Distinctions of Personal Value (not values...)

I like to divide people into groups. While I don't believe that you can generalize about everything, there are certainly a great many things you can generalize about. Indeed, our laws themselves, common or otherwise, are nothing but codified rules of general behavior. But why do I like to put people in categories? Well, because it's saves me time. For example, a well-meaning gentleman tried to engage me in a conversation about policy. He went on and on for a good bit, obviously repeating a well used oratory. When he stopped to take a breath, I asked him a simple question. "Do you believe redistributing wealth is Government's primary role?" Simple enough question but one he had trouble answering. Finally, after I pressed him a bit, he finally agreed that he did believe in redistribution. I then informed him that we were having the wrong conversation. If he wanted to argue about something, we should argue about that because if we disagreed so vigorously about the basic role of government, then a discussion about the finer points of policy would get us nowhere. So by defining the large group of "redistribution/anti-redistribution", I can ask one question and save myself a whole bunch of time and aggravation.

One of my ex-girlfriends is immensely proud of her family history. In fact, her self-esteem is based entirely in her family name and the accomplishments of basically one man. Because of this admittedly impressive lineage, she believes she deserves respect and deference that would normally be reserved for him solely because of her relation. Her greatest personal accomplishment was graduating from college but you'd never know that from the way she behaved. You'd have thought she cured cancer or something. Interesting enough another friend of mine has the same attitude but it was born of a Buddhist perspective. This friend told me once, when I was feeling down on myself for my lack of contribution, that even if I sat in a room and did nothing for 20 years, I'd be worthwhile as a person.

Well, I disagree with both of them. I don't think that your value as a person has anything to do with your lineage or exists solely because you exist. I know far too many people who don't contribute to anything at all. Your value is based in your accomplishments. Period. The problem here is how we define value. In my opinion, value is rated in how much you contribute to your fellow man or raising the level of humanity in general. And I don't believe that you're ever off the hook as long as you are alive. There may be some moments in every life where you cannot contribute for personal or health reasons but beyond that, I don't believe that there is any point in time, no matter how much you've already done, that you can just stop and say, "I've done enough."

So that's a distinction I've been thinking a lot about recently. I think it's am important issue because it's at the very core of so many of our issues today from welfare to immigration. Is this a policy issue or a personal one? I'm not sure. I do know that it has nothing to do with love. You can love something that has no value hence my fascination with Family Guy. But value still has its place. It is against the liberal predisposition to want to place value on people but we do that everyday. Instrinsic value matters, even if it's just to the person who must define it for themselves. I believe that it is the human inclination to agree with me but the sad fact of life is that many of us do not become the men we once thought we might. It is also human to make excuses rather than take responsibility. I just don't believe that's any excuse to stop trying.