What Is Alcoholism More Condition_symptoms La Sopa Boba (II)

once told the fable, what I wanted to say Arthegarn " And why, exactly, we produce with our ability we have to support those who do not contribute to anything other than System your need? "and, as we are, why has titled this series" La Sopa Boba ?

I mean, and bluntly, is that it is unfair to force those who produce to support those who do not produce. And is not that simply be unjust is to build a system around the principle of compulsory charity sub poena, around the idea that todo that to happen need to be taken out of that state simply because it goes necessity is stupid and bordering on suicide. If above not talking about basic necessities of life (food, water, etc.) but to guarantee all citizens, simply because they are citizens, a certain quality of life , then the system is directly suicide and is destined to collapse in the short to medium term.

That's not to say that I think you have to let people starve in the corners. For nothing. What happens is that there is a very important difference between I choose to give part of me i who has less money because it upsets me, and that has meI have us right put my hand in my pocket and keep some of my money, simply because I have more than him, without stopping to ask why this is so. That's what happens now, but we have disguised this action by the hand that gets it right in my pocket covered by the glove of the State. But in the end, is the same.

Charity is a very good idea, not only for humanitarian reasons but for selfish reasons. It is so good that is written in our genes , we are genetically conditioned to helping others, so we are moved when we see someone suffering (and, if we do not, is thatsomething goes wrong). Now the charity is that I voluntarily ⁽¹⁾ , spend part of my resources to help my fellow men: it is a decision I make because I'm that good, not because the other has the right to help, they do not have ⁽²⁾ . The fact help my fellow me a better person, yes, but the failure to help them not make me worse but our conceptual structure it suggests.

The problem is that we live in a system of ideas as infected with the memes of the religions of the Book that certain concepts, such as the goodness of charity, based on repeated again and again, generation after generation have embedded in our mindss, and not just on individuals but on the collective imagination, and have lost their original meaning. At some point, we stop helping people because we thought we did and we had to do it just because we were told since childhood that had to be done, it was good to do, stop being motivated to think and decide case whether that person deserved our charity, and we associate the idea of charity with the idea as well. Since then, all charity was always good, and that unfortunate identity silly soup was born.

silly soup, as most know, was a food that the poor in ofrecíaaconvents, soup consisting mainly what-have-a-lots-this-week-seasoned with you-were-getting-wrong-in-the-pantry and leftovers stumbles. Nobody asked anything. You arrived there, poníaa tail and a cappuccino or a nun on duty gave a bowl of soup with which they could survive another day. The history of silly soup and Spain have developed is fascinating and offers some lessons, of course, have forgotten. For example, it is true that silly soup saved lives, but it is also true that decisively contributed to the ruin of Spain, creating an important social stratum of sopistas ⁽³⁾ , people who walked into the soup (eg: living a lazy life at the expense of another) and that did not work and did not produce because they made him , in the absence . No soup silly, without a chance to live without doing anything to earn a living, who knows if we had been obliged to advance a century Charles II's decree on the honor of the trade and labor ... but I digress. We will return to the soup and subsidized silly. Once

appeared that identity (charity = good), we repeated it ad nauseum, until exhaustion, generation after generation. The value of goodness of charityleft to rely on our decision about who merecíay who is not, and just as the truth value of the association ceased to depend on our understanding and went on to be connected to the authority who told us, bringing into question that identity was to question the authority of us who instilled. When this question inevitably came when someone said "love is not good in all cases" (or "silly soup does more harm than good"), the authority felt itself attacked and defended ; from power, with a simple ad hominem argument , type: & amp; ldquo; Good men do good things. Charity is good. Who argue that charity is good is because they want to be charitable. Who is not charitable is not good. Who is not good is bad. Who argue that charity is always good is evil. " And since then, he opens his mouth to claim the true meaning of love is immediately branded a selfish evil ⁽⁴⁾

Things should not be. Whoever decides to dedicate part of their resources to help others deserves our praise, but who choose not to does not deserve our condemnation, because it is on your right. Why are we going to fail? Does it interfere withsomeone who goes to his own and does not intrude on the lives of others, for better or for worse? No, by definition. But the collective unconscious, after centuries of crushing of that identity (reinforced with a mem insisdioso it says it is good to be bad with the bad guys) put it at the height of the thieves and murderers. It's amazing what can be achieved when introduced into a culture's idea of sin of omission: virtue is no longer truly virtuous and becomes mandatory. One can never be good enough, in the end everything is left to the mercy of God ...

This concept of charity as a must-carry, with time (not too) to the institutionalization & OverhaulI n of charity: it's not just the individual who has to be charitable, it is society as a whole who have to be. And so the State, that machine, the legal construct by definition incapable of feeling empathy or solidarity or any of the emotions that give rise to charity, begins to imitate the actions of its citizens charitable and "help the poor" to "feed the hungry" ... soup with boba. But everything changes, everything is distorted, we are not talking as a human being to help a fellow because he identifies with him, because he suffers with him, for pity, but a single entity without feelings acts ^{by objective criteria (3)} maso less suitable to reality. Charity no longer a matter of moral compasióny and becomes ... policy.

why I said that the state gives to eat soup with boba? Because it has to be guided by objective criteria when distributing the subsidies. Capuchins did not ask her if you truly sopistas solemnity were poor they needed food or if that way they saved some money for wine it was the most common . Likewise, the State does not look at whether the grant recipient deserves it or need it, only if it meets (or not) certain formalities, Hace four years the formal requirement was planted at the convent, today is ... well, maybe he contributed twelve months in the past six years, for example. But none of those things, not silly soup or state subsidies, are true charity.

And the problem of institutionalized charity (one of them) is that it creates the absurd idea that the recipient of is entitled to receive . There is no difference between the XVI riots if the soup is just silly and the braying of the unions against the latest measures, rather hesitant, government to try to get the unemployed back to situation & oacute n active as soon as possible. Or the idea of having six months of unemployment, we all know that everyone interprets it as if it had the right to collect six months of the state when in fact it is not. The source of unemployment is charity and not because I say so, but because it is configured the law. Quid pro quo , yes, in mutual plan, yes, but charitable. It is not a salary or a pension they are entitled to have contributed, it helps that you listed do not lend to pass so badly in the minimum period necessary until you find another job and return to keep for yourself. But, of course, "qui & eacute, n take it well? Look around or within you, and tell me I'm wrong, that people do not think you have right to "collect unemployment" and not react violently if you question the very ...

Right to charity. This is a horrible idea against which I fight. The charity is entitled to basically say that one is entitled to keep it just for existing. In other words, that one can be immersed in a system without contributing anything but their own existence and their own needs and require the system to keep it. Their net contribution is negative and that system has a name in biology: parasitism. The good news is que in biology is to defend the host of the parasite, but not us. We not only do not defend ourselves is that we recognize the right of the parasite to suck blood. Sorry, we do not recognize this right, because they do not have it, attach it, which is even worse. As an organization that defends itself against parasites has just devoured by them, a company that not only defended himself against parasites, but the further recognizing the right of everyone to parasitism, is wounded death. Because if it is possible to live without working, why work? (And great care that, like charity, it also & eacute e, n is written in our genes and more deeply ) And if above is not just going to keep me but what "progressive" is to recognize the right of the parasite to health care and clothing and decent housing with electricity and gas and running water ... diced ham and a few from time to time.

Because obviously, in an ideal world is not just that no one is necessary, you eat all the dogs jamóny tied with sausages. But that world is not true, and all those things have to be paid, and where does the money that goes to the increasingly expensive and attractive silly soup? From the pocket of those who produce, of course, some d & amp; iacute; to wonder, like me, exactly why they should support those who do not produce.

enough for the second part, I think. Good weekend to all,

Arthegarn
__________ (1) O voluntarily everything you can do things in a world without free will, come on.
(2) Of course, this idea of mine that you have no right to steal (for example), it is mine. There is whole philosophical systems based on the absence of private property, for example, which excludes the very concept of theft, and our own constitution talks about "social function of pROPERTY ", which basically amounts to saying that private property exists and must be respected ... whenever it seems good to the State. I is not agree to these settings because they seem too artificial, just in line with reality. I do not think the limitations on private property for the same reason I do not believe in God may be a good idea, but the universe does not work like there. Try to address this issue in the next article in the series.
(3) And, ultimately, the greatest evil of Spain ... The tuna!
(4) Which is a redundancy, because so entrenched is the identity-either as charity andt is the identity selfishness = bad. And as false is the one or the other.
(4) That when we are lucky, of course.