Lower Providence Twp. - In another aftershock of the anti-incumbent earthquake, PA Clean Sweeper James Babb, the endorsed Libertarian challenger for State Representative in district 157, has collected the necessary signatures to be on the ballot.
Pennsylvania election law requires third-party and independent candidates to collect 466 signatures from district voters to qualify for the ballot in district 157. Although 55% larger than the major party signature requirements for their primaries, Babb's requirement was easily met in a single day at the polls Tuesday. The Babb for Pennsylvania volunteer team completed the task months before the August 1st deadline. Registered Republicans and Democrats who showed up to vote in their primaries gladly filled page after page with their signatures.
"Now voters in our district will have a true choice in the fall." said Babb. "Many voters in our district are concerned about the never ending tax hikes and runaway spending authorized by incumbent Carole Rubley. I look forward to debating these issues at the earliest opportunity. I want to know why she keeps taking more and more of our hard-earned money."
Babb's platform includes a pledge to personally read all legislation that he votes for, and cite the exact clause in the Pennsylvania constitution that authorizes any new law he supports. He also pledges to pursue the repeal of all existing laws not explicitly authorized by the constitution. He advocates common sense, free-market solutions instead of expanded government power.
More information about the campaign can be found at www.JamesBabb.com.
Contact:
Ken Krawchuk, Babb for Pennsylvania Media Relations
215-881-9696
Media@JamesBabb.com
or
James Babb
610-539-8825
Jim@JamesBabb.com
Friday, May 19, 2006
Saturday, April 29, 2006
It’s not Marriage They Want to Protect
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (LPPa)
3915 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 04/28/2006
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment
It’s not Marriage They Want to Protect
Harrisburg, PA – Over 80 members of Pennsylvania’s House have co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment defining “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman in H.B. 2381, the Pennsylvania Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment.
“Is marriage a basic human right, or a privilege defined and granted by government?” asked James Babb, Libertarian candidate for Representative in the General Assembly, District 157. “Evidently no part of our lives is immune from interference by the state legislature. What will be the next religious ceremony for government regulation? Baptisms? Bar Mitzvahs? Confirmations?”
“It’s not about protecting marriage, but protecting something else” offered Tom Martin, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate. “Lowering taxes and regulations help married couples, their families and their employers by letting them keep more of their money. Instead of simply reducing government spending and taxes, incumbent politicians both in Pennsylvania and Washington promote constitutional regulations on marriage. They want to protect something, but it’s not marriage. This amendment changes the subject to protect their do-nothing record of addressing high taxes and their outrageous spending programs.”
LPPa Media Relations Chair, Doug Leard made a final observation, “With so many co-sponsors, what common principle drives social conservatives toward bigger state government and liberals toward a church-state alliance? Political self-preservation. Incumbent politicians desperately want us to forget the pay-grab during this election season and are treacherously using marriage as a distraction. Don’t be fooled and don’t ever forget the pay-grab.”
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
3915 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 04/28/2006
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment
It’s not Marriage They Want to Protect
Harrisburg, PA – Over 80 members of Pennsylvania’s House have co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment defining “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman in H.B. 2381, the Pennsylvania Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment.
“Is marriage a basic human right, or a privilege defined and granted by government?” asked James Babb, Libertarian candidate for Representative in the General Assembly, District 157. “Evidently no part of our lives is immune from interference by the state legislature. What will be the next religious ceremony for government regulation? Baptisms? Bar Mitzvahs? Confirmations?”
“It’s not about protecting marriage, but protecting something else” offered Tom Martin, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate. “Lowering taxes and regulations help married couples, their families and their employers by letting them keep more of their money. Instead of simply reducing government spending and taxes, incumbent politicians both in Pennsylvania and Washington promote constitutional regulations on marriage. They want to protect something, but it’s not marriage. This amendment changes the subject to protect their do-nothing record of addressing high taxes and their outrageous spending programs.”
LPPa Media Relations Chair, Doug Leard made a final observation, “With so many co-sponsors, what common principle drives social conservatives toward bigger state government and liberals toward a church-state alliance? Political self-preservation. Incumbent politicians desperately want us to forget the pay-grab during this election season and are treacherously using marriage as a distraction. Don’t be fooled and don’t ever forget the pay-grab.”
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
Monday, April 17, 2006
The Separation of Charity and State
by Jacob G. Hornberger, Posted April 17, 2006
Read the rest…
The primary function of the federal government these days is to help out others with federal welfare assistance. The assistance is dispensed in a variety of ways — directly, in the form of a money payment (Social Security); indirectly, by helping people with payments to third parties (Medicare and Medicaid); subsidies to government entities and private organizations (grants to public schools or corporate welfare); and in-kind benefits, such as housing or food. After the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster, federal officials even went so far as to disburse bank debit cards to hurricane victims.
Federal welfare assistance to Americans has become such an ingrained part of our lives that most Americans hardly give it a second thought. While “waste, fraud, and abuse” have become a standard part of the welfare-state lexicon, the answer for many is simply, “The system needs reform.”
Yet when recommended reforms are instituted, “waste, fraud, and abuse” inevitably rear their ugly heads again, which then generates the call for new reforms, perpetuating an endless cycle of problems and reforms.
All this fiddling avoids the central issue: Why not separate charity and the state, in the same manner our ancestors separated church and state? Why not get government totally out of the charity business? I’m suggesting that we do much more than simply repeal all welfare-state programs. I’m suggesting that we go further and elevate our vision to the same level as that of our American ancestors when they separated church and state. I’m suggesting the following amendment to the Constitution: “The federal government shall not provide any subsidy, grant, welfare, aid, loan, or other special privilege to anyone.”
Read the rest…
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Conservatism vs. Libertarianism
Conservatism vs. Libertarianism
by Jacob G. Hornberger, April 12, 2006
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604c.asp
The Conservative:
I’m a conservative. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government, except for:
1. Social Security;
2. Medicare;
3. Medicaid;
4. Welfare;
5. Drug laws;
6. Public schooling;
7. Federal grants;
8. Economic regulations;
9. Minimum-wage laws and price controls;
10. Federal Reserve System;
11. Paper money;
12. Income taxation and the IRS;
13. Trade restrictions;
14. Immigration controls;
15. Foreign aid;
16. Foreign wars of aggression;
17. Foreign occupations;
18. An overseas military empire;
19. A standing army and a military-industrial complex;
20. Infringements on civil liberties;
21. Military detentions and denial of due process and jury trials for citizens and non-citizens accused of crimes;
22. Torture and sex abuse of prisoners;
23. Secret kidnappings and “renditions” to brutal foreign regimes for purposes of torture;
24. Secret torture centers around the world;
25. Secret courts and secret judicial proceedings;
26. Warrantless wiretapping of citizens and non-citizens;
27. Violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for purposes of “national security”;
28. Out-of-control federal spending to pay for all this.
The Libertarian:
I’m a libertarian. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. Period. No exceptions.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email (jhornberger@fff.org).
by Jacob G. Hornberger, April 12, 2006
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604c.asp
The Conservative:
I’m a conservative. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government, except for:
1. Social Security;
2. Medicare;
3. Medicaid;
4. Welfare;
5. Drug laws;
6. Public schooling;
7. Federal grants;
8. Economic regulations;
9. Minimum-wage laws and price controls;
10. Federal Reserve System;
11. Paper money;
12. Income taxation and the IRS;
13. Trade restrictions;
14. Immigration controls;
15. Foreign aid;
16. Foreign wars of aggression;
17. Foreign occupations;
18. An overseas military empire;
19. A standing army and a military-industrial complex;
20. Infringements on civil liberties;
21. Military detentions and denial of due process and jury trials for citizens and non-citizens accused of crimes;
22. Torture and sex abuse of prisoners;
23. Secret kidnappings and “renditions” to brutal foreign regimes for purposes of torture;
24. Secret torture centers around the world;
25. Secret courts and secret judicial proceedings;
26. Warrantless wiretapping of citizens and non-citizens;
27. Violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for purposes of “national security”;
28. Out-of-control federal spending to pay for all this.
The Libertarian:
I’m a libertarian. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. Period. No exceptions.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email (jhornberger@fff.org).
Monday, April 10, 2006
Pennsylvania Libertarian Party denounces ruling on election law
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
3863 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 04/10/06
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Pennsylvania Libertarian Party denounces ruling on election law
Harrisburg, PA – The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (LPPA) must vehemently disagree with the ruling of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III upholding the unequal election laws of the Commonwealth. As a result of the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction, minor party and independent candidates for statewide office must collect at least 67,070 valid signatures for their names to appear on the November ballot.
Major party candidates need no more than 2,000 signatures to appear on the primary election ballot and winners need nothing further to appear on the ballot in the general election. Minor party and independent candidates are precluded by law from participating in the primary election process.
The most disturbing factor in this decision was the indication by the Judge that the current requirement reflects a legitimate interest of the Commonwealth. According to LPPA Western Vice-Chair Michael J. Robertson, "The legitimate function of the Commonwealth should be to secure the right of the citizens to choose their elected officials, not unfairly limit their choices."
Article I Section 5 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth clearly states that all elections shall be free and equal. The inequality of current election law was highlighted most succinctly by Libertarian candidate for United States Senate, Tom Martin, when he asked, "If there was a football game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Philadelphia Eagles, would it be considered fair if the Steelers needed 67 yards to get a first down and the Eagles only needed two yards?".
The LPPA holds the position that voters in the Commonwealth deserve choices on the ballot for their representatives in government. In recent elections, there have been many cases where only a single name appears on the ballot in the general election. There is a least one previous court case demonstrating that additional signatures are not needed for a qualified party's nominees. In reflecting on the decision, Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News and a leading expert nationally on ballot access legal issues, noted "Judge Jones was not as thoughtful as he could have been."
If there are to be requirements for candidates’ names to appear on the ballot, then the laws must be more equitable. The LPPA asks Pennsylvanians to contact their representatives and demand that they reconsider current election laws and adopt the Voters' Choice Act, as written by the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition (www.paballotaccess.org). This will bring election laws in line with the constitutional requirement.
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
3863 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 04/10/06
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Pennsylvania Libertarian Party denounces ruling on election law
Harrisburg, PA – The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (LPPA) must vehemently disagree with the ruling of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III upholding the unequal election laws of the Commonwealth. As a result of the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction, minor party and independent candidates for statewide office must collect at least 67,070 valid signatures for their names to appear on the November ballot.
Major party candidates need no more than 2,000 signatures to appear on the primary election ballot and winners need nothing further to appear on the ballot in the general election. Minor party and independent candidates are precluded by law from participating in the primary election process.
The most disturbing factor in this decision was the indication by the Judge that the current requirement reflects a legitimate interest of the Commonwealth. According to LPPA Western Vice-Chair Michael J. Robertson, "The legitimate function of the Commonwealth should be to secure the right of the citizens to choose their elected officials, not unfairly limit their choices."
Article I Section 5 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth clearly states that all elections shall be free and equal. The inequality of current election law was highlighted most succinctly by Libertarian candidate for United States Senate, Tom Martin, when he asked, "If there was a football game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Philadelphia Eagles, would it be considered fair if the Steelers needed 67 yards to get a first down and the Eagles only needed two yards?".
The LPPA holds the position that voters in the Commonwealth deserve choices on the ballot for their representatives in government. In recent elections, there have been many cases where only a single name appears on the ballot in the general election. There is a least one previous court case demonstrating that additional signatures are not needed for a qualified party's nominees. In reflecting on the decision, Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News and a leading expert nationally on ballot access legal issues, noted "Judge Jones was not as thoughtful as he could have been."
If there are to be requirements for candidates’ names to appear on the ballot, then the laws must be more equitable. The LPPA asks Pennsylvanians to contact their representatives and demand that they reconsider current election laws and adopt the Voters' Choice Act, as written by the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition (www.paballotaccess.org). This will bring election laws in line with the constitutional requirement.
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Rendell should not hike taxes to gain control of our pre-kindergarten children
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
3915 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 03/13/2006
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (LPPA) supports parent choice for pre-school
Rendell should not hike taxes to gain control of our pre-kindergarten children
Governor Rendell entered office promising to make early-childhood education his signature issue. Since then, he and the legislature have dramatically increased pre-school spending - $230 million last year.
Although promoting universal pre-school creates a wonderful photo opportunity for Rendell and Pennsylvania legislators, it is bad for Pennsylvania.
First, parents are doing a good job. According to David Salisury, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, “throughout the 20th century, the scores of preschool age children on IQ and kindergarten readiness tests have climbed steadily upward.”
Second, most parents want responsibility. According to a report from the nonpartisan polling firm Public Agenda, more than 7 out of 10 parents with children aged five or under say they should be responsible for paying the costs of caring for their own children. Even a majority of parents earning less than $25,000 a year believe that they, not taxpayers, should be responsible for the costs of raising their children.
Third, the child-care market is healthy and heterogeneous with diverse choices for the parents and children it serves. Costs have remained steady in real terms since the late 1970s.
Fourth, giving control to government will cause drastic cost increases. Just look at primary education. According to the PA Department of Education, Rendell has increased spending by over $1.1 billion during his tenure. According to the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania ranks 3rd in the nation in per-pupil spending, when adjusted for the cost of living, with an average expenditure of nearly $11,000 per student. Also adjusting for the cost of living, our teachers have the highest average salaries in the country, exceeding $51,000 per educator. Yet, 25% of Pennsylvania teachers failed 2003 certification tests.
Finally, while costs spiral upwards, the government continues to struggle to provide quality results as an education provider. Of public 5th graders, just 57% score as proficient in math and 64% in reading on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) exams. Interestingly, scores decline the longer the children remain in government schools.
By extending control of education to pre-school, Rendell will increase our taxes placing additional burden on families, restricting their choices and damaging the effective pre-school system we have today. Instead, the LPPA recommends that government reduce the tax burden on families, providing parents with more funds and options for determining the best early education for their children.
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
3915 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 03/13/2006
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (LPPA) supports parent choice for pre-school
Rendell should not hike taxes to gain control of our pre-kindergarten children
Governor Rendell entered office promising to make early-childhood education his signature issue. Since then, he and the legislature have dramatically increased pre-school spending - $230 million last year.
Although promoting universal pre-school creates a wonderful photo opportunity for Rendell and Pennsylvania legislators, it is bad for Pennsylvania.
First, parents are doing a good job. According to David Salisury, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, “throughout the 20th century, the scores of preschool age children on IQ and kindergarten readiness tests have climbed steadily upward.”
Second, most parents want responsibility. According to a report from the nonpartisan polling firm Public Agenda, more than 7 out of 10 parents with children aged five or under say they should be responsible for paying the costs of caring for their own children. Even a majority of parents earning less than $25,000 a year believe that they, not taxpayers, should be responsible for the costs of raising their children.
Third, the child-care market is healthy and heterogeneous with diverse choices for the parents and children it serves. Costs have remained steady in real terms since the late 1970s.
Fourth, giving control to government will cause drastic cost increases. Just look at primary education. According to the PA Department of Education, Rendell has increased spending by over $1.1 billion during his tenure. According to the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania ranks 3rd in the nation in per-pupil spending, when adjusted for the cost of living, with an average expenditure of nearly $11,000 per student. Also adjusting for the cost of living, our teachers have the highest average salaries in the country, exceeding $51,000 per educator. Yet, 25% of Pennsylvania teachers failed 2003 certification tests.
Finally, while costs spiral upwards, the government continues to struggle to provide quality results as an education provider. Of public 5th graders, just 57% score as proficient in math and 64% in reading on the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) exams. Interestingly, scores decline the longer the children remain in government schools.
By extending control of education to pre-school, Rendell will increase our taxes placing additional burden on families, restricting their choices and damaging the effective pre-school system we have today. Instead, the LPPA recommends that government reduce the tax burden on families, providing parents with more funds and options for determining the best early education for their children.
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Harry Browne: 1933 - 2006
It is with deep sadness that I note the passing of Harry Browne. Harry was a 2x Libertarian candidate for president of the United States, author, radio talk show host and financial planner.
Until I saw Harry on C-SPAN, I had no idea that there was a political party that I agreed with. Now I'm running for office and I can only dream of matching his elegance when explaining the benefits of liberty. He will certainly be missed and never forgotten. He was an inspiration for me and countless others. He always said that life should be enjoyed, not endured. That rings true for me.
Rest in peace friend. We will continue the fight and we will endeavor to enjoy our short time on earth.
Below is one of my favorite Harry Browne compositions: "A Gift for My Daughter" from 1966. I hope I can teach this lesson to my daughters.
Jim
A Gift for My Daughter
by Harry Browne
December 25, 1966
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm
(This article was originally published as a syndicated newspaper column, dedicated to my 9-year-old daughter.)
It’s Christmas and I have the usual problem of deciding what to give you. I know you might enjoy many things — books, games, clothes.
But I’m very selfish. I want to give you something that will stay with you for more than a few months or years. I want to give you a gift that might remind you of me every Christmas.
If I could give you just one thing, I’d want it to be a simple truth that took me many years to learn. If you learn it now, it may enrich your life in hundreds of ways. And it may prevent you from facing many problems that have hurt people who have never learned it.
The truth is simply this:
No one owes you anything.
Significance
How could such a simple statement be important? It may not seem so, but understanding it can bless your entire life.
No one owes you anything.
It means that no one else is living for you, my child. Because no one is you. Each person is living for himself; his own happiness is all he can ever personally feel.
When you realize that no one owes you happiness or anything else, you’ll be freed from expecting what isn’t likely to be.
It means no one has to love you. If someone loves you, it’s because there’s something special about you that gives him happiness. Find out what that something special is and try to make it stronger in you, so that you’ll be loved even more.
When people do things for you, it’s because they want to — because you, in some way, give them something meaningful that makes them want to please you, not because anyone owes you anything.
No one has to like you. If your friends want to be with you, it’s not out of duty. Find out what makes others happy so they’ll want to be near you.
No one has to respect you. Some people may even be unkind to you. But once you realize that people don’t have to be good to you, and may not be good to you, you’ll learn to avoid those who would harm you. For you don’t owe them anything either.
Living your Life
No one owes you anything.
You owe it to yourself to be the best person possible. Because if you are, others will want to be with you, want to provide you with the things you want in exchange for what you’re giving to them.
Some people will choose not to be with you for reasons that have nothing to do with you. When that happens, look elsewhere for the relationships you want. Don’t make someone else’s problem your problem.
Once you learn that you must earn the love and respect of others, you’ll never expect the impossible and you won’t be disappointed. Others don’t have to share their property with you, nor their feelings or thoughts.
If they do, it’s because you’ve earned these things. And you have every reason to be proud of the love you receive, your friends’ respect, the property you’ve earned. But don’t ever take them for granted. If you do, you could lose them. They’re not yours by right; you must always earn them.
My Experience
A great burden was lifted from my shoulders the day I realized that no one owes me anything. For so long as I’d thought there were things I was entitled to, I’d been wearing myself out — physically and emotionally — trying to collect them.
No one owes me moral conduct, respect, friendship, love, courtesy, or intelligence. And once I recognized that, all my relationships became far more satisfying. I’ve focused on being with people who want to do the things I want them to do.
That understanding has served me well with friends, business associates, lovers, sales prospects, and strangers. It constantly reminds me that I can get what I want only if I can enter the other person’s world. I must try to understand how he thinks, what he believes to be important, what he wants. Only then can I appeal to someone in ways that will bring me what I want.
And only then can I tell whether I really want to be involved with someone. And I can save the important relationships for those with whom I have the most in common.
It’s not easy to sum up in a few words what has taken me years to learn. But maybe if you re-read this gift each Christmas, the meaning will become a little clearer every year.
I hope so, for I want more than anything else for you to understand this simple truth that can set you free: no one owes you anything.
Until I saw Harry on C-SPAN, I had no idea that there was a political party that I agreed with. Now I'm running for office and I can only dream of matching his elegance when explaining the benefits of liberty. He will certainly be missed and never forgotten. He was an inspiration for me and countless others. He always said that life should be enjoyed, not endured. That rings true for me.
Rest in peace friend. We will continue the fight and we will endeavor to enjoy our short time on earth.
Below is one of my favorite Harry Browne compositions: "A Gift for My Daughter" from 1966. I hope I can teach this lesson to my daughters.
Jim
A Gift for My Daughter
by Harry Browne
December 25, 1966
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm
(This article was originally published as a syndicated newspaper column, dedicated to my 9-year-old daughter.)
It’s Christmas and I have the usual problem of deciding what to give you. I know you might enjoy many things — books, games, clothes.
But I’m very selfish. I want to give you something that will stay with you for more than a few months or years. I want to give you a gift that might remind you of me every Christmas.
If I could give you just one thing, I’d want it to be a simple truth that took me many years to learn. If you learn it now, it may enrich your life in hundreds of ways. And it may prevent you from facing many problems that have hurt people who have never learned it.
The truth is simply this:
No one owes you anything.
Significance
How could such a simple statement be important? It may not seem so, but understanding it can bless your entire life.
No one owes you anything.
It means that no one else is living for you, my child. Because no one is you. Each person is living for himself; his own happiness is all he can ever personally feel.
When you realize that no one owes you happiness or anything else, you’ll be freed from expecting what isn’t likely to be.
It means no one has to love you. If someone loves you, it’s because there’s something special about you that gives him happiness. Find out what that something special is and try to make it stronger in you, so that you’ll be loved even more.
When people do things for you, it’s because they want to — because you, in some way, give them something meaningful that makes them want to please you, not because anyone owes you anything.
No one has to like you. If your friends want to be with you, it’s not out of duty. Find out what makes others happy so they’ll want to be near you.
No one has to respect you. Some people may even be unkind to you. But once you realize that people don’t have to be good to you, and may not be good to you, you’ll learn to avoid those who would harm you. For you don’t owe them anything either.
Living your Life
No one owes you anything.
You owe it to yourself to be the best person possible. Because if you are, others will want to be with you, want to provide you with the things you want in exchange for what you’re giving to them.
Some people will choose not to be with you for reasons that have nothing to do with you. When that happens, look elsewhere for the relationships you want. Don’t make someone else’s problem your problem.
Once you learn that you must earn the love and respect of others, you’ll never expect the impossible and you won’t be disappointed. Others don’t have to share their property with you, nor their feelings or thoughts.
If they do, it’s because you’ve earned these things. And you have every reason to be proud of the love you receive, your friends’ respect, the property you’ve earned. But don’t ever take them for granted. If you do, you could lose them. They’re not yours by right; you must always earn them.
My Experience
A great burden was lifted from my shoulders the day I realized that no one owes me anything. For so long as I’d thought there were things I was entitled to, I’d been wearing myself out — physically and emotionally — trying to collect them.
No one owes me moral conduct, respect, friendship, love, courtesy, or intelligence. And once I recognized that, all my relationships became far more satisfying. I’ve focused on being with people who want to do the things I want them to do.
That understanding has served me well with friends, business associates, lovers, sales prospects, and strangers. It constantly reminds me that I can get what I want only if I can enter the other person’s world. I must try to understand how he thinks, what he believes to be important, what he wants. Only then can I appeal to someone in ways that will bring me what I want.
And only then can I tell whether I really want to be involved with someone. And I can save the important relationships for those with whom I have the most in common.
It’s not easy to sum up in a few words what has taken me years to learn. But maybe if you re-read this gift each Christmas, the meaning will become a little clearer every year.
I hope so, for I want more than anything else for you to understand this simple truth that can set you free: no one owes you anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
