If one accepts the absurd in principle, is it any wonder then that the absurd is present in his garden to the levers of a backhoe?
Suppose bandits arrive home, break the door, empty libraries, rip out the floors and moldings, fill their truck toys for your children, then leave you on the job, throwing you some banknotes.
Suppose that these bandits are rampant in your third neighbor and then banging home, to give you royalties.
Is there anything else to meet a big no thank you? [To be polite. My notebook contains a different expression.]
Not content to see the citizens of Richelieu end up with Christmas trees for their oil between two rows of carrots, I would fight for my share of the pie? But who am I again?
Is it not legitimate to exploit the resources of the territory, making it grow? Is it not odious to leave money to sleep?
I rest my question: when one assumes the absurd, in principle, is it not normal that one day the absurd arrives home, a helmet on his head engineer, a police badge in one hand and a camera on his shoulder?
And what's all this about the redistribution of wealth? Before redistribution, they should take. The change in currency, send away for that money multiply and that everybody takes his profit. Infinitely multiply the value of a finite resource, it tells me not that it makes sense. should not delude ourselves when we start to wonder how sustainably, ethically rich while planting effiel towers in the courtyard of others, we ask the wrong question: it goes to the other side.
0 comments:
Post a Comment