What does social security mean if it does not mean some form of predominance over chance? What is chance if it fails to correspond with identity? What is age worth if it is not worth personal reverence? The social security of senior citizens is the sole responsibility of the family. The statement loses essential ground and semblance for it confines a rather excruciating paradox as its crux when it couples morally antithetical words like ‘sole’ and ‘family’, and ‘security’ and ‘responsibility’, without much regard to the hazard of having them there, a spot that engenders a local form of genuine insufficiency.
I’m here to talk about the nature of ‘social security’. Going into semantics, the word ‘social security’, both the adjective and its noun, elevate themselves on a high stratum of ambiguity. ‘Social’ means either that which is in liaison with the complete nature of man or the collective idea of being, while conversely, ‘security’ means all that which either compromises the nature of man with the collective idea of being or is disposed to raise qualms.
‘Social security’ of the senior citizens to be credited as a responsibility of the family is not only a disgusting proposition, it is preposterous and arrantly ridiculous. Primarily, for kicking aside all emotional discharge and the disruptive sentimentality that logically shall never have anything to do with logic itself and forever, shall be biased against any and all foundations of reason, a responsibility is something we owe. It is based on a transaction, not of virtues, but material benefits. When we opine that the family owes the responsibility for social security to the elderly, we forgo to ask ourselves, ladies and gentleman, I remind to judge this from an economic point of view, i.e. of course the only attitude where man is liable to be practical, we forgo to ask ourselves that what is it exactly that we owe.
I agree that social security is a right, but by the perspective where we consider it as a right, we need to consider our ‘right’ as something personal and liberal or unattached of the collective. Man’s rights are his choices almost as much as they are his scope for liberty. By being choices, they are induced to having repercussions, to developing infirmities, to be man-like, man-made, to being responsibilities…
The most banal grounds of any commandment of the conventional notion of social security is that it is an individualist faculty, a facility implied upon oneself, a liberal modification of a democratic personality, if we surrender it as the sole responsibility of the family, we’re being diplomats, registering it as a matter of fact for the likes of a maudlin, syrupy, chocolaty, grubby, sentimentalist mindset, however, if we consider as an economic contract, we shall come across the glaring facet of our loss.
Between economy and morality, if we ever need to portray a prejudiced mind, it is better to weigh it with practicality than humanity. The social security of the senior citizens is their individual responsibility, their personal matter, from a point of speculation of integrity, we might be reckless enough to call it their own private crisis. Every man is an end to his own means – there are no exceptions to the rule, and age, due to its pandemic nature, can hardly possess an exclusive right to the economic mind, though of course, it invariably does stir and perturb the sentimentalist.
I am not here to argue petty discrepancies between what is right or what is wrong but chiefly, what is beneficial and what is not, what is rational and what is barely a product of a sad, soppy, uncouth philosophy, and finally and most consequentially, what is pragmatic and realistic and what is an unconsidered attempt at some vain chivalric or gallant code, no, I’m here to argue besides these incongruities, I’m here to argue for the sake of an existence that confirms that man’s utmost structure of loyalty belongs to himself, and him alone.
Shoot queries and jabs at mosaics12@rediffmail.com
