santa cruz wharf

07 August 2009

survival of the fittest

I know this seems kinda random,
and rather repetitive.
but I wonder what you think.

(note:  for the record, I am NOT talking about those who are mentally or physically challenged. I am talking about well bodied people with the standard ranges of intelligence.)

Does everyone “deserve” to have
what the hard working or specially talented have?

Is it the right of the ordinary person
to limit the extraordinary person?

No matter who you are…you who are reading this….There are people you come across or read about who are without adequate food, clothing and shelter. 

Should our government force you to give up some of what you have…leaving you and yours  with not quite enough because someone else had none?

While I believe the “haves” should share with the “have-nots” should it be required by law or should it be voluntary?  Should it be strongly encouraged…and if you don’t comply do you think you ought to be penalized?

If you have a special talent, which a company or other entity (team, studio, et cetera) wants to make use of, should you be limited on how much money they pay you because someone else doesn't have that valued talent?  

If you can’t carry a tune and want to be a recording star, should the music industry be forced to give you a record contract equal to that of U2 or Elvis or Michael Jackson or The Beatles?  Or should these performers not be allowed to be paid so much?  Should the radio stations be forced to play recordings of people who can’t sing?  Should everyone be required to buy ITunes of same?

If you have a really high intelligent quotient should you only be allowed to hold the same occupation as a person who has a much lower intelligent quotient?  Should every one (who wants to)  be allowed to be a neurosurgeon or a rocket scientist…even if they don’t have the brain ability to grasp the knowledge? 

If you work really hard, should you make more money than someone who is a lazy bum on the job?  If you work three jobs and save every cent for what you want, should you have to share it with those who choose not to hold down a job?  Should everyone be paid the same wage no matter what their occupation or work ethic?

If you have the next “light bulb” moment and invent a really cool thing, should you have to share the revenue with the guy who tried really hard but didn’t have any good ideas?  Should you have to share the revenue with the guy who spends all day everyday at the park getting high?

If you write the greatest American novel of all time, should everyone (who wants to) be able to sell your words and profit from them? 

If you work really hard, or have a special ability, or are smarter than the average bear…should you benefit financially from these situations?   Or should you not be allowed to have more than the person who wasn’t gifted in the gene pool or who won’t work as hard as you do?  Should there be a limit on how much you can earn before you have to start sharing the benefit of your labor? 

If you do get to benefit financially from your work and your abilities, should you be allowed to decide how you spend those finances?  Or should you only be allowed to spend your money on the same things as those who don’t have so much money? 

When you do end up with more money than someone else, should you be allowed to spend it on a really nice home in a very beautiful location?  Even if someone who doesn’t have as much money has to rent a shabby house in a not so nice neighborhood?  Should you have to give up your new beautiful home to buy several substandard homes for you and for strangers who live on the street?

Should you be allowed to buy more expensive clothing? Warmer clothing. Cooler clothing…in both senses of the word.  Or should everyone wear exactly the same thing?  Should those who have more clothes be required by law to give up some of their clothes to those who don’t have enough? 

Should you be allowed to buy more expensive or more nutritional food?  Better tasting food?  Or should you have to eat what everyone else is eating?  Do the people who eat junk food have to be forced to eat healthy?  Do those who eat only organic have to consume processed foods? If you have more than enough food, should you be required by law to give it to someone who does not…even if it leaves your family hungry on occasion?

There are many other items…but those are the basics right? 
Food, clothing and shelter?

I ask again…

Is it the right of the ordinary person
to limit the extraordinary person?

Does everyone "deserve" to have
what the hard working or specially talented have?

and…what about Health Care?

12 comments:

Mel said...

Okay....let's talk Health Care!!!

Tuesday the Brit would have paid the insurance policy....done anything to ensure that his mother was seen by a physician before she died in the waiting room at hospital. Apparently that'll happen with National Health Care. I assured him that'll happen with expensive insurance policies as well.
Lemme assure you, that was of NO solace to him, whatsoever.

And the questions you ask--good questions. I'm not certain I have answers, though I'm clear I have opinions.
I will confess, I found myself contradicting several of my own opinions while I answered--which tells me something.......

Just sayin'.....

AND--had you asked only 13 questions and asked on Thursday---you, too, woulda qualified for another Thursday 13!!
k.....just my way of saying it was good to 'hear' you.

((((((((((katherine)))))))))))

Starrlight said...

LOL...I have an overwhelming urge to run home and read Atlas Shrugged!

Of course the Have's should give to the Have Nots. Especially if the Haves like to call themselves Christians.

As to the are you OWED something? Nope. You have to work for it. On the other hand, I do think you are owed the OPPORTUNITY to work hard for something. There's a difference.

And yeah, nationalized health care does not have the strangle hold on needless deaths. We have killed a shit ton of people in this country with red tape and private insurance.

Rick said...

As an Objectivist (I actually met Ayn Rand) and Libertarian (with Pareto constraints- that is 80% invididual with 20% social co-operation), I have to say I loved this post! As a writer, I want to add that it was deftly written.

Dana said...

I've kept this in my reader hoping some prolific thought would come my way, but it didn't happen.

You and I have similar views on this, and all that I can say is that there is a distinct difference between doing what *should* be done and doing what is mandated.

I don't want to lose that freedom of choice.

Matt-Man said...

Yes. Cheers!!

Bond said...

I am a believer that if you have to share, you do so...as Starr said, it is the christian thing to do.

Should you not be able to be compensated for your talents because not everyone has your talents and everyone should be the same...NO If you have a talent, you need/should/deserve to earn monetarily and otherwise.

I would like to see an affordable healthcare system...and I would love to have options for what I can choose as my healthcare plan.

Mimi Lenox said...

I soaked up every word in this post. Well done! Oh man. What a wonderful set of higher order thinking skills questions.

I get your point. I agree with your point. I don't want to lose my rights. I don't want every iota of my life mandated.

Of course we should assist those in need. That is a given.
But that is not your question, now is it?

The answer is no. It is not the right of the ordinary person to limit the extraordinary person.
I'm going back to re-read this. It is the most thought-provoking post I've read in quite a while.
Brava.

Thank you for making me think.

Desert Songbird said...

Okay, I've been thinking on this post for days, and I'm still agreement with your main point. As to my opinion on the health care issue, I'm still....thinking.

The Teamster said...

the have's should WANT to give to the have nots...not HAVE to give to the have nots...

as for health care...don't ephen tax my "teamster" negotiated health care...

Starrlight said...

Agreed, Teamster. If they do tax health care benefits they damn well better tax the top 1% earners only or it's not really a cost savings is it?

Add to that that I think folks under union negotiated contracts should not be taxed AT ALL regardless of income level. Union workers pay dues to the unions as is to get those benefits.

Sandee said...

No the government needs to keep their noses out of the haves pocketbooks. There are some pretty lazy folks out there that won't do a thing for themselves, but want to live off the government dole. I have a few in my family. We aren't close.

I don't want the health care either. We have welfare for that. Clean up the cheats in that instead of making a new mess that they are exempt for using. If it's good enough for us why did they opt out? No one seems to want to answer that question Kind of like Social Security that they aren't part of. If they were it would work much better.

I hope the fire isn't threatening you at all. Some fire by the way. I hope they get it under control soon.

Have a terrific day and weekend. Big hugs to you and The Teamster. :)

I, Like The View said...

erm, I'm wading thru laundry here

but I'll come back to this one