This is something that (secular) capitalists never really understand. They think humans are motivated primarily by money or other increases in wealth. But humans were productive and ingenuitive and creative for thousands of years before money was invented. People build things primarily because they want those things to exist or because they are doing a favor for someone (or something, such as a diety or some philosophical or political ideal) who wants that thing to exist. In fact, once a person achieves enough wealth and/or financial security to avoid penury, they become increasingly difficult to motivate with money and any increase in happiness when receiving additional monies eventually plateaus. That is why rich people don't want to become richer, in order to be richer. They want to become richer to have more riches than That Other Rich Person, to gain more status within their wealth-obsessed group. That is why they can be the richest person in the world and still be completely focused on remaining #1, even though they already have amassed so much wealth that it isn't even mathematically possible to spend it all. If you live surrounded by comfortably working-class people, who don't rank each other primarily according to their net worth, more money isn't valued as high as something less tangible. Like an increase in free time, a pretty wife, talented children, an impeccably-maintained garden, or some public service. View quoted note →

One of the reasons I quickly soured on Anarcho-libertarianism was seeing how many of them don't believe in Natural Law. They just want to get away from their responsibilities to others and escape the consequences of their own actions. They are convinced that it is the federal government of whichever country they are in, that is holding them to a social contract they don't want to acquiesce to. But it is not the government that defines the social contract: it is the society. Societies under weak governments do not tend to treat the antisocial or wicked more leniently; they treat them more harshly. It costs the wider society a lot of money and resources, to tolerate people stepping out of line or shirking their duties. For instance, they complain about marriage licenses, as they say the state shouldn't be able to prohibit marriages from forming. Marriages, after all, are part of Natural Order and a covenant between two people. The state shouldn't be involved in that formation, at all. A marriage license doesn't define a marriage; it merely adds a marriage to an official registry. Marriage is Natural Law and common law encodifies that. If it looks like a marriage. And it sounds like a marriage. And it acts like a marriage. Then it is a marriage. I agreed with this, but then I quickly found out that most of them didn't actually believe this. They were just upset about paying alimony or child support. Two things that have nothing to do with marriage formation. In other words, they want to enjoy marriage while it lasts, and then have the taxpayer or charities support their wife and kids when they tire of them or want an upgrade to someone YTH. But a wife and the children brought or born into a marriage, deserve to continue living a life similar to what they have been used to, even if the marriage is dissolved. That is the promise marriage gives women and children, by default, in the social contract. If you do not want this responsibility, then remain alone. #NaturalLaw #society #christian

Don't have to be poor, to be ghetto.

I laughed. View quoted note →