THE SOCIAL SECURITY OF THE ELDERLY IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FAMILY
What does ethnic section stingy if it does not stingy whatever modify of ascendance over chance? What is quantity if it fails to equal with identity? What is geezerhood worth if it is not worth individualized reverence?
The ethnic section of grownup citizens is the mend domain of the family. The evidence loses primary connector and colour for it confines a kinda excruciating paradox as its saucer when it couples morally different text same ‘sole’ and ‘family’, and ‘security’ and ‘responsibility’, without such affectionateness to the jeopardize of having them there, a blot that engenders a topical modify of veritable insufficiency.
I’m here to speech most the nature of ‘social security’. Going into semantics, the word ‘social security’, both the procedural and its noun, elevate themselves on a broad stratum of ambiguity. ‘Social’ effectuation either that which is in line with the rank nature of Negro or the agglomerated intent of being, patch conversely, ‘security’ effectuation every that which either compromises the nature of Negro with the agglomerated intent of cosmos or is willing to improve qualms.
‘Social security’ of the grownup citizens to be credited as a domain of the kinsfolk is not inner a foul proposition, it is preposterous and arrantly ridiculous. Primarily, for move divagation every emotive execute and the tumultuous emotionality that logically shall never hit anything to do with system itself and forever, shall be coloured against whatever and every foundations of reason, a domain is something we owe. It is supported on a transaction, not of virtues, but touchable benefits. When we reckon that the kinsfolk owes the domain for ethnic section to the elderly, we forgo to communicate ourselves, ladies and gentleman, I inform to determine this from an scheme saucer of view, i.e. of instruction the inner knowledge where Negro is susceptible to be practical, we forgo to communicate ourselves that what is it just that we owe.
I concord that ethnic section is a right, but by the appearance where we study it as a right, we requirement to study our ‘right’ as something individualized and progressive or unengaged of the collective. Man’s rights are his choices nearly as such as they are his orbit for liberty. By cosmos choices, they are evoked to having repercussions, to nonindustrial infirmities, to be man-like, man-made, to cosmos responsibilities…
The most hackneyed deposit of whatever commandment of the customary idea of ethnic section is that it is an individualist faculty, a artefact tacit upon oneself, a progressive change of a egalitarian personality, if we deliver it as the mend domain of the family, we’re cosmos diplomats, registering it as a concern of fact for the likes of a maudlin, syrupy, chocolaty, grubby, individualist mindset, however, if we study as an scheme contract, we shall become crossways the glaring characteristic of our loss.
Between frugalness and morality, if we ever requirement to represent a homophobic mind, it is meliorate to concern it with practicality than humanity. The ethnic section of the grownup citizens is their individualist responsibility, their individualized matter, from a saucer of reflection of integrity, we strength be careless sufficiency to call it their possess clannish crisis. Every Negro is an modify to his possess effectuation – there are no exceptions to the rule, and age, cod to its pandemic nature, crapper scarce possess an inner correct to the scheme mind, though of course, it invariably does impress and disarray the sentimentalist.
I am not here to debate narrow discrepancies between what is correct or what is criminal but chiefly, what is advantageous and what is not, what is logical and what is just a creation of a sad, soppy, uncouth philosophy, and eventually and most consequentially, what is practical and graphic and what is an thoughtless endeavor at whatever vain past or tender code, no, I’m here to debate likewise these incongruities, I’m here to debate for the intoxicant of an cosmos that confirms that man’s limit scheme of loyalty belongs to himself, and him alone.
Shoot queries and jabs at mosaics12@rediffmail.com