Skip to main content

Give or Take

Give or Take: The Challenge of the 21st Century An Examination of Social Dynamics, Productivity, and Civilization Introduction In the 21st century, societies across the globe are grappling with a fundamental tension between those who contribute to the collective good ("givers") and those who depend on the system for support ("takers"). With nearly half the population either employed by the government or receiving some form of entitlement, concerns arise that the balance may be tipping unfavorably, putting societal progress at risk. The Roots of Giving and Taking From infancy, humans experiment with the act of giving and taking. A simple interaction—offering and pulling away an object—illustrates a basic human behavior that shapes early development. This fundamental process not only influences individual growth but has also contributed to the evolution of the human species. The dynamic between giving and taking is, therefore, deeply embedded in our nature. The Role of Civilization Civilization brings with it the benefits of leisure, self-fulfillment, and support for those unable to contribute due to disability or other circumstances. Prosperity, however, can pave the way for self-indulgence and dependency, where the system designed to aid the disadvantaged becomes a means for some to avoid productive contribution. When the number of takers surpasses the number of givers, the sustainability of such a civilization comes into question. Productivity and Social Responsibility The strength of any civilization is measured by its productivity. Productivity is closely linked to manhood, characterized by commitment to work, responsibility, and the continuation of society through procreation. Even hedonism, often seen as the pursuit of pleasure, ultimately seeks a balance that favors more pleasure than pain. A society dominated by takers, without a sufficient base of producers, inevitably faces decline, hardship, and social instability. The Decline of Traditional Family Structures A significant number of young men today are raised without the presence of a stable father figure. The absence of fathers—whether due to broken homes, part-time parenting, or dysfunction—has profound consequences. These effects manifest in increased dependency, lack of discipline, and a tendency to prioritize self-interest over communal well-being. The erosion of traditional family structures contributes to a larger population that may struggle to adopt the values necessary for productive citizenship. Modern Challenges: Self-Indulgence and Social Change Today, issues such as sexual dysfunction, substance abuse, and a shift toward matriarchal structures compound the problem. As more individuals become reliant on societal support rather than contributing to it, vital institutions—such as the economy, marriage, and even the continuity of civilization itself—are threatened. The imbalance between givers and takers poses risks not only to prosperity but to the very fabric of human society. Conclusion The challenge of the 21st century lies in restoring a healthy balance between giving and taking. Societies must cultivate responsibility, productivity, and strong family bonds to ensure that the number of contributors is sufficient to support those in need. Only by reinforcing these foundational values can civilization continue to thrive and evolve, securing a future where both givers and takers coexist in a sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rick Atkinson

THE FATE OF THE DAY , just released, The war for America QUOTE George Washington. Our conflict is not likely to cease so soon as every good man would wish....Our cause is noble. it is the cause of mankind, and the danger to it springs from ourselves. March 31, 1779

Inflation

Many retail investors buy individual stocks with growing confidence in a narket that has a long run. Many fail to appreciate the way the market reflects inflation. Company revenue consists of inflated number,s as does cost and profit, thus the market reflects true inflation which must now be near 100%.

Tariffs versus Capital Surplus

"Trump is Completely Wrong on the Trade Deficit." Let Levin, Sowell, and Friedman Explain. In this interview, Melton Friedman claimed that "deficits are not bad. What's not to like about a capital surplus." In his book Arguing with Zombies, Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize economist, said, "An end to trade deficits? That's not something trade policy can or should do." The surplus profit earned through cheap foreign labor seeks the most profitable place to go. As the safest and most profitable option, that capital surplus lands in the US stock market. What's not to like about a capital surplus? That fondness intensifies with any threat of it going away, but why would tariffs be such a threat? Scott Bassett, US Secretary of the Treasury, on CNBC's Squawk Box, 4/8/25, said, "If we put up a tariff wall, the ultimate goal would be to bring manufacturing and jobs back to the US. In the meantime, we will be collecting substantial tariffs. As I...