No, Actually, The World Doesn’t Owe You…

It’s a common issue for the Left: Whom to give reparations to? Or welfare, or affirmative action etc.. etc… Many groups clamor for their chance at getting their “due justice” from “histories of oppression”, marginalization and even violence! Even on a smaller less dramatic scale, we see this idea of those that have more, are obligated in some fashion to give to those who have less. Now, this all sounds well and good. After all, isn’t it just to give back what was wrongfully stolen, or to give to those more in need than yourself? The simple answer would be yes, of course it is and we should! However, like anything in this world, the answer is not so black and white…

These cases can be broadly broken up into a few basic scenarios. One, is the case of the marginalized group, mostly a minority ethnic or racial group claiming reparations for past historic injustices such as discrimination, conquest, even violence. Closely related is the affirmative action debate as historic discrimination happened in schools and the workplace for some groups, but also branches out to include other categories such as gender/sex and sexual orientation. Another case is the people who are at a socio-economic disadvantage and claim that those with more ought to give some of it to them so the balance is more even and the gap between rich and poor must be shrunken as far as possible. Also, on a much bigger scale, international claims to rights or moral obligations that the United States must or should honor in giving people asylum or citizenship to flee persecution, poverty or other events worldwide.

My stance on this? The world doesn’t owe you, we don’t owe you… Now, how on Earth could anyone think so callously or without empathy? Am I not aware that I could have been in their shoes too just as easily had fate turned out different? Of course I am! I get it, and do in fact, have a sense of altruism like the rest of us. In a perfect world, or close to perfect as it can be while still containing the same issues, the simple answer would be of course, I have more, so there’s enough to give to you, too! Problem is, it’s not a black and white cut and dried world, with easy solutions that work. Nor is everything on the surface the whole truth for the claimants to our help… Let’s break down the examples with a few:

Let’s start with the first scenario: The historically conquered then marginalized group. They say that since we took their lands long ago, subjected them to most inhumane brutalities, stamped out their culture and claim we continue to marginalize them, we owe them big time! On its face it seems a fair claim. After all, there’s no way around the truth that horrible things were done through out history to them. The group I’m thinking of is the many tribes of Native Americans. We have done many inhumane, horrible things that should be addressed in some form or another, mainly, to never do it again! Trouble is, the magnitude of their demands.

Many want their original lands repatriated back to them lost through our conquests of their people. However, this is not so easy to fulfill, for one thing, countless Americans now live on those lands, major cities built, neighborhoods grew… We’re not talking about the vast open wilderness of the 15th to 19th centuries here! And what about the generations of new inhabitants who never hurt one single Indian nor have even their grandparents? It was wrong early settlers took land through genocide and violence, but the current inhabitants of said land are as innocent as the natives who lived on it two centuries earlier! Which brings up another point in this not so clear cut moral dilemma…

They did it, too! Yes the Native Americans were not some “noble savage” stereotype of a peaceful nature-loving hippie! They were human just as much as anyone else and had the bad side of humanity just as much as we did. They burned, plundered, conquered and killed other fellow tribes in their areas. They may have not had the “guns, germs and steel”, but as far as morality goes, which we’re judging here, was just as barbaric as any European.

Had they an edge over another tribe, they would use it in a heartbeat and would have loved to have wiped out their enemies. So the question is then, what do they owe those people? I’m cool with giving over the land we took from them, as soon as they give back every little thing they ever took since they crossed the Bering Strait into North America from their enemies they marginalized, conquered, subjugated and oppressed…  In this case, maybe they could make a solid case we owe them something of some sort, but they can’t hide from the fact by their own logic then, they also owe someone the same things, too! Of course, they are not the only group that falls under similar situations, but this is one major example.

Another major example is more generic and socioeconomic in nature. The Left claims that people with more wealth and social status owe people who have less and they only got it through oppressing the people who have less. For example, if you live in a fancy neighborhood and send your kids to the finest schools, you are also obligated to help lift a kid from the ghetto out of poverty by placing them with your child, or your tax dollars have to go to a welfare system. Or you owe them a job at your company because they were “marginalized”. Or a school has to create scholarships for certain special interest groups. The moral issue here lies in the concept of “privilege” and who has it. The argument is that some people are more privileged and need to combat their privilege and the onus is on them to help fight the inequality of those without it. However things are not so cut and dried here either!

Trouble here is well, how did they get said privilege? Yes, they live in a good neighborhood, have a well paying job and are able to easily provide for their family. But how did they get into such good luck? Yes, some could have had it handed to them, or cheated their way up, but for many, it was hard work like everyone else, through the sweat and tears of their family who aspired for the next generation to have more. Point is, that “privilege” was earned. The rich CEO whose grandpa fled Nazi Germany and built the company from nothing, the high powered mom who worked her way into a middle class life out of a broken home by her work and hers alone and now is giving her kids a chance at a new life to give their kids and so on.

A (white) man like my dad whose grandparents fled the Armenian genocide, and lived a borderline poverty blue collar childhood yet is labeled privileged and the onus put on him to solve racial injustice. Why do these people owe someone with less, but can work their way up, too? And what about those simply born into “privilege” the same way someone else was born into disadvantage? We don’t blame the victim of uncontrolled circumstance, such as a marginalized minority for simply being born a minority! Why is it okay then to put the onus of change on the person born white, or male, and in a middle class family, things he couldn’t control either!

My last but certainly not least example is the “right” to asylum in the US and immigration. I’ve written about it in much detail before, so I’ll get straight to the point: We don’t owe anyone citizenship in this country, or asylum morally that is, simply because we have more resources. We’re not the world’s crash pad, nor babysitter. Nor do we want people who are ungrateful and bring their 3rd world injustices into this country, and demand welfare and resources that we do have the legal and moral obligation to give to our own citizens first! If the roles were reversed, the Left would argue that they don’t have to prioritize us over their people… Also, on an important side note, the asylum law says the first safe country, not the cushiest! 😉

Point is overall, there will always be people with more than you. There will always be those with less than you. Why is it automatically assumed that you owe someone who had less simply because you have more through your own hard work, or your lucky circumstance? The onus for change is not on someone simply because they have more fortunate circumstances. The onus is on YOU to work hard to change your life! You to study harder. Work harder. Grasp at more opportunities instead of waiting for them to be given to you, because for many who made it to the top: it wasn’t either. Conquest and historic injustices did happen, racism and sexism and other prejudices did have effects on the world. However, why is one group more responsible for reparations when the group claiming it also has skeletons in their closet? Or the REAL perpetrators have died generations ago? Or you claim asylum yet continue to perpetuate your injustices here?

Is this to say we should never reach out and lend a helping hand or try to make inequalities go away? Not at all! That’s not my point! Giving out of the kindness of one’s heart, altruism, empathy, charity, all have a place in this world. The problem starts when people think the generosity and giving has to be compulsory and others are entitled to it simply because we have more… We should all have generous hearts, which are open to give to those worthy of it. To lift a promising student out of poverty with a scholarship. To have charities to help the needy and break the cycle and give them the change to work their way to the top. To advocate to make sure minorities are not still marginalized or discriminated against for real. To help internationally without draining our resources we need for our own people. My family opens its doors to less fortunate friends. My dad is big on donating to charities as that’s how he was raised to give and serve others.

The key difference is that is true altruism. Given freely as a choice from the heart. What the Left demands is not altruism or goodwill towards fellow man, but forced social engineering! That Robin Hood socialist mentality that is forced and guilt tripped rather than given freely out of altruism and empathy from within. So in conclusion, no, the world doesn’t owe you anything simply for being disadvantaged in some way, because aren’t we all? No one is obligated to have the onus placed on them for your problems if they weren’t the direct cause of them. No one has everything they need or want. We just make do with what we have and work for what we don’t. Why can’t you?

Serving others does not mean enslaving yourself!



  1. When I was growing up I was told “Life isn’t fair.”. I grew up being told personal responsibility was most important, and I was an AmeriCAN, not an AmeriCAN’T. How things have changed!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I just read your blog about how liberals look at privilege. I love the points you brought up (the Native Americans also killed and took land, if we were not directly responsible why is it on us, and many had previous generations who never had anything to do with it). Thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Great piece of writing, and overall I like and agree.

    Also, thanks to the nod to,”Guns, Germs, and Steel.” That book, and the counterpart “Collapse” should be on everyone’s reading list.

    Despite a few issues for which I have leaned liberal (like religion, obviously) this article encapsulates why I still consider myself a conservative. Life is unfair, do your best.

    On immigration, I wish our leadership spent more time working with leaders from the countries of origin more to reduce the need for so many seeking asylum in the first place. A wall is as helpful as the war on drugs, which is to say useless. If we really see a problem, we need to get to the source of the problem.

    And I didn’t see you mention, but I am for a universal healthcare system. If we addressed people’s health needs universally, we could reduce a lot of the financial stress that plagues so many people. A lifetime of hard work and intelligent investing can be wiped out by a health problem. I think this is a better safety net than any welfare system can ever be, and it honestly doesn’t have to be outrageously expensive.

    I put forth these caveats to your article, but still find it very intelligent, logical, and well written. I may quote you in the future.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. As a Christian, the subject matter you addressed can be a tricky-sticky one; especially trying to come from a point of view outside of my personal beliefs. However, as I read on, I saw that our perspectives weren’t much different one from another and that there were incidents in the Bible that addressed both taking care of the poor as well as recognizing that some of us will always have less, and some have more.
    When Judas, (of all people, we know how he ended up), objected that Mary, for anointed Jesus with expensive perfume, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.”Jesus rebuked Judas by reminding him; “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
    It is interesting to note that in between this dialogue, that later on the Gospel writer informs us of a little tidbit apparently known then or later after the fact. “He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.” Wow, if THAT doesn’t sound familiar! John 12:1-8
    It’s ok to want things for ourselves, and do our level and legal best to obtain them but “things,” shouldn’t be our focus outside of basic needs for life and living. Matthew 6:11, “give us this day our daily bread.”
    We should and could seek to help those without to get what they need to survive; but we are not necessarily obligated to support them as if they were dependent children; and even after 18 yrs; we are not obligated to support them either.
    It is imperative that we construct and maintain a sustainable environment for ourselves and those the world over we offer assistance to.
    Morality isn’t always fair, and not necessarily religious. A God-fearing individual believes that what is deemed Good over Evil is not a mystery but already known by nature of being created in the Image of God; and from a secular perspective it is know that good must triumph over bad in order for a society to not just survive; but to thrive.
    Socialism at its pinnacle doesn’t work stand alone. We can see this and learn this from failed nations and economies; as well as in particular movies like “Demolition Man,” and “Divergent.”

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Absolutely right on. The victimization for most folks takes place between their ears. Too many “victims” of various groups have succeeded wildly due to their own efforts and not buying into the crap telling them who they are.
    Dr. Ben Carson is just one stellar example. There are many others.
    Great article.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I wanted to share a story with you, too. This goes to the current revisionist history about the “noble savage” and how First Nations people were all supposed to be one with nature, and all that.

    Many, many years ago, I lived in Victoria, BC. This area in interesting, and very different when it comes to First Nations groups. The Queen Charlotte Islands, for example, is not covered by any treaties. The government just sort of took them over. Talking to people who lived and worked on some of the islands talked about how it was made very clear that they were guests – welcome guests, to be sure, but the First Nations groups had not given up their territory, and were not about to. It was… complex.

    I worked retail and once had a customer come in who was a helicopter pilot for a small logging company. At the time, the environmentalists were making a big stink about clear cutting and the evil logging companies. Even back then, the environmentalists were using First Nations groups for their own purposes, and some of the FN were using them right back.

    When he told me what he did for a living, we ended up chatting about some of the stuff logging companies had to deal with. They had a lot of regulations to follow, which included cleaning up and planting trees in areas that had been logged. They were also limited on where they could log on provincial land, etc.

    However, if anyone found old looking human bones on an area of land, whichever FN group was nearby would swoop in, claim the land as a “sacred burial ground” and demand ownership of it. The BC government would promptly hand over the land. There wasn’t even any real proof needed that the bones were FN, never mind that there was any real burial ground. It was just easier and cheaper to hand it over than go through the courts.

    Logging regulations did not apply to FN groups or their lands. So once the land became theirs, they would swoop in, clear cut anything of value, then abandon it. No effort make to clean up debris (major fire hazard!) or replant, and no legal or regulatory requirement to do so.

    The guy was so disgusted and frustrated by this. Logging companies were under attack quite severely at the time, and small companies were lumped in with the big multi-nationals. Responsible logging practices were something they were quite willing to do – after all, ensuring the health and growth of forests meant they would be able to keep working for decades. Then this BS would happen, and do you think the environmentalists cared? Of course not!

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Oh! Ah!! Grrrr!!!

    Yes, yes and yes! Oh, you’ve hit every point dead on.

    Regarding reparations, that is a HUGE deal here in Canada right now. We’ve got the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” going on right now, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s just a cash cow for people who make a living out of victimhood. One of the things that people started to do in the city we left behind was to start meetings with a blurb about how they recognize that they are all on Treaty # land (meaning the land the entire city was on, and then some). Even our co-op president at the time suggested starting all co-op meetings with this preamble. Did we do anything that had anything to do with First Nations issues? Not a thing. But we had a lot of “human rights activists” (who did excellent work for persons with disabilities, so I’m not dissing that) that were more than happy to jump on the SJ bandwagon. When it was brought up with me, I flat out said, no way. I found it offensive to my own family, who came here “recently” and had nothing to do with any of the awful things the Cdn government did, and to my husband’s family, who have been here for more than 300 years (also, he’s Metis). Thankfully, she backed off. The thing is, though, that city was on “treaty land”, which people interpreted to mean that the land actually *belonged* to the First Nations groups. What it really means is that the First Nations groups signed the land away to the Crown, via a treaty. In other words, there was a legal transfer of ownership. Now, there is the problem of the government not fulfilling their end of the deal, and that needs to be addressed (but dragging it on, decade after decade, is much more profitable to the activists), but the average citizen owes these First Nations groups nothing.

    Did terrible things happen? Of course. But they were not uniquely singled out for these terrible things. No more than black people, who were sold to white people by other black people, were uniquely victimized. You in the US have more of an issue with that than we do in Canada, but when I see someone running on about the the effects of slavery, I just shake my head. Was that person a slave? Their parents? Grandparents? No. Well, guess what. My (white) dad was a slave. There are people who are slaves right now. Even here in Canada, there have been cases gone to court involving families who came to Canada, bringing along “domestic help” that were slaves. If I remember correctly, the families involved with from India, and the women they enslaved were Filipino, though I know of cases involving other ethnic groups, too. The fight to end slavery has not been completed.

    And then there’s the whole idea that we should let everyone in – open borders to all. What a slap in the face to anyone trying to immigrate legally! But we have the UN telling the US and Canada that we “have to” let everyone in? And telling Canada that we “have to” repatriate Canadians that left Canada to fight with ISIS? Hell, no!

    When I used to debate these very issues with leftists (I say “used to”, because they’ve all unfriended me on Facebook), one of the things they kept trying to throw in my face is that it’s the “Christian” thing to do, to help people. Bad enough getting that from anti-theists, but getting it from other “Christians” (who obviously don’t know much about Christianity) was really frustrating. Yes, we are supposed to help people in need. OURSELVES. Abdicating that responsibility to the government is the opposite of what we are supposed to do. Forced charity is no charity at all, and a country’s government has a responsibility to its own citizens, not anyone else.

    But the idea that “the wealthy” owes everyone else their wealth is ludicrous. It penalizes success and is basically advocating theft.

    You guys are so blessed to have Trump in office right now (personally, I was rooting for Carson, but I now think Trump is the president the US needed). We’ve got Trudeau Jr, and he’s killing Canada. I’m really hoping we can have him removed from office (massive convoy of protests making its way to Ottawa right now) sooner rather than later. I’m afraid that if it comes to the election in the fall, it’s going to be bought again, and we’ll be stuck with him again.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Sadly I fear Québec and Ontario may be dumb enough again to vote trudeau in.

      But with the carbon tax war of trudeau Western separatism is growing in Canada again.

      Once Notley is removed in Alberta with only one right party, there will be more push on the provincial level against the federal government and its abuse of power.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I never thought I’d see the day when I would be in favour of western separatism. After watching the election in Alberta get manipulated so badly, then again with the federal election, I really see no other workable option. ON and Quebec would never allow the electoral reform that would make our federal elections fair, and the western provinces would be better off starting over on their own terms.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I feel for you, Re-Farmer. Trudeau is perhaps worse than Hillary would have been…although it’s hard to believe anyone could be worse than HRC. Canada is being destroyed, and the deep state is well on its way to destroying the U.S., too. Between that and our millennial nut-jobs, we are heading for disaster!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Too true, on all counts!

        Our federal election is this fall. Hopefully, Canadians will see the harm he has done and turf the Libs. Trudeau has just approved a $600 million bribe to the media, though – but only approved media – and they are already campaigning for him.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. You make some very good points and I agree with you.

    The idea of reparations assumes that there is a debtor race and a creditor race. That is people of one race are owed something by people of another race because of slavery that occurred before anyone today was born.That means that those who were never themselves victimized are making claims against those who never victimized them. I find it hard to sympathize with vicarious victims.

    Even if one were to accept the absurd notion that such reparations are owed, how would you calculate them? Someone seeking reparations because their ancestors came to the U.S. via the African slave trade needs to take into consideration that the overwhelming number of slaves brought to the U.S. via the slave trade where already slaves in Africa. Although the treatment of slaves in the U.S. was often hard and brutal, what we know of the treatment of slaves in Africa indicates that it was at least as brutal there. As for the ancestors of those slaves now in the U.S. how much worse off are they living in the U.S. today than they would be if they were still in Africa? Given how desperate people are to come to the U.S. from Africa and other areas of the world, it is difficult to show that the descendants of the slave trade are themselves worse off regardless of how badly their ancestors were treated.

    Slavery existed throughout history and everywhere in the world. The move to stamp out slavery started in Britain and spread to the U.S. and from there around the world as European imperialism spread. If one were to blame the white race for it’s part in slavery you need to credit the white race for stamping out slavery.

    As regards the chorus of leftists who claim that the U.S. has some sort of obligation to accept asylum seekers and those fleeing economic hardship, I find it interesting that they focus their demands on the U.S. rather than those countries that repress their citizens and impose socialist systems that cause people to flee in the first place. Can you really say that the plight of Venezuelan refugees is the fault of Americans unwilling to support them or is it the fault of the socialist oppressors in their home country? It’s hard to take the left’s selective outrage seriously. If they really wanted solutions then they would focus on the actual problems.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. The progressives continue to fuel “victimism”. I’ve been asking the question for years, “When will you stop being a victim”? The answer is never as long as they continue to take the easy way out. The piece made me think about my own life and the lives of my three sons. The thought never crossed any of our minds that something would be handed to us. Our mindset was and is always that you have to earn a way in this life. Our culture has created the mentality that someone is owed something with the onset of “freebies”. It may be wrong for me to actually say it, but these are the same folks that run to the ambulance chasing lawyers looking for a payday after every tragedy even before their loved ones are healed or in some cases buried. It blows my mind. If something terrible were to happen to someone in my family, the last thing I would be concerned about immediately would be “getting paid”. This is a broken mentality. Am I bad for thinking this way? I’m not necessarily talking about any particular race because it’s spread across all. Broken culture. I’m concerned deeply about my country. I knew there was hatred on the loft, but it has been unveiled with the election of DJT.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s