There is an addage, I know you’ve heard in one of its various forms: Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day; Teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for a lifetime. This concept has been used explain the need to help people help themselves. People, when approached this way, will usually thrive personally, become more positive and hopeful, and develop as vibrant members of society. `What about the opposite side of the coin?
What happens to people who are not taught to fish, but given a fish, not once, but day after day? What happens to their drive, creativity, and self esteem? Evidence is strong; these people become un-creative, un-motivated, and cynical. Worse yet, they begin to believe that they have been cheated, mistreated, and abused by society. How can this be? How can the givers of the fish become the object of the fish recipient’s dissatisfaction and anger? I can’t claim to understand the mechanism of the human spirit, but I do see the result. People need to be challenged to take responsibility for those things they are capable of managing in their sphere of interaction. When not challenged in this way, people turn selfish, self-centered, and angry.
It gets even more twisted. After a while, the fish-getters begin to believe the fish-givers have a duty to continue to give the fish. No, no, no, teach me not to fish, you must give me the fish. Since eating fish can get mundane and bland, givers must also provide bread and a little something to drink as well. It’s only humane. When the givers begin to recognize the lazy, demanding nature of the getters, they decide it is time to change the game. It’s time for the getters to become givers, buy learning to fish.
Some of the givers begin to feel sorry for the getters; their life is hard, they didn’t have the same chances as the rest of us, we can’t expect too much from the getters. We should just continue to give. Besides, the fishermen have plenty of extra fish, a few fish to the getters is not so bad. Of course the fishermen object, explaining the work, sweat, labor, risk and danger involved in catching fish, and want to be treated fairly in this exchange. Sadly, there are too many givers that believe the fishermen should ‘do their part and make a sacrifice’ for the good of society, so they vote that the fishermen must give even more of their fish to the getters. Enter the Takers.
Takers envision themselves as wise, caring, and charitable. They believe it their calling to make things “fair”. That taking from the givers, can be rationalized in the context of the “greater good.” They convince the getters that getters are helpless and need the takers to stand up for their cause. They convince many of the givers, through guilt, lies, and even intimidation, that taking is justified, as long as the takers do it with the right intentions. (It’s kind of like those daredevil shows on TV. They put out a disclaimer that these stunts were performed by professionals, so don’t try this at home! We’re professional takers, don’t try this at home.) They tell the givers that the takers don’t want to be takers, but someone has to balance out this unfair world. Isn’t a little sacrifice worth that?
Imagine another situation. A professional football star breaks a leg in an accident. The giver and the taker both want to help. The approach to the solution is what makes them so different. The taker tells the player to stay in bed as long as he wants. The giver encourages the player to get physical therapy, and start the long, strenuous, painful rehab process. The player, frightened of his future, and tired of pain and stress, likes the taker’s approach; it involves resting, and a whole lot less pain and inconvenience! The taker tells the player that the givers are mean, stingy, people who only care about how much money is being spent at the hospital. They don’t care about the player’s pain and misery. The player falls for the rhetoric, and postpones the therapy. But what happens to the leg, and the player’s mind?
As the player follows the takers approach, his leg heals poorly, with pain and disfigurement. The player is unable to play football, so the taker sues an insurance company, and blames the doctors and the hospital, and even the givers for being mean, uncaring, and of committing malpractice. The player is so grateful for the taker. The takers understand him, they care, and they were nice to him when the givers were mean and harsh.
The givers are astonished. If only the player had listened to them, he could be playing ball, doing what he loves, making a great living. But instead, he blames the givers, and thanks and praises the takers.
As observers of this scenario, we would support the givers. Why then are we fooled by the takers, when it comes to our Constitution? The founders of the Constitution were givers. They warned us about the danger of listening to the takers and getters. The Bill of Rights was written from the perspective of the givers. That is why it is attacked by the takers; they can’t understand it, so they want to change it to something they can understand. The founders understood human nature. They knew that society can turn into getters and takers very quickly and such a nation will be crushed under its own misunderstanding of human nature.
The founders relied on the majority to always understand the giver mentality. They tried to create a government that would always keep the getters and takers in the minority. Right now, we are seeing a phenomenon where the takers have won the hearts of a majority of the people. Their rhetoric is like the words of the taker to the football star, or the getters. It sounds so good. Wouldn’t it be great to live where there was no poverty, hate, anger, and hostility? Who wouldn’t like to live in that world? Those givers are mean, they hate poor people, they want to let people think bad thoughts and not be punished. They think its okay for some people in society to be terribly rich, while others are poor. We can’t trust people to be good on their own. We must allow the takers to determine how things are done, how wealth and prosperity are shared. After all, they are professionals, and they care!
Have you ever smelled pure vanilla? Have you ever tasted that same pure vanilla? Pure vanilla offers an amazing aroma, a tantalizing experience for the nose. Upon tasting, pure vanilla alone is revolting, nasty, and unpalatable. Such are the words and the results of the takers.
