves. He observed that the rational and consistent application of their principles to their own conduct earned the respect of those who observed them.
Too many lovers of liberty fail at this. They talk the talk well, but when it comes to ordering their lives, they fail to walk the walk ...
For some time now I have thought that the real "political" divide in this country has to do with one thing, and one thing only, which could be described either as "character", or "self-control."
In 26 Reasons I Don't Like, or Trust, Democrats, I express my genuine frustration with the "party of the working man." They found it useful to work the class warfare lever to get votes, and there are plenty of suckers out there who forsake their own self-control, or character development, to form lynch mobs in the name of equality, or justice, or whatever. My entire life, whenever I've talked to a Democrat, or seen a union bumper sticker on a truck bumper, I have the same thought: there's a guy who gets a boner nursing resentment. Say the word 'republican', and he reaches for the Brawnies.
Oh, they dress it up as something pretty. It isn't about resentment! It's about the environment! It's about social justice!
Yeah, and I'm a cross-dressing Bavarian who raises poodles for a living.
It's about resentment, Johnny, and your need to seek consensus in resentment with kindred souls. That's what you call "unity." I call it toxic. Prove me wrong?
Do it then. I'm listening.
Here is the big secret us conservatives already knew before you voted for Barack Obama: he's a shill, playing the resentment card, so you can feed your illusions. It gives you satisfaction to numb yourselves with judgment. But if you really wanted to be happy; if you really wanted to be successful; if you really wanted to leave a proper legacy for your children . . . .
You'd work on building a better America by building a better you, and you'd give up the childish, cowardly resentment.
I commented yesterday on his bizarre reference to his intention to control how much we eat but still couldn’t believe my ears. Now, I have a second source.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
That’s the only mention of his statement on Google News.Today’s quote is even worse. Not only is there a presidential candidate suggesting that the federal government should control how much we eat, but he says that other countries will set the standards.
A few days ago, I was going to post about how the global warming thesis provides the basis for totalitarian government. I rest my case.
When you were a child, your mommy controlled how much you ate. Soon, it will be the government. So how does it feel to be dependent like a small child again?