Is it inevitable that those who survive on the charity of others will resent that charity even to the extent of destroying the system that feeds them?
Living on charity is a precarious thing. A skilled tradesman knows that if times get tough in Michigan he can move to North Carolina or Florida and ply his trade and make a living. He recognizes that he has some control over his destiny.
The person living on charity...not so much.
That lack of control on the part of the person who receives charity makes them hyper-sensitive about many things. They are sensitive about their "dignity" and about people "not respecting" them. They are sensitive about any threats to the stream of resources passing through their hands, sensitive to the point of being overly responsive to the threat and producing lots of collateral damages in their response.
How else can you explain rioters burning down their housing and the shops they depend on? Yes, people in a rage cannot think. But why are they enraged?
Off-the-wall analogy
One of the images that has been swirling around in my head is the model of an atom and its "electron shells".
If you apply energy to an atom or a vibrating molecule, you can kick the electron up to a higher orbit (visualize planets orbiting the sun) or cause the molecule to vibrate at a higher frequency.
Because nature likes to have systems rest at the lowest permissible state of potential energy, the electron eventually drops back down to the lower orbit. The energy that it had been storing in the higher orbit is dissipated as light. The frequency of that light exactly matches the amount of energy that had been stored.
That is why we can identify elements by their spectral emissions. That is why aluminum-oxide lasers doped with chromium have red light.
Popular thinking holds that the current state of things is the new normal and the lowest-potential-energy-state. That is a testable hypothesis. Stop paying the Dane Geld and see what happens. Stop molly-coddling the perpetual malcontents and see what happens.
The Electron Shell model suggests that once the energy subsidies are removed that the electrons will drop out of their orbits and they will release energy. Places with the highest density of malcontents-per-square mile will burn.
I think it is an interesting question: Will the system grow legs and remain...will it demonstrate a capability to sustain itself? Or will it burn?
ERJ, I think one potential difference is those that receive charity and are grateful for it and those that receive charity and expect it. For one group it is an unexpected gift, for the other it is a minimum of what they are owed by simply existing.
ReplyDelete"...once the energy subsidies are removed that the electrons will drop out of their orbits and they will release energy. Places with the highest density of malcontents-per-square mile will burn."
ReplyDeleteAs long as the dissipated energy is contained within speciific x and y coordinates the energy conversion problem is minor. Should those constraints be eliminated partial restoration of lost energy can be temporarily accomplished by the application of kinetic energy from a distance. This is a transient effect, however, and will result in dissipation of energy toward zero.
The coincidences with the uptick in circumstances being abnormal is not coincidental.
ReplyDeleteSaw a great meme today.
ReplyDeleteThe left boycotted a song and catapulted it to number one.
The right boycotted a beer and it cost Anheuser-Busch 30 billion dollars.
Disneyland is damn near empty and Target is singing the blues about woke boycott.
The left want you to think that you are a minority but the truth is they are the minority that has the media in their pocket.
When things go pear-shaped, the casualty statistics will mimic the boycott statistics.
Well we are fixing to find out what happens when the electron goes to a low energy state, the energy input to sustain the current situation has a limited lifespan. When I am feeling too relaxed, I contemplate Chicago or New York or Detroit when the EBT doesn't work or inflation means it doesn't purchase enough.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat's being described here, WELFARE, is NOT charity! It is THEFT. It is a VOTE-BUYING grift used by the Left to get what it wants. This is why the position of the recipient of this grift is so tenuous. "Vote for me, or you lose your "free" stuff." Don't "peacefully protest" for BLM, you lose your "free" stuff. The career poor in this country are nothing more than EXPENDABLE trained animals of the Left... The term "useful idiots" applies here... I feel no sorrow for them... ...There's always free cheese in a mousetrap...
ReplyDeleteWell put.
DeleteWelfare is viewed as an "ENTITLEMENT" Working child welfare in the metro area got to know a lot of multi generational welfare recipients. Truly, it's not seen as charity but as an entitlement. There is a whole subclass of folks (all races)who've lived for generations on their "entitlements" who have no work ethic at all, they dont have the basic skills to work, I'm talking time, attendance and cooperation not anything more advanced. most multi generational welfare folks are unemployable and when threatened with loss of their means to survive are going to get a bit excited. I dont have any answers to remediate this without engaging in heartless cruelty.
ReplyDeleteCharity should be reciprocal. Like neighbors helping neighbors, or even strangers helping others they don't know.
ReplyDeleteCharity should also be voluntary.
Welfare is not charity, it is state sanctioned redistribution of wealth.
When welfare recipients get angry and start burning, looting and rioting people ask "what are they thinking, why would they do that?". The flaw here is believing that there is a thought process involved. There isn't. The vast majority of welfare leeches are incapable of rational thought. They emote their way through life. Which makes it childs play for the criminals in power to lead them by the nose. Violence from these people is now politically useful. That's why it happens....and is allowed to happen.
ReplyDelete