Friday, July 13, 2012
The parasite "needs" the host. He must have the host off of which he can suck or he cannot exist. The thought of not having a host sends shocks of terror though him.
So, he screams, "I want to live! You want to live! See? We're all in this together! We have the same values!"
The value of life to the parasite may be summed up as, "Comfortable existence at the expense of another. I exist therefor I deserve! I own you, or at least that portion of you to which I may lay claim."
The value of life to the host may be summed up as, "My life, my thoughts, my work, my productivity, my property. I own me!
The parasite dares not to contemplate the fact that the host would do quite well without him. Indeed, the host would thrive. The parasite exists only by hook, crook, or force. In order to live near the light of day, openly feeding from the host, he must have outside force. This is the essence of collectivism.
Sadly, however, the host has already lost this fight. He has acquiesced to the validity of the parasite's argument by acknowledging the validity of the parasite's way of existence.
I don't know how many times I have attended patriot/conservative/tea party events and have heard the same people shout "Freedom!", and in the next breath say, "But I want my socialist security, my medicare, my medicaid, my SSI, my food stamps, my WIC, my AFDC, my SCHIPS...", and this gem of a quote from a conservative group meeting two years ago, "I ain't one uh them socialists, but if I didn't have my medicare, I couldn't have had my hip replaced!"
SO, does the parasite have a valid argumentative position (I exist, therefor I deserve! We both want to live! We have the same values! You MUST feed me!)?
Do we accept that at face value, or do we utterly reject it? Will we live as free men, working together when it suits us, in voluntary cooperation? Or will be subscribe to the parasite's creed, even fractionally?
I have a riddle for you. Put a drop of poison into a bucket of clean water and what do you have?