Victim Mentality versus The Village
So let's imagine that we are all part of a small village in the jungle. One of us keeps licking toads, and every time has to be tended to hand and foot for a few days until the poison wears off. Relatives of the toad licker say that he is a victim of his addiction to licking toads, it's not his fault, and the village needs to keep supporting him until he can get over it. But tending to him hand and foot takes time, and this is time that the villagers can't spend gathering food or repairing roof huts.
Eventually, things come to a head, and the villager is told that the next time he licks a toad --he's on his own.
The collectivist mindset has a very firm grasp on the concept of the group sacrificing for the individual. And a very firm grasp on the concept of taking resources from those that have them and giving them to those that don't.
But they have no concept of the idea of stopping an individual without resources from continuing to take resources from the group, even though this is a sacrifice no less important than the other two. This sacrifice is That Which Must Not Be Uttered.
Society has lost balance, and has entered an amplifying cycle of taking resources from the group that will only stop when the group puts its foot down or group resources are exhausted.
Maybe we are reaching that point:
Your posts are great. I would respectfully suggest that you add a picture or 2 to garner attention because I want people to find and follow you! 🙏🏽
I will work on that! Walls of text are difficult to get through, I agree.
Wish notifications worked better. I didn't know you posted a response until I happened to scan my old posts today. Sorry!
Choices have consequences.
If you stick your hand in a fire, you get burned. If you lick a poisonous toad once maybe it was an accident-- you thought it was the delicious leopardfruit. If you like the toad again, maybe it occurs to someone that you have piss poor eyesight, and we give you a pair of glasses. Now... if you lick the toad a third time, then clearly you must have a death wish, and maybe the most compassionate thing is to simply allow you the freedom to have your way.
I'm all about freedom, and I agree that society has gotten out of balance. We seem obsessed with protecting people from the consequences of their choices... as a result of which, no wisdom is gained. But whereas I am for "freedom," I am NOT for radical self-reliance without compassion. Maybe that makes me "part hairy liberal," but I don't believe we need to give up a core human essence of compassion and caring.
Radical self-reliance without compassion isn't stable either -- the bonds between society members aren't strong enough without charity. A society without the safety valve of charity is prone to long running cycles of inequality and revolution.
The question is, does the faux charity of social safety nets end up in the same place as real charity? I would argue that it does not.