There is nothing wrong with investing in people.

     Every parent does it to their child as long as there is an
expectation of return on investment (ROI), which means the child we
invest in, will invest in others when their time comes.

      The child pays the debt forward by investing in the next

      And there is nothing wrong with charity as a last resort if the
person we need to invest in is crippled beyond the ability to produce a
positive return on investment.

      However SOMEONE has to produce.

      And we have a moral mandate to try and not produce physically,
emotionally, mentally or spiritually crippled children.

      Or worse take a perfectly fine child and ruin them.

      If we give free housing, food, education and healthcare to
everyone, who will produce the goods we are giving away?

      The left is polluted with people who want a handout, who want to be
taken care of, at least a safety net.

      The right is filled people who want a JOB and to support themselves
and depend only on themselves, and take care of others if they can.

      This is the basic tension in society.

      Its the tension between the left acting as a union for the
employees, and the right acting as a union for the employers.

      The employees on average want to own the employer and suck them

      The employers on average want to own the employee and suck them dry
in return.

      So the two unions are necessary to protect each from the other.

      Charity also is good, but one doesn't first hand out principal
capital or even profit to first in liners, one vets those lining up for
a handout for those that will produce a maximum return on investment.

      If the rich were to give all their money and possessions to the
poor, everyone would become poor quickly because the poor in general are
lacking production skills and would waste the gift from the rich
forthwith by consuming it and producing less than they consume.

      So the LAST thing anyone wants to do is redistribute all wealth
equally lest we all end up starving to death equally.

      Thus if you are going to give a free ride to anyone, it should be
to business or trade school and then a free job.

      For a society to flourish, everyone in it, except for the true
charity cases, MUST produce more than they consume, reap more than they
sow, or else the whole society dies.

      And that is harsh darwinian survival at its most extreme.

      Reaping more than you sow is trivial, as any corn seed once sown
will grow into a stalk with 20 ears of corn with 6000 seeds on them.

      That's called profit, and it comes from the sun and the sow and
reap cycle.

      What's so hard?

      Need does not bestow right.

      One is not entitled to a life just because one breathes or was

      Our founding fathers said that each person has the right to the
PURSUIT of happiness and survival, not a right to guaranteed happiness
and survival.

      If those who can sow and reap with a good profit at the end of the
harvest, care to invest in newcomers, or give charity to those who can't
work at all, that's fine, but taken to an extreme and forcing producers
to give production results to others at the point of a gun will result
in a revolution with guns pointed the other way.

      Which is why producers shouldn't give up their guns lest the low
producers come with the cops pointing their guns at us to take our
production for them to consume.

      That is the DEFINITION of criminal theft and violation of fair
chosen fair trade.

      This is what we CREATED government to protect us from, criminally
enforced unfair and unwilling transactions at the behest of criminals
who would take other's production rather than produce themselves.

      When the government becomes criminal itself or in the pay of
criminals, its time to put the government to sleep.

      We shoot rabid dogs don't we?

      It is much easier for a population to produce unfit low producing
stupid people than very fit high producing smart people.

      It takes careful breeding to safely and dependably maintain a pool
of talented producers and thinkers and a lot of upbringing to turn that
talent into a highly honed skill that will benefit millions.

      Without Darwinian pressures to cull the high consuming low
producing people, society becomes clogged with low or negative producing
people, who like plants, expect the sun or someone to push them into
existence or give them a guaraneed free life even if they have to take
it by force and deceit from the producers.

      Since the food and resources consumed by a low producing high
consuming person must come from their counterparts, the high producing
low consuming peoeple, the producers get more and more strained in their
ability to produce because they have to keep giving it away for no or
negative return on investment.

      Might as well flush one's capital down the toilet than invest it in
a toxic waste dump of non return.

      Eventually producers start demanding a licence to breed, and state
training to have children to make sure that low producers or negative
worth criminals, and psychopaths are not added to society.

      And that path of breeding oversight is a really bad road to walk
down because eventually the non producers will take over the licensing
bureaus and society will start turning out cadillac quality non
producers as far as the eye can see.  That will be the end of that
economic engine.

Tue Feb  6 23:44:18 EST 2018