His name was Fleming, and he was a poor Scottish farmer. One day, while trying to make a living for his family, he heard a cry for help coming from a nearby bog. He dropped his tools and ran to the bog.
There, mired to his waist in black muck, was a terrified boy, screaming and struggling to free himself. Farmer Fleming saved the lad from what could have been a slow and terrifying death.
The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman's sparse surroundings An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved.
"I want to repay you," said the nobleman. "You saved my son's life."
"No, I can't accept payment for what I did," the Scottish farmer replied waving off the offer. At that moment, the farmer's own son came to the door of the family hovel.
"Is that your son?" the nobleman asked.
"Yes," the farmer replied proudly.
"I'll make you a deal. Let me provide him with the level of education my own son will enjoy. If the lad is anything like his father, he'll no doubt grow to be a man we both will be proud of."
And that he did.
Farmer Fleming's son attended the very best schools and in time, graduated from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin.
Years afterward, the same nobleman's son who was saved from the bog was stricken with pneumonia.
What saved his life this time? Penicillin.
The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill. His son's name?
Sir Winston Churchill.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
COPY AND DISTRIBUTE WIDELY
I agree with ALL OF THIS EXCEPT # 4 . I heard the saying that Not all Muslims are terrorist but all terrorist are Muslims . What about Tim Mcvay...He was not Muslim but he was a terrorist . Should we deport his family over to some terrorist country because he was such a bad person? I know the answer is NO. So lets not say all muslims should be excluded from our country.
ACTION PLAN: Border Violators
1) Close all US borders to illegal entry forthwith by any and all means possible, including military presence.
2) Maintain legitimate immigration levels at modest annual level with requirements that immigrants be employable or sufficiently wealthy for self-support if they do not intend to work, proficient in basic English and willing to be assimilated into American culture and language. All applicants shall provide prints, photos and DNA samples.
3) Legal immigration shall be awarded to individuals on a lottery basis, wherein all countries are given equal status in the immigration lottery, without regards to color or economic plight of originating nation.
4) Those from Muslim countries, or individuals of Islamic faith from any country, shall be denied immigration privileges to the US.
5) Detain all border violators, taking photos, prints and DNA samples of said violator while at the same time, checking for out standing warrants. If no warrants are outstanding, return border violators to home country within 20 days via commercial airline and submit cost of such action, including processing and housing costs for said violator, to country of origin. If costs are not paid within 30 days, reduce any and all aid to said country by a like amount.
6) Should any country from which a border violator originates not currently receive any aid from the US, the Justice Department shall be authorized to seize or secure liens on assets owned, managed or registered to that country to the full extent of the obligation.
7) Establish new Guest Worker Visa (GWV) category, renewable every 6 months, for unskilled labor positions wherein all applicants shall provide prints, photos and DNA samples. Work permitted of such applicants shall be limited to one of several categories, including childcare, lawn/gardening, restaurant staff, cleaning and the like. Families of GWV workers are not permitted to enter US, nor will the birth of a child to one of GWV status confer citizenship to either parent or child.
8) Any violation of civil or criminal laws shall result in the forfeiture of the GWV and immediate return to originating country.
9) GWV holders shall be prohibited from claiming unemployment benefits, welfare support or free medical service.
10) The originating country of all GWV holders shall be responsible for any uninsured loss caused by the GWV, including emergency medical claims and/or claims resulting from illegal actions committed while in the US.
11) Companies who hire GWV holders shall submit to the Immigration Dept the name and GWV number of that individual, along with a description of employment tasks. Companies who fail to report employment of GWV workers, or hire illegal workers, shall be subject to penalty. GWV workers shall be paid with check, having income tax withheld. GWV workers shall not be subject to unemployment tax because they are not eligible for unemployment claims.
12) Border violators, or any non-citizen not possessing a valid visa, detained by local police for any reason shall be turned over to border control officials for immediate deportation action, except if they face criminal charges in other jurisdictions.
13) GWV workers shall be prohibited for voting in local, state and federal elections.
14) Border Violators shall NOT be afforded the rights enjoyed by American citizens, as guaranteed under the constitution.
15) Public education (at institutions supported by taxpayer dollars) at any level (pre-school, kindergarten through the university level,) shall NOT be available to Border Violators (or children of Border Violators) and schools that enroll such individuals shall be subject to penalties.
16) Foreign Students (individuals admitted to the U.S. for the purpose of attending any educational facility,) private institution or public (i.e. supported by taxpayer dollars,) must have valid student visas, such visas being in force only if the FS attends school full-time. Foreign students shall be required to pay tuition, housing and related costs such that all their educational costs are fully reimbursed to the institution attended and the originating country shall indemnify said students for any and all loss caused by them while they are on U.S. Soil.
17) Border Violators seeking emergency medical treatment shall provide pictures, fingerprints and DNA samples along with country of origin, and shall be incarcerated until information provided can be verified. Originating country shall bear the costs of medical treatment.
ACTION PLAN: Border Violators
1) Close all US borders to illegal entry forthwith by any and all means possible, including military presence.
2) Maintain legitimate immigration levels at modest annual level with requirements that immigrants be employable or sufficiently wealthy for self-support if they do not intend to work, proficient in basic English and willing to be assimilated into American culture and language. All applicants shall provide prints, photos and DNA samples.
3) Legal immigration shall be awarded to individuals on a lottery basis, wherein all countries are given equal status in the immigration lottery, without regards to color or economic plight of originating nation.
4) Those from Muslim countries, or individuals of Islamic faith from any country, shall be denied immigration privileges to the US.
5) Detain all border violators, taking photos, prints and DNA samples of said violator while at the same time, checking for out standing warrants. If no warrants are outstanding, return border violators to home country within 20 days via commercial airline and submit cost of such action, including processing and housing costs for said violator, to country of origin. If costs are not paid within 30 days, reduce any and all aid to said country by a like amount.
6) Should any country from which a border violator originates not currently receive any aid from the US, the Justice Department shall be authorized to seize or secure liens on assets owned, managed or registered to that country to the full extent of the obligation.
7) Establish new Guest Worker Visa (GWV) category, renewable every 6 months, for unskilled labor positions wherein all applicants shall provide prints, photos and DNA samples. Work permitted of such applicants shall be limited to one of several categories, including childcare, lawn/gardening, restaurant staff, cleaning and the like. Families of GWV workers are not permitted to enter US, nor will the birth of a child to one of GWV status confer citizenship to either parent or child.
8) Any violation of civil or criminal laws shall result in the forfeiture of the GWV and immediate return to originating country.
9) GWV holders shall be prohibited from claiming unemployment benefits, welfare support or free medical service.
10) The originating country of all GWV holders shall be responsible for any uninsured loss caused by the GWV, including emergency medical claims and/or claims resulting from illegal actions committed while in the US.
11) Companies who hire GWV holders shall submit to the Immigration Dept the name and GWV number of that individual, along with a description of employment tasks. Companies who fail to report employment of GWV workers, or hire illegal workers, shall be subject to penalty. GWV workers shall be paid with check, having income tax withheld. GWV workers shall not be subject to unemployment tax because they are not eligible for unemployment claims.
12) Border violators, or any non-citizen not possessing a valid visa, detained by local police for any reason shall be turned over to border control officials for immediate deportation action, except if they face criminal charges in other jurisdictions.
13) GWV workers shall be prohibited for voting in local, state and federal elections.
14) Border Violators shall NOT be afforded the rights enjoyed by American citizens, as guaranteed under the constitution.
15) Public education (at institutions supported by taxpayer dollars) at any level (pre-school, kindergarten through the university level,) shall NOT be available to Border Violators (or children of Border Violators) and schools that enroll such individuals shall be subject to penalties.
16) Foreign Students (individuals admitted to the U.S. for the purpose of attending any educational facility,) private institution or public (i.e. supported by taxpayer dollars,) must have valid student visas, such visas being in force only if the FS attends school full-time. Foreign students shall be required to pay tuition, housing and related costs such that all their educational costs are fully reimbursed to the institution attended and the originating country shall indemnify said students for any and all loss caused by them while they are on U.S. Soil.
17) Border Violators seeking emergency medical treatment shall provide pictures, fingerprints and DNA samples along with country of origin, and shall be incarcerated until information provided can be verified. Originating country shall bear the costs of medical treatment.
BORDERLINE BIGOTRY: DEFENDING OUR LAND (defying the rules of our nation means nothing to illegals)
href="http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/63818.htm" target="_blank">
THE ISSUE: Mexican-border politics and recent immigration-reform legislation.
**** Michelle Malkin makes it clear that immigrants from Mexico wish to get their foot in the door through politics ("Reconquista," PostOpinion, March 29). Defying the rules of our nation means nothing to them as long as political correctness is their trump card. What Gen. Santa Ana failed to do in 1836 at the Alamo, which cost many American lives, this horde wishes to do without firing a shot. Bloomfield
**** Americans have no objection to helping those in need. But millions of illegals are making demands, and many Americans can't even support their own families. Yet we are called bigots if we don't continue to provide free medical care, housing, food and education to noncitizens. This amnesty proposal will create a huge crisis in the future and put this country and our children and grandchildren at further risk. How would Mexico like it if millions of Americans marched across the border and made demands? Greeley, Pa.
**** It is the Aztlan-spouting extremists who need to read history. For most of history, there were hardly any Mexicans living in what is today the American Southwest. After the Mexicans won their independence from Spain, the area was so devoid of Mexicans that the newly-minted Mexican government felt forced to offer financial incentives to goad its citizens to move there. So few Mexicans answered the call for colonization that the government felt forced to offer the same deal to Americans, who answered the call in droves. The Mexicans had their chance, and they turned it down. And now they want the land back after we have settled and developed it. Give me a break - or, at least, a strict immigration bill. Brooklyn
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Michelle Malkin makes it clear that immigrants from Mexico wish to get their foot in the door through politics ("Reconquista," PostOpinion, March 29). Defying the rules of our nation means nothing to them as long as political correctness is their trump card. What Gen. Santa Ana failed to do in 1836 at the Alamo, which cost many American lives, this horde wishes to do without firing a shot
THE ISSUE: Mexican-border politics and recent immigration-reform legislation.
**** Michelle Malkin makes it clear that immigrants from Mexico wish to get their foot in the door through politics ("Reconquista," PostOpinion, March 29). Defying the rules of our nation means nothing to them as long as political correctness is their trump card. What Gen. Santa Ana failed to do in 1836 at the Alamo, which cost many American lives, this horde wishes to do without firing a shot. Bloomfield
**** Americans have no objection to helping those in need. But millions of illegals are making demands, and many Americans can't even support their own families. Yet we are called bigots if we don't continue to provide free medical care, housing, food and education to noncitizens. This amnesty proposal will create a huge crisis in the future and put this country and our children and grandchildren at further risk. How would Mexico like it if millions of Americans marched across the border and made demands? Greeley, Pa.
**** It is the Aztlan-spouting extremists who need to read history. For most of history, there were hardly any Mexicans living in what is today the American Southwest. After the Mexicans won their independence from Spain, the area was so devoid of Mexicans that the newly-minted Mexican government felt forced to offer financial incentives to goad its citizens to move there. So few Mexicans answered the call for colonization that the government felt forced to offer the same deal to Americans, who answered the call in droves. The Mexicans had their chance, and they turned it down. And now they want the land back after we have settled and developed it. Give me a break - or, at least, a strict immigration bill. Brooklyn
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Michelle Malkin makes it clear that immigrants from Mexico wish to get their foot in the door through politics ("Reconquista," PostOpinion, March 29). Defying the rules of our nation means nothing to them as long as political correctness is their trump card. What Gen. Santa Ana failed to do in 1836 at the Alamo, which cost many American lives, this horde wishes to do without firing a shot
Blocking illegal migrants - and rhetoric
Coded language pervades this week's Senate debate about illegal migrants. It's designed to cover up the fact that self-interested groups prefer half-a-million people entering the US unlawfully each year while keeping the 11-plus million illegals already here.
The House has passed a bill that deals with curbing such massive lawbreaking. The bill has flaws, but its focus on better enforcement of immigration laws is needed to show foremost that the US can control its borders, especially in a post-9/11 world.
On Monday, however, the Senate Judiciary Committee responded by approving a bill that would only help increase this flow by creating a path to citizenship for illegal migrants. It would reward those who break the very laws written to welcome legal immigrants.
As the full Senate takes up this debate, supporters of that bill are using loaded words and phrases that are worth parsing:
Legalization: This is meant to describe giving someone legal status in the US after they enter it illegally. Often this is done under law by courts for refugees fleeing persecution. But to legalize illegal migrants because they are already here is to simply make the unlawful lawful. Better to call this bill what it is: amnesty (even if it does put up tough requirements to achieving citizenship).
Undocumented immigrants: This phrase is designed to avoid implying guilt for those who enter the US illegally but haven't been convicted of the crime. It's similar to describing speeding drivers as "undocumented speeders" or taxpayers who cheat the government as "undocumented tax cheats." Yes, in a courtroom, there should be a presumption of innocence. But in writing laws and setting policy, let's characterize this group for who they are: illegal immigrants.
Anti-immigrant: Even smart journalists fall for this phrase when describing those who want to end illegal immigration. Of course, the US is a nation of immigrants, and needs a steady flow. But a nation without borders is not a nation, and its immigration quotas are meaningless. An anti-illegal-immigrant stance is not an anti-immigrant one.
Jobs that Americans won't take: American workers or legal immigrants do work in industries that now mostly attract illegal migrants - they even dominate in most cases. A general rise in immigration quotas and enforcing minimum-wage laws would help curb a desire to hire illegal workers.
Guest workers: The committee bill would set up a program to allow immigrants to work for up to six years, and either apply for citizenship or return home. One intent is to stem the illegal flow, with the number of "guests" set at 400,000 a year. Last year, more than 400,000 illegals made it to the US. Assuming illegals will continue to enter, plus guest workers on top of that, why not call this the "higher immigration" bill?
Comprehensive bill: Those pushing amnesty claim any bill must deal with both enforcement and illegals already here. But both amnesty and a promise of enforcement were offered in 1986. The amnesty attracted even more illegals while enforcement has faltered badly. A comprehensive law would first deal with enforcement, both at the border and against employers who hire illegals.
Accurate terms, not bogus rhetoric, should impel this debate.
The House has passed a bill that deals with curbing such massive lawbreaking. The bill has flaws, but its focus on better enforcement of immigration laws is needed to show foremost that the US can control its borders, especially in a post-9/11 world.
On Monday, however, the Senate Judiciary Committee responded by approving a bill that would only help increase this flow by creating a path to citizenship for illegal migrants. It would reward those who break the very laws written to welcome legal immigrants.
As the full Senate takes up this debate, supporters of that bill are using loaded words and phrases that are worth parsing:
Legalization: This is meant to describe giving someone legal status in the US after they enter it illegally. Often this is done under law by courts for refugees fleeing persecution. But to legalize illegal migrants because they are already here is to simply make the unlawful lawful. Better to call this bill what it is: amnesty (even if it does put up tough requirements to achieving citizenship).
Undocumented immigrants: This phrase is designed to avoid implying guilt for those who enter the US illegally but haven't been convicted of the crime. It's similar to describing speeding drivers as "undocumented speeders" or taxpayers who cheat the government as "undocumented tax cheats." Yes, in a courtroom, there should be a presumption of innocence. But in writing laws and setting policy, let's characterize this group for who they are: illegal immigrants.
Anti-immigrant: Even smart journalists fall for this phrase when describing those who want to end illegal immigration. Of course, the US is a nation of immigrants, and needs a steady flow. But a nation without borders is not a nation, and its immigration quotas are meaningless. An anti-illegal-immigrant stance is not an anti-immigrant one.
Jobs that Americans won't take: American workers or legal immigrants do work in industries that now mostly attract illegal migrants - they even dominate in most cases. A general rise in immigration quotas and enforcing minimum-wage laws would help curb a desire to hire illegal workers.
Guest workers: The committee bill would set up a program to allow immigrants to work for up to six years, and either apply for citizenship or return home. One intent is to stem the illegal flow, with the number of "guests" set at 400,000 a year. Last year, more than 400,000 illegals made it to the US. Assuming illegals will continue to enter, plus guest workers on top of that, why not call this the "higher immigration" bill?
Comprehensive bill: Those pushing amnesty claim any bill must deal with both enforcement and illegals already here. But both amnesty and a promise of enforcement were offered in 1986. The amnesty attracted even more illegals while enforcement has faltered badly. A comprehensive law would first deal with enforcement, both at the border and against employers who hire illegals.
Accurate terms, not bogus rhetoric, should impel this debate.
Racial Profiling...What do you think?
It is amazing how things can change in a day. Before September 11, 2001, everybody saw “racial profiling” as being synonymous with “racism”. It was a hot topic and everyone pronounced it as being evil. According to the ACLU, “Tens of thousands of innocent motorists on highways across the country are victims of racial profiling.” This quote was taken from the ACLU website where they have many articles and information dedicated to racial profiling. However, since September 11th, it seems that most of the country is in favor of racial profiling! At least when it comes to Arabs on airplanes they are in favor of it.
What is racial profiling? The ACLU defines it as, “…when the police target someone for investigation on the basis of that person's race, national origin, or ethnicity.” Much of the controversy over racial profiling came to light when it was discovered that the New Jersey State Police was using racial profiling to stop male, black motorists on the New Jersey Turnpike.
The theory for utilizing racial profiling as a crime prevention tool is that statistics show that people of certain ethnicities commit certain crimes more frequently than people of other ethnicities. Therefore, it would stand to reason that if you have areas where you know that certain crimes are committed, it would make sense to stop the people that fit the profile of the people committing that crime. The knowledge of this type of preventative action should help to deter the criminal element.
The furor over racial profiling was started with police agencies, but in the wake of this outrage, several retail establishments have been accused of using racial profiling to apprehend shoplifters. Several retailers, such as Dillards and Rite Aid, have been accused of harassing customers for “shopping while black”. These retailers are accused of focusing on black and Hispanic customers as being more likely to steal. The case against these retailers is that every person, regardless of race, should be free to shop in a retail establishment without fear of being harassed or stopped and falsely accused of shoplifting.
Since September 11th, many people, including members of minority groups, have changed their tune on racial profiling. Everyone still condemns the “Driving While Black” syndrome, but most Americans believe that Arabs should be targeted for more intensive searches at airports. According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, nearly 6 in 10 Americans believed people of Arab descent should undergo more intensive security checks when flying on U.S. airplanes.
So is racial profiling a good thing or a bad thing? Does it help prevent crimes or does it rob people of their civil liberties? The correct answer is probably “all of the above”.
Profiling is a good thing. It is extremely valuable to put together a clear profile of the most likely suspects to commit crimes. However, profiling strictly by racial or ethnic backgrounds is a bad thing. This type of profile is not complete enough to narrow down a potential suspect. Profiling by race is no more helpful than profiling by someone’s shirt color. You may catch quite a few people wearing red shirts, but that does not mean that everyone who wears a red shirt is a thief.
Human nature is to profile people based upon race. It is a natural tendency that we all have based upon our own upbringing, experiences and perceptions. Racial profiling in itself is not evil. It is only when we take action based upon these profiles that it can become evil. As a Loss Prevention agent, if you observe someone who is black because you think that all blacks steal, that is wrong. If you observe someone white because you think that whites are more likely to steal, that is wrong. If there is a black, male, age 18-21 years, in a certain area of the store that it has been statistically determined that people of that profile are more likely to steal that item, then this is utilizing a solid profile that can benefit you in your performance. Now if this same person moves to the cosmetics area and is standing near a 15 year old, white, female, and you continue watching the black male, you are no longer using a good profile. You are more than likely just using race as the determining factor, because a good profile will show you that the 15 year old, white female is far more likely to steal cosmetics than an 18 year old, black male.
The tricky part of profiling is that the profiles do not become so embedded in our brains as being fact that we start to ignore people who don’t fit the profile. It is at this point that the profile will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meaning that if you only watch the people wearing the red shirts, you will only catch people wearing red shirts. As a result, your statistics will show that the only people who steal in your store are people wearing red shirts. This would be inaccurate data that would only reinforce your narrow and inaccurate profile even more. It can become a vicious cycle.
In Loss Prevention, profiling is a valuable tool. The more detailed the profile, the more accurate the data and the less likely you are to base an opinion of a potential shoplifter strictly on race. It does not make sense to follow shoppers just because they are black. It does not make sense to search airline passengers just because they are of Arab descent. Racial profiling is narrow-minded and any good LP professional will avoid it. Don’t limit your profiles to race and you will find them to point you in the right direction every time. As long as you limit your profiles to race, you will also be limiting your opportunities to be a highly productive LP professional.
What is racial profiling? The ACLU defines it as, “…when the police target someone for investigation on the basis of that person's race, national origin, or ethnicity.” Much of the controversy over racial profiling came to light when it was discovered that the New Jersey State Police was using racial profiling to stop male, black motorists on the New Jersey Turnpike.
The theory for utilizing racial profiling as a crime prevention tool is that statistics show that people of certain ethnicities commit certain crimes more frequently than people of other ethnicities. Therefore, it would stand to reason that if you have areas where you know that certain crimes are committed, it would make sense to stop the people that fit the profile of the people committing that crime. The knowledge of this type of preventative action should help to deter the criminal element.
The furor over racial profiling was started with police agencies, but in the wake of this outrage, several retail establishments have been accused of using racial profiling to apprehend shoplifters. Several retailers, such as Dillards and Rite Aid, have been accused of harassing customers for “shopping while black”. These retailers are accused of focusing on black and Hispanic customers as being more likely to steal. The case against these retailers is that every person, regardless of race, should be free to shop in a retail establishment without fear of being harassed or stopped and falsely accused of shoplifting.
Since September 11th, many people, including members of minority groups, have changed their tune on racial profiling. Everyone still condemns the “Driving While Black” syndrome, but most Americans believe that Arabs should be targeted for more intensive searches at airports. According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, nearly 6 in 10 Americans believed people of Arab descent should undergo more intensive security checks when flying on U.S. airplanes.
So is racial profiling a good thing or a bad thing? Does it help prevent crimes or does it rob people of their civil liberties? The correct answer is probably “all of the above”.
Profiling is a good thing. It is extremely valuable to put together a clear profile of the most likely suspects to commit crimes. However, profiling strictly by racial or ethnic backgrounds is a bad thing. This type of profile is not complete enough to narrow down a potential suspect. Profiling by race is no more helpful than profiling by someone’s shirt color. You may catch quite a few people wearing red shirts, but that does not mean that everyone who wears a red shirt is a thief.
Human nature is to profile people based upon race. It is a natural tendency that we all have based upon our own upbringing, experiences and perceptions. Racial profiling in itself is not evil. It is only when we take action based upon these profiles that it can become evil. As a Loss Prevention agent, if you observe someone who is black because you think that all blacks steal, that is wrong. If you observe someone white because you think that whites are more likely to steal, that is wrong. If there is a black, male, age 18-21 years, in a certain area of the store that it has been statistically determined that people of that profile are more likely to steal that item, then this is utilizing a solid profile that can benefit you in your performance. Now if this same person moves to the cosmetics area and is standing near a 15 year old, white, female, and you continue watching the black male, you are no longer using a good profile. You are more than likely just using race as the determining factor, because a good profile will show you that the 15 year old, white female is far more likely to steal cosmetics than an 18 year old, black male.
The tricky part of profiling is that the profiles do not become so embedded in our brains as being fact that we start to ignore people who don’t fit the profile. It is at this point that the profile will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meaning that if you only watch the people wearing the red shirts, you will only catch people wearing red shirts. As a result, your statistics will show that the only people who steal in your store are people wearing red shirts. This would be inaccurate data that would only reinforce your narrow and inaccurate profile even more. It can become a vicious cycle.
In Loss Prevention, profiling is a valuable tool. The more detailed the profile, the more accurate the data and the less likely you are to base an opinion of a potential shoplifter strictly on race. It does not make sense to follow shoppers just because they are black. It does not make sense to search airline passengers just because they are of Arab descent. Racial profiling is narrow-minded and any good LP professional will avoid it. Don’t limit your profiles to race and you will find them to point you in the right direction every time. As long as you limit your profiles to race, you will also be limiting your opportunities to be a highly productive LP professional.
Selfishness Within
We are born to be selfish. We learn self-gratification from the moment we are born and we never change in our desire to please ourselves at the expense of others. A baby is born and the first thing the baby does is cry because he is now uncomfortable. As soon as he gets what he wants, which is to be wrapped up and kept warm, he stops crying. The moment he becomes uncomfortable the crying starts again.
Self-preservation is among our most basic instincts. A baby does not care about anyone else. The baby simply wants his needs addressed. Nothing else matters. I am hungry. I need to be changed. I am tired. The baby is not concerned about the needs of the mother, father, or any other bystander. From the moment we are born, we know that all that matters is “me”.
As we get older, this does not change. We may learn to be more socially acceptable in our desire to fulfill our personal desires, but everything we ever do is about fulfilling our personal desires.
A toddler has a friend take a toy from him. Does he feel good for the friend for now having a very nice toy to play with? No. He will either start crying to express his displeasure, or he will lash out physically against his friend to get what he wants.
A teenager tries out for the cheerleading squad. She finds out that she makes the team. Her friend, who was cut from the team, is heartbroken and cries over the defeat. Does the teenager who made the team step down from her spot so her friend can experience the joy of making the team? Of course not. She is not going to sacrifice her personal happiness just to make her friend happy.
An adult sees on TV that there are starving children in Ethiopia. He decides that he wants to do his part to help out, so he whips out his checkbook and writes a $20 check to the charity trying to help. He gets a sense of warmth and good feeling for donating money. Does he feel so good about helping that he is willing to write a $1000 check instead? No, he is saving up for that big screen TV and if he gave that much he could never afford the TV.
People will do for others as long as it makes them feel good themselves. Everything we do in life is for personal satisfaction. Even in times where we may momentarily inconvenience ourselves, it is still for the greater personal satisfaction. Childbirth and caring for children is a great example of this. People have children because they want children. People are not having children for the benefit of anyone beside themselves. It fulfills them personally. Childbirth is an extremely painful experience that women go through, but they choose to do it because of the joy they think their children will bring to them. It is not for the child. It is not for society. It is for them. As the child grows, the parent will make personal sacrifices for the child, but this is to make the parent feel good. It is not for the benefit of the child. How many parents will take the nice TV in the family room and send the children to the small TV in the bedroom? Are the parents willing to sacrifice their own personal comfort of the recliner and big TV for their children? No. There would be no personal joy in giving the kids the good TV and taking the small one, but it would provide more joy for the children.
If selfishness were not a basic instinct the world would be completely different. There would be no crime. There would be no war. There would be no famine. There would be no competition of any kind.
To put a spin on Gordon Gecko from the movie Wall Street, “selfishness is good”. If people were not innately selfish and actually wanted to always do for the greater good of society, we would not have a society. Society would crumble. All businesses would fail because they would never make profits and would never grow. There would be no competition to help society advance. There would be no leadership because people would not want to make decisions that might hurt other people’s feelings. Things get done because people are looking out for their own personal interests. Maybe their interest is financial advancement. Maybe their interest is acclaim. Maybe their interest is personal satisfaction. It doesn’t matter the reason why people are doing things for themselves. The end result is that society is actually much better off by people being selfish. Other people want what we want. As long as they keep trying to get what we have, they will be motivated to advance.
Self-preservation is among our most basic instincts. A baby does not care about anyone else. The baby simply wants his needs addressed. Nothing else matters. I am hungry. I need to be changed. I am tired. The baby is not concerned about the needs of the mother, father, or any other bystander. From the moment we are born, we know that all that matters is “me”.
As we get older, this does not change. We may learn to be more socially acceptable in our desire to fulfill our personal desires, but everything we ever do is about fulfilling our personal desires.
A toddler has a friend take a toy from him. Does he feel good for the friend for now having a very nice toy to play with? No. He will either start crying to express his displeasure, or he will lash out physically against his friend to get what he wants.
A teenager tries out for the cheerleading squad. She finds out that she makes the team. Her friend, who was cut from the team, is heartbroken and cries over the defeat. Does the teenager who made the team step down from her spot so her friend can experience the joy of making the team? Of course not. She is not going to sacrifice her personal happiness just to make her friend happy.
An adult sees on TV that there are starving children in Ethiopia. He decides that he wants to do his part to help out, so he whips out his checkbook and writes a $20 check to the charity trying to help. He gets a sense of warmth and good feeling for donating money. Does he feel so good about helping that he is willing to write a $1000 check instead? No, he is saving up for that big screen TV and if he gave that much he could never afford the TV.
People will do for others as long as it makes them feel good themselves. Everything we do in life is for personal satisfaction. Even in times where we may momentarily inconvenience ourselves, it is still for the greater personal satisfaction. Childbirth and caring for children is a great example of this. People have children because they want children. People are not having children for the benefit of anyone beside themselves. It fulfills them personally. Childbirth is an extremely painful experience that women go through, but they choose to do it because of the joy they think their children will bring to them. It is not for the child. It is not for society. It is for them. As the child grows, the parent will make personal sacrifices for the child, but this is to make the parent feel good. It is not for the benefit of the child. How many parents will take the nice TV in the family room and send the children to the small TV in the bedroom? Are the parents willing to sacrifice their own personal comfort of the recliner and big TV for their children? No. There would be no personal joy in giving the kids the good TV and taking the small one, but it would provide more joy for the children.
If selfishness were not a basic instinct the world would be completely different. There would be no crime. There would be no war. There would be no famine. There would be no competition of any kind.
To put a spin on Gordon Gecko from the movie Wall Street, “selfishness is good”. If people were not innately selfish and actually wanted to always do for the greater good of society, we would not have a society. Society would crumble. All businesses would fail because they would never make profits and would never grow. There would be no competition to help society advance. There would be no leadership because people would not want to make decisions that might hurt other people’s feelings. Things get done because people are looking out for their own personal interests. Maybe their interest is financial advancement. Maybe their interest is acclaim. Maybe their interest is personal satisfaction. It doesn’t matter the reason why people are doing things for themselves. The end result is that society is actually much better off by people being selfish. Other people want what we want. As long as they keep trying to get what we have, they will be motivated to advance.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)