Recently MonkRuSh was pondering what gives meaning to the lives of those without immediate material needs, leading him to suggest that their lives are robbed of meaning and that such a lack of meaning plagues rich people (see http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts... ). Rather than hijack Rich's thread, which inspired this post, I will break my thoughts out here instead.

Anyhow, his query got me thinking that irrespective of one's concern about avoiding death, or fulfilling one's immediate physical needs, most individuals posses an innate human desire to not be under the control of others while a subset of individuals (i.e. the moochers and Political Correctness crowd) are driven by an insatiable need to impose their will on everyone else. This dynamic sets up an eternal conflict that would give meaning to the lives of even immortals.

Once one is secure enough in one's own long term survival, one will naturally start to work to solidify that state of affairs for oneself and one's progeny. In the case of welfare moochers, that would take the form of fighting for an ever stronger state to increase their benefits. In the case of producers, it would take the form of fighting against statist control and trying to show as many moochers as possible that they can enjoy fuller lives if they stand on their own feet.

Of course only a small subset of both groups acquire control of sufficient resources to effect societal change. For a moocher, such control is apt to be gifted by movement power players and take the form of demagoguery as outlined in "Rules for Radicals" as they try to prove their worth by forcing others to support their vision of charity.

For a producer, a much rarer and more interesting transformation is possible --- into the equivalent of one of Larry Niven's Pak Protectors (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Pro... ), which is to say that after providing for his or her immediate family he or she can conclude that societal domination by the moocher class leading to a repeat of the French or Russian Revolution in which wealthy families were brought down is the greatest long term threat to his or her bloodline. Faced with this realization and the absence of any effective leadership pushing back against the forces of proletariat revolution, he or she can decide to put personal wealth on the line and enter the political arena to become a champion of the productive elements of society despite the astronomical financial costs of mounting a credible campaign, the potential economic damage of business boycotts and broken contracts, and the endless stream of vindictive continually spewing from the mainstream media.

I think it is this very calculus that has compelled Donald Trump to seek the Presidency to become the Protector of Traditional American Values.

With so many negatives associated with taking a public stand, we can't attribute Mr. Trump's decision to run on Ego, unless being called a Racist Clown is your definition of an ego trip, nor can we attribute it to short term branding or financial motives since it is disrupting his television properties and cost his signature men's line its sales in Macy's, not to mention the countless profitable deals he won't be able to make during his presidential run.

Thus to my mind at least, the most likely explanation is that, for perhaps the first time since the days of Ronald Reagan, we are looking at the rise of a genuine Statesman, whose rational personal Self Interest is naturally Aligned with that of the Productive Citizens of our nation.