Blog Archive

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Moral Free Riders:

Much ado is made of economic free riders:  "These damn welfare recipients taking all our tax money."

However, as evidenced by life in the third world, securing the basic necessities for continued existence is extremely cheap.  Likewise, affording someone else those same basic necessities is virtually free to a country that is making $54,800 per person.  (The number just keeps rising and rising, even in inflation-adjusted terms.  Last year it was 53k, the year before it was 52. . . America is such a terrifyingly rich country.)

The lowest per capita GDP, purchasing power adjusted so this is the same as if you lived in the USA with this level of money, is $600.  Not everyone in Somalia and the Central African Republic have died yet, so we can assume that $600 is enough for someone to get by on per year.  The cost to a taxpayer to give $600 to a lazy welfare recipient would be 1% of his income.  Oh, the humanity.  What enormous harm this bum has done our honest citizen!

Lets be nice and say welfare recipients should be given as much money as the worldwide average per capita GDP:  $16,100.  This is a heftier sum.  You'd be losing 29% of your earnings taking on this useless burden.  Except, there are more workers than freeloaders in America, so this ratio isn't nearly as bad as it looks.  Only 1% of Americans are getting cash benefits from the government.  So there isn't any need for each individual citizen to shoulder an entire freeloader on his own.  In that case, let's switch the ratio from 1:1 to 100:1.  In that case, you'd be losing .29% of your income for every parasite in America.  Again, when we're talking about people who make $54,800 a year, this doesn't mean much.  That means you would, after freeloading, have $54,641 still left to work with.  I'm not sure anyone would even notice a rounding error like this.

Therefore, assuming 1 in every 100 Americans just doesn't feel like working and lulls around at home all day, even if they're given a handsome lifestyle comparable to the world average's, it ends up being an indiscernably small burden to the rest of Americans.  Economic freeloaders are a completely benign problem in America, whose streets are pretty much paved in gold at this point anyway.

Moral free loaders, however, are the biggest scourge this nation has ever seen, and is leading to our wholesale extinction.  Nevertheless, no one even has the concept of such a term, nor does anyone ever complain about it.

The definition of a moral free loader is someone who does not live by Kant's categorical imperative -- act in such a manner that your mores could become a universal law.  Or, act in such a manner that if everyone imitated you, you'd still be living in your own preferred utopia.

If you still don't get it, I can keep rephrasing the issue into simpler terms.  A moral free loader is someone who relies on the morality and virtues of others, while never exhibiting any of these virtues themselves.

No one wants to be in 'a state of nature,' which Hobbes described as 'a state of war of all against all,' where life is 'nasty, brutish and short.'  Most of all women do not wish to be part of such a system, because they'd quickly be the biggest losers of all.  Everyone benefits from others treating them morally.  In a proper social contract, it's taken as a given that if you want to benefit from the virtuous treatment towards you of others, you must reciprocate this gift back to them, or else you should be shunned from the community as an oathbreaker.  People who do not give their fair share of morality back into the system as they have received from the system are moral free loaders, they're parasites, predators, whatever you want to call them, but certainly not comrades or countrymen.  Anyone who refuses to treat his community the way they treat him should be thrown back into the state of nature, or in other words, should be 'open game' for anyone in the community who wishes to do anything to him or her they so please.

First off, criminals.  Criminals have ruined some of our biggest and most important cities, from Baltimore to Detroit to St. Louis, no one can actually live in these places, and they look like bombed out war zones.  Criminals don't want to be raped, assaulted, murdered, stolen from, etc, themselves.  But they're fine with doing this to others, to the point that no one can even live in these zones because they're too dangerous to even walk or drive through anymore.  There are people getting shot as they just put out the trash on their curbs.  In South Africa, you're routinely attacked in between the time you park your car on your driveway and the time you enter your front door.  Life is totally unlivable, and it's all because of these criminals who, after doing their disrespectful deeds, then return to their own abodes secure in their persons and property, never once fearing that anything will be done to them in return.

Criminals should be thrown out of the protection of the law, just like they themselves have thrown others out of the protection of the law by attacking them.  Anything short of this response is moral free riding, where they get the advantages of a community pot that they themselves contributed nothing towards.

Next off, adulterers.  Adultery is the perfect case of moral free riding.  These people take for granted that their spouse will stay loyal and faithful to them, while they themselves have no qualms about cheating and betraying their partner willy-nilly.  They never get to experience how the shoe would feel on the other foot, because their predatory nature is too much for the naive and well-intentioned partners they hoodwink and destroy.  Since they are in love with you, trust you, and think the most of you, it would never cross their minds to try and get a new partner on the side, meanwhile you're mocking them behind their back with your new friend and creating an entirely alternate life from the one you pretend in front of your spouse.  While they're giving you true love, you give nothing in return, and eventually even the facsimile wears out and you just abandon them wholesale with a 'tough tootles, toots.'  If that isn't a free ride in the marriage wagon, with only one partner ever pulling, I don't know what would be.

Adulterers should be thrown out of the community known as love.  Anyone who betrays their social contract of give and take in the love sphere should never be loved again.  Everyone should shun them in the entire community.  You should not be able to find another partner, because universally no one is willing to put up with your free riding on them any longer.  There needs to be a stern, community wide response that says you have broken the contract, so you no longer are a part of us, you're gone.  Go away.  You're done.  Instead, these moral free riders go on being loved like always, while never having to give their love in return, by just whispering 'don't worry you're different, you aren't like the last guy I betrayed and destroyed, I swear!'

Another moral free rider is someone who has a kid but doesn't raise said kid.  That's a giant commitment and then you just abandon it to the community to take care of instead.  An irresponsible mother like that should never be allowed to have a child again.  Only that would be a proper punishment to reciprocate the mother's betrayal.  And, to raise a child properly, you need a mother and a father, which means anyone who divorces while children are still growing up has betrayed her community compact of only producing well adjusted, well taken care of future generations, just like the past generations provided for her and her neighbors provided for all their kids.  If you don't raise your children properly, they end up being moral free riders in other categories, so you're just creating walking time bombs, while still wallowing in the benefits of all the other children growing up around you being model citizens and doing everything right towards you.

Another moral free rider is someone who takes drugs or drinks too much.  For a society to function, it must still be sober, sane, and productive.  You rely on the society around you not being a bunch of wonked out lunatics, and yet you are quite willing to make yourself into just such a zombie.  A community only creates a nice, livable environment by not using these dangerous substances.  And yet druggees and drunkards are walking the same streets, using the same infrastructure, enjoying the same crime-free streets, while contributing nothing to the upkeep of said community standards.  Anyone who takes drugs or drinks should only be allowed to live in a region where everyone is taking drugs and drinking together.  They should never be allowed to live alongside citizens or neighbors who have their lives together and continue to contribute to the public weal.  If an entire community goes through every day zonked out and drunk together, then I can only salute them as principled adherents to their convictions -- but one guy on drugs while everyone else around him drives safely and never does any crime is just a parasite that needs to be removed.

Another moral free rider is someone who breaks lover's hearts one after the next.  Unless you are dumped as often as you dump others, you're just relying on others again.  You yourself don't want to be abandoned or betrayed, but you're fine with repeatedly doing this to others whenever it's to your advantage.  Every time one of these vipers dumps someone, the community should send someone out to seduce said girl and then viciously dump her when she's least expecting it in turn, so that she can get a taste of her own bitter medicine.  If this is found to be practically speaking impossible, then we can always just go with the adultery solution -- no one should ever date her again, and she should just go through life unloved, just like the person she whimsically stopped loving.

Another moral free rider is someone like a pacifist or a liberal, who wants to reduce standards and never wants to police or control anybody, but still lives in a community where standards and restrictions are in place, so they never have to live under the environment they themselves are trying to create for others.  These people eat away at the weak and the marginal while living behind gated communities, safe and plump and secure against all harm that their own voting and speechmongering is doing in lesser lands.  While the New York Times creates an artificial firestorm and burns Ferguson to the ground with dishonest reporting, the people who actually work at that newspaper live in nice all-white communities in million dollar homes.  This is a detestable moral free rider.  Anyone who thinks there should be open borders, for instance, should automatically be required to live in an all-black neighborhood, because that is the policy implication of what they are pushing on everyone else.  The same is true for people who want no discipline in the schools.  They should have to send their children only to schools with no discipline.  None of this private school for me, public school for thee crap.  If you want police to stop bothering dindu nuffins, then you yourself should have to live in an area that's completely unpoliced and have absolutely no law protection.

Liberals are the worst moral free riders of all.  While living up in 98% white Vermont or Maine or wherever, they pontificate on how the South should treat their blacks, with all sorts of wise advice for border communities on the Rio Grande, and so on.  They never experience a single result to any of their actions, but meanwhile entire cities and states are immolated and ruined beyond repair, millions of peoples' lives lost or beggared as their real estate values sink to nothing.  Liberals should have to live at ground zero to all their policies.  For instance, if they want Muslims to stop being associated with terrorism, they should have to live in an all-Muslim district.  They should not just get to preach about how the people in Tennessee need to embrace diversity, while themselves living in a white gated community.  Anyone who says we must accept refugees from the impoverished portions of the world should have to put at least ten of them in their own home.  Not in anyone else's home.  Not in anyone else's neighborhood.  Right there on their own laps.  No one else but they themselves should have to pick up the tab.

Another type of moral free riding is being born yourself, to an endless chain of billions of years of ancestors who all worked hard to make your life possible, and then not returning that gift by giving birth to the next generation.  Spinsters should only do what's fair and commit suicide, since they refuse to belong to the chain of life which made their lives possible in the first place.  If they won't do the decent thing that their own actions claim is their morality, they should be executed by the community for trying to moral free ride being born while still not giving birth themselves.  Since women are the giant bottleneck that is stopping births from happening (we never had below replacement birth rates until women's liberation), the entirety of the blame falls on their heads.  Mandatory marriage and mandatory reproduction or death is the only answer to this moral free riding on our ancestors that has plunged the entire developed world into the sorry state it finds itself in.

Spinsterhood wouldn't be an issue if the nation as a whole still experienced population growth.  Then you'd just be politely ceding your own right to reproduce to someone else, which is kindly of you.  But when an entire country is just disappearing and going extinct, like the Parsis of India or the Italians, spinsters must be held to account.  They are the sole and only cause of these slow motion genocides and they should be held accountable just like the Nazi war criminals were.  I fail to see any difference between one group and the other, the end result is the exact same.  If life is valuable, then exterminating all life is a crime.  It isn't about whether you caused pain and fear before someone died.  That's a separate, and far more minor crime, than the actual ending of life.

Imagine for a moment two Gods sitting above Earth.  One snaps and blows up the planet in an instant.  Everyone's dead before they know it.  The END.

The other God stabs everyone in the stomach, one by one, making sure they wail and scream and slowly bleed to death painfully over hours.  The END.  How much worse, precisely, is the second God compared to the first?

All that pain and fear is trivial in the face of the light of the universe going out.  When everything's lost, when everything's suddenly gone, even the pain and the fear will sound like a blessing, like a worthwhile alternative.  In fact, the second god, by letting people live even a few more seconds, is better than the first.

Spinsters are worse than gas chambers in a region that is actually plunging towards extinction.  In a region where there's plenty of people left compared to landmass, okay, I'll give you a pass.  But when the whole country is just turning into a tomb, no, there's no excuses left, you don't have the right to just end life, choosing for future generations that they don't get a chance at life even though they wanted them, and pissing on the graves of your ancestors who had you only with the expectation that you would continue their legacy by having grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so on.  The soldiers who died for England, or France, in various Medieval battlefields, were not doing so so that their direct children could live on the Earth for thirty more years before dying of old age and leaving the land barren and empty.  They did it so that England, and France, could live on forever, as a place bustling with the sounds of the English language or the French language, singing old English hymns or French hymns, reading old English literature or French literature, and continuing the chain of existence unblemished through all the ages.

Moral free riders, who either don't have any children at all, or don't raise their children into anything but further menaces against society, are actively destroying all life on Earth and nuclear bombing every community they live in (look at Detroit vs. Hiroshima today).  They suck out the love of others like vampires while giving nothing in exchange except cold stabs in the back when people are most vulnerable and need them most.  They trash themselves and attack others while still relying on everyone else being responsible and nice towards them.  They advocate and vote for policies of wholesale destruction that are only ever enacted in places far away from their own home and children, which they care nothing about.  They go through life destroying, destroying, destroying, and never experience a single setback in reciprocation.  They're karmic demons that just eat and eat away at society while we're all helpless to respond to any of their actions, because they're all freaking legal and accepted behavior in the world of today.  We are handcuffed to punish them, so they just go through their whole lives laughing at us the whole time, trampling all over us, toppling everything down we ever try to build up, and then give a smug sneer and a 'whaddya gonna do about it?' at the end.

Compare that to a guy who takes $200 from your paycheck, setting you back from $54,800 to $54,600, and then please explain why economic free riders are the big problem besetting America today.

Romney went on and on about how awful economic free riders are, despite the fact that they do virtually invisible levels of harm.  Laughably small issue, that can be ignored even if it was 100 times as common as it is today.  (That would mean losing $20,000 from your paycheck, and only having $34,800 left over, or in other words, still being as rich as Japan or Europe!)  But no one's interested in calling out the moral free riders, whose policies would mean the death of us all and a future without any children or any next generation, in a loveless world with no happy bonds, and a zombie world where no one is left with a properly functioning brain anymore it's so swamped with various chemicals.  It's just a joke.  The real harm done by a single girl dumping a single boy is more than all welfare users combined.  No one notices or cares if they have .29% less money than before.  That one dumped guy's sadness is an ocean that can drink all of the .29%'s tears.  But no relief, no concern is given to him at all.  Tough luck, they say.  What's important is stopping those .29%ers!!!!  No mercy to the .29%ers!  Down with the .29%ers!  Stop them or bust!

No comments: