Perhaps there is some particular nuance to the voting circumstances and principles discussed in this case, but the idea that “if you're not given” something then “you're denied” seems to be a problematic and widespread philosophy.
Some rights are the government's to guarantee. Under our system of government, voting is easily and rightfully one of them. Anything that falls within what's essential for the government to fulfill its purposes would be in this category.
There is an increasing number of things that go beyond those purposes, and this language of being “denied” if the government does not provide is increasingly potent toward those ends.
If the government—or anyone for that matter—doesn't give me something, am I being denied?
If I'm not given health care, housing, education, and paid vacation, am I being denied those things?
Even if someone wants all those things, and even if the government were to go beyond its purposes and provide them, what do we call it if people don't like the house, neighborhood, education topics, amout of time off and all the rest of it?
This is the problem with covetousness. It's never satisfied.
That makes for a useful political strategy to gain power. It never ends. Politicians will never run dry man's desire for more.
It's also corrosive. It eats away at the system, compromising its structural integrity until it falls apart. As a political strategy, covetousness can be used to gain power right up until the point the system collapses and that power means nothing.
The only cure for this is to realize that you can gain the whole world and it still wouldn't be enough. Just ask any GOAT sports champion in retirement.
You can also gain the whole world and lose your soul.
It's better instead to gain the Savior and realize that he satisfies our thirst more than anything in this world.
No comments:
Post a Comment