I have not been able to
find anyone who knows what "fair share" means. When a strong man comes into my house and
takes anything he wants, is that my fair share?
If I am forced under penalty of punishment to hand over any or all of my
property, is that my fair share? When a
master decides how much of my income he wants for his own personal use, is that
my fair share? When "fair
share" is a moving target that can be increased by the will of powerful
people, can it ever be defined?
If I have absolutely no
part in deciding the criteria defining "needy" and no decision-making
authority in identifying those who meet that criteria, nor any say in defining
how much they should receive to satisfy their need, how can my fair share be
determined? Beyond that, if my
"fair share" leaves me eligible to meet the criteria for
"needy" while someone else's "fair share" still leaves that
person eligible to live an opulent life-style, can "fair share"
really be calculated fairly? Until we
start thinking of life-quality and value in terms other that mere currency we
will never be able to reach definitive answers to those questions.
You see, our values are inverted. I saw a post the other day showing a picture
of eggs in an eagle's nest next to a picture of an unborn human child. The picture informed us the eggs of the eagle
are protected by laws against destroying those eggs; but the human unborn child is free game for
killing. Death can come with the choice
of only one person...the child's mother.
What is the Mother's "fair share?"; what is the child's
"fair share?"
With inverted values
everything is unfair, nothing is sacred and no one can define "fair
share."
Jim Killebrew
No comments:
Post a Comment