True....
However, even a peasant at one point can be betrayed. What changes are the definitions of what is at stake, i.e. : "assets" or "kingdom".
If one confines the above definition to material assets, yes I agree.
Perhaps that is the logic behind collectivist philosophies. The state is willing to mortgage whatever assets are available in exchange for a guaranteed welfare for all. Perfect proposition for the politician who I do need to remind us all the rubbish they preach, for them the drug is power, not necessarily material possessions. Likewise, for the masses, if they have nothing, then they have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
While this is a different discussion I will expand on it a little:
What these parasites do not realize is... that inevitably, in the end, in order to steal and mooch assets or possessions, they need to be created. They need the industrialist, the producer, the creator.
Unfortunately "public opinion" has bought in the propaganda that the politician feeds to the masses.
"For the good of the many, we must sacrifice individual freedom"
"It is for our own good"
But who are the judges, and who ask for their "wisdom".... and most importantly.....
How much is going to cost, and Who is going to pay for it
The collectivist ignores the honest answer to the above questions. worse, even if he knows, he does not disclose it, or attempts to hide it.
Surprisingly (?), history has shown that collectivism does not work... ask the former Soviet Union or Eastern Europe.... or Cuba and Nicaragua... and I am sure there are others.
The real solution will come when the producer finally decides to stob being the sacrificial animal that the collectivist whishes him to be.
The day that the men and women of the mind, those who are the producers, decide to go on strike. That day, when the assets have all been stolen, and all the properties taxed to death... yet there is no new wealth generated... then and only then, will the collectivist finally learns.
Is the day nearing close to when the men of the mind go on strike ?
I do not know, but I think we are getting closer.
So back to the the business of the day:
The real worth of Uncle Nicolo in the saying in question is demonstrating that the possibility that treason occurs because a trusted one (i.e. loved one) turns against whom the treason is committed. And NOT expected, therefore the exposure, the "lack of safety".
However, if you are feared, you know that an attack could be coming any day, therefore you must be prepared. i.e. It is expected and you can plan and possibly protect yourself against it.
The assets, kingdom, etc. at stake are of different nature, but the principle remains.
Is it stressful, or not? That is a different question. Not relevant if you are willing to take the risk.
True, there is no free lunch, as if you want to be "loved", with the benefits of such, along come the natural risk that such carries.
Bottom line, everything boils down to the correct assessment and management of risk. This includes the correct understanding (and ability to perform), the phrase:
"Let your gains run, and cut your losses quickly".
Material assets or otherwise, it is all the same, that is because we are humans, and we suffer from our own "human nature".
The reasoning, exceptions, etc. can be many and varied... but in the end it boils down to what I said above. Perhaps, that is the reason they say: "It is Maquiavellic" <g>
Of course.... that is my opinion.
___________________________
And to keep the post on topic <g>
Here is this:
"In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant."
~ Charles de Gaulle |
