Suppose a hypothetical scenario where there's a very large area of land at some remote location, divided into a hundred plots, each owned by a farmer, to do with them what they want.
A few farmers do a decent job at cultivating the land and keeping a few animals for their own and their families' sustenance. Most of them, however, don't really know how to cultivate very well nor how to keep a farm, and they don't even work all that hard, and they seriously struggle to get even a minimum of sustenance. One of the farmers, however, works really hard day after day, building all kinds of tools to farm more efficiently, and doing a lot of work to cultivate the land plot, and to raise the farm animals. Where most of the other farmers hardly do any work and mismanage their lands very badly, this one farmer works really hard day after day and does it so efficiently that his farm absolutely thrives and becomes a cornucopia. His land becomes so fruitful that he gets an overabundance of food.
The poorest farmers start asking this rich farmer for help, and the rich farmer agrees to give them part of his produce, out of the goodness of his heart, asking nothing in return.
However, the more time passes, the more jealous the poorer farmers become. "Why does this one rich guy get to keep all these riches, when we are living in these deplorably poor conditions? How is it fair that he gets to live in abundance when we suffer in these almost deserted lands of ours? Why does he get to claim sole ownership of the riches, of the cornucopia? Who decided that he should be the sole ownership of those riches? Why does he get to keep them and decide what to do with them, and how much to share, if at all?"
Suddenly, the rich farmer becomes the enemy. From the poor farmers' point of view he's a greedy rich pig who gets to live in abundance while the other farmers suffer. What right does he have to all those riches? They start demanding not only a share of the riches, but in fact a share of the very land where those rices are. They demand to get to move to the lands of the rich farmer, and to get a share of what it produces. It's the very moral duty of the rich farmer to take the other farmers into his land and share the wealth! An activist movement is created to pressure the rich farmer to take the other farmers into his land. Never mind that the land of the rich farmer can't support all of them. That doesn't matter!
In other words, the other farmers start thinking like the riches of that one land plot merely exist there on their own, and that this one single farmer has got to hog them for himself. At some point they all lose sight of the fact the fact that the riches do not just pop up from the ground all on their own, like a literal cornucopia that produces riches all on its own. They forget that the land produces the riches because of the hard work of the farmer.
This kind of mentality has formed in rich western countries. Many people, mostly leftists, seem to think that the riches of these countries are kind of just some kind of natural resource, a fountain of wealth and riches that exists in these lands, and which are being merely appropriated and hogged by these countries. A bit like if there was an oasis in the middle of a desert producing fresh water all on its own, and one particular tribe has appropriated it and claimed sole ownership of it, and this is unfair to all the other surrounding tribes who live in famine because they don't have a similar oasis.
They seem to think that it's unfair for some countries to just get to keep these natural fountains, these cornucopias, while other countries live in property, and that it's only fair if people in those poorer countries get to come to the rich countries and share the wealth. They do not comprehend that the riches do not just pop out of the ground on their own, and instead they have been the product of a huge amount of work and effort.
How would it be fair for the rich farmer in my allegory to be, essentially, punished for having worked hard and gotten a lush land plot full of produce, by being forced to take all the other farmers into his land, even though they have not contributed in any way, shape or form into making the land rich, and even though the land cannot support that many farmers? The rich farmer is essentially punished for his hard work, and bestowed some kind of duty to give most of his riches to people who have not contributed in any way, and who would just make the land poor again.
There's another aspect where this kind of mentality appears in the far-leftist psychology:
They want everybody they don't like to be fired from their jobs. They never explain why they want them fired from their jobs, or how that helps anybody. They just do. And they treat this kind of "punishment" as something self-evident, something that needs no explanation. They think that firing someone they don't like from his job is "the responsible thing to do" (not even my words).
And they don't care if literally millions of people are fired from their jobs and become completely unemployable and become dependent on governmental aid for the rest of their lives.
How they think this will help anything is beyond my comprehension. However, this once again reveals the same kind of mentality as above: They seem to think that jobs are inconsequential and irrelevant. To them, apparently, it seems that jobs are completely optional and exist merely if you want to get a bit wealthier and live a slightly better life. That it doesn't really matter if millions of people get fired from their jobs. That if they get fired, it will only affect their lives and nothing else.
This seems to be the same kind of "natural resource" fallacy: They seem to think that the wealth and economy of a country just exists on its own, like a natural fountain or a forest: It merely just exists there, giving people its riches, without people having to do anything about it, and that "work" and "jobs" merely exist for people to get a little bit more of it than others, and that if less people have a job, it doesn't really affect anything and will have no negative consequences for anybody else.
They don't seem to understand that the country is rich because people work, not regardless of it. If a large portion of the population suddenly stopped working, the economy of the country would quickly suffer and the wealth would quickly plummet. Everybody in the country would be affected. The country would become poorer and life harder. People will have less money and things would be more expensive, and poverty would increase, even for those who still have jobs.
Making millions of people lose their jobs would be absolute insanity, but the far left doesn't understand it nor even care to understand. Even if you tried to explain it to them, they wouldn't care. They would deliberately not care. They don't want to understand how the economy of a society works and what makes it a wealthy society. They don't care nor want to understand that hurting the economy would hurt their own lives as well.
Comments
Post a Comment