posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 10:10 PM
I'm in a really crabby mood tonight, forgive me.
The book What's the Matter with Kansas, has been mentioned on ATS. The thesis was that something must be wrong with the population of Kansas
as they vote Republican, but their financial best interests would be served by voting Democrat. The writer was astonished.
During the campaign, ATSers pointed out over and over that the Red states received more Federal assistance. Apparently the idea was that they were
either foolish or hypocritical to vote that way.
I assume that any solution for any problem that the board brings up will require people to behave differently. My question is simply, "Why should
they?" There have been, and will be, suggestions that the government should make people do this and that, perhaps force people to go to newly
available arable land to farm. You'd have to make them, wouldn't you?
Outside of religious groups, and millionaires who give away a fraction of their wealth, and bureaucrats who mindlessly hand out money they've taken
from someone else, who elseis making a big difference today? Sure, there are some. Usually temporary effects achieved by investing some excess free
time, or by persuading others to cough up $5.
So, again, why should anyone wrench their lives around to help the world unless they get something in return? You've got to make sure their costs
are covered (unless you pass a law that says nothing costs anything), and that they have a pretty decent life to go with their efforts.
I told you I was crabby, but I hope you don't identify the problem as lack of food, the solution as grow more food, and then go on to the next
problem believing you've solved the food problem.