Gypsies, Canada and people's naivety, generally speaking

Primarily, let me apologize myself for the delay you perhaps noticed. I know, this article should be out a bit sooner, but we prepared another theme (you'll get it, be cool), and agreed on this one only a few days ago. So what.

Well, to business... As far as I know, some months ago there were a few gypsies, who went to Canada. There they somehow succeeded to get an asylum, as I heard, faking to be political refugees. As such, they got some money to be able to start their new life. Then, the mass media went in; there was a TV news about the lucky gypsies, with the result anyone might have predicted: many other gypsies, rather those who aren't particularly fond of work (don't understand 'their current work', I mean 'any work') started to flee to Canada, clearly under impression there nobody works and all live in luxury.

The first reaction of many people is plain: well, they want to run away, so let'em go; we won't miss them. Unfortunately, it is obvious Canada won't welcome them, either. So, we shall get them back; perhaps a tad wiser, but definitely without a pot to piss in: any property they had before they have sold, and for the money they got the air tickets. Hence, the government shall have to take at least some care of them--with the inevitable result of the expenses laying on all of us.

Well, what should we do? I hope there is no such idiot to conclude from the above we should order all gypsies to stay home; this is absolutely not done, at least in any country I would care to live in. On the other hand, I am pretty positive we can--and should--do a few things, indeed. Firstly, I suspect there might be some of those gypsies without our citizenship. Well, why to get them back? They proved they don't want to live in this country, so let them have it so (I'd heartily say the same for the rest, but we must accept anybody with Czech citizenship, willing or not). Secondly, I don't know what would the government do for somebody who sell his house and spend the money, say, gambling--I only hope not much. Anyways, I am pretty sure we should not do a slightest bit more for the returned gypsies. Saved money we can use for the muddy Moravia (or anything worth it).

The thing is that: I very deeply believe the government should not, repeat not, shelter anybody from his own stupidity and naivety. There is family, friends, even charities for it; but please not government. Surely I have deep philosophical reasons for it; let us skip them, as they--like any philosophy, of course--are deeply subjective. Let us skip an endless discussion if such a protectionism (it is indeed closely related to the economic protectionism, so I freely use the same word) would waste money (which I deeply believe to), or save them, preventing larceny, socialism and other wrongdoings. Finally, let us skip any reasoning if the protectionism is moral (as it helps them who help need), or heavily immoral (as it forces people to pay for others' faults). Instead, let us focus on the very reason the protectionism is definitely bad: it tends to expand beyond any sensible bounds. Why? No magic, plain feedback: normally, you learn from the mistakes of yours. Since you are protected from the consequences, you will repeat the mistake heartily--and make other, more serious ones. Which makes you wail for more and better protection, and the loop is closed... People tend to seek for the best way to do anything. One of worst things possible is to set the rules such that the best way is *not* seeking the best way--which is exactly what protectionism does. It ensures all ways are good, which is one nice and fast course to hell.

Indeed, have a look at the U.S.A. In this century, they did a lot to shield their citizens from almost anything... with the inevitable result: stupidity. Some smartass tried to dry her wet dog in her microwave oven--I bet you know the story. There are many similar ones. But, don't get me wrong: not that Americans are so obtuse, they are not. It is the protective loop at its best: do thoughtlessly! If you are lucky, you'll succeed; if not, the law shall help you to succeed anyway.

Don't laugh too loudly; it's the same here: you have probably heard some our citizens found themselves abroad, without a transport home, for the travel agency they chose broke. Then, another agency got them back... and now, being at home, they will not pay the expenses. People are, regrettably, used not to pay for their mistakes; so they wholeheartedly let the agency pay for them. And result? Nice feedback: should a similar situation occur in future, hardly any agency will help; hence, people shall demand even more help from government. Perhaps they shall get it, ergo, they shall accustom even more to the bad habit of letting others pay for their faults. And so on, and so forth...

Well, enough. Of course you do not have to agree, but, please, should you be at the protectionist side, try to consider all the consequences of such a policy. Then, perhaps, in future we will find ours opinions more compatible. Or maybe we won't, it all depends.

(ostatní články/other articles)