Kevin's Watch

Heights by great men reached and kept,
were not attained by simple flight,
but they, while their companions slept,
were toiling upward through the night. --???

Exactly.

CovenantJr wrote:

Skyweir wrote:Isnt wealth about a lot more than just hard work and personal intellect?? Arent there also elements of good fortune too??

No, I don't think so. It's a funny thing; the harder you work, the luckier you get.

Skyweir wrote:Are all wealthy people also not lazy?? Are all wealthy folk non-apathetic individuals?? individuals who can be bothered??

Naturally it's different with people who have been born into money, but I'm talking about those who have become wealthy, and the answer is yes. The people who have made themselves wealthy are (with a few exceptions - there are always exceptions) the ones who were willing to push harder, go without sleep, work longer hours more diligently than anyone else. They are the ones who sacrifice in the short term for long term benefit. That's an enormous challenge of will and desire, and that's why most people never do it.

I could continue on this subject, but I think that'll do for now.

oh i see .. so if my poor fortune is to be born in Somalia say .. born into abject poverty .. then if I work real hard I can be as wealthy as the next giant corporate body in no time?

No .. you will never get me agreeing with that illogic! Ofcourse wealth is about hard work .. lets say ooh i dont know lets be generous 6/9ths hard work and 3/9ths pure bloody good luck.

If I inherit my fortune .. how the jolly rogers is that gratuiitous fortune?? The top structure of the wealthy are those who have inherited that wealth from the hard work of their ancestors! Then there are the minority of wealthy who made it on their own .. Maybe Bill Gates is one of those.

The mere fact that we can name those that make it on their own .. would indicate its quite irregular. As in not the norm!

I think i am relatively wealthy .. I want for nothing .. I can feed myself and my family well .. We can have vacations and have good cars .. We maintain up-to-date technology in our home. Compared to those starving and scratching up rice grains for a living .. I am filthy rich!!

And I have worked hard .. but not maybe as hard as some. There is in our world a class of the working poor .. who work bloody hard and have little to show for it beyond a meagre surivalist existence. They may not get the tax breaks those who earn a little more get .. the may earn too much to get welfare breaks to enable their accessibility to health care when they need it.

What are these people in your stereo-typical world view??? The hard working "lazy"?? We can banter oxymorons till the cows come home .. but this is the flaw in that stereo typical assessment of stratas of society.

Sure there are welfare abusers and I agree with av that the systems we have may even lend themselves to abuses. And there is a flow on cost to the tax payer ..

But let me educate you ... with love .. The greatest cost to social revenue is the tax rauter (sp?)

What I guess a lot of folk dont get is that tax is a privelege. Contribuitng to taxes ensures a safe and well maintained infrastructure and society. It also provides insurances and assurances that makes for a more egalitarian society.

So many winge and whine about having to pay taxes .. "its my money i earned it and i dont want to part with any of it" No one earns that money in isolation .. in order to earn within an economy a consumer base is needed .. an infrastructure .. labourers etc. No one earns independantly of anyone else. To earn you need a safe and economical social system .. you require contractual exchanges .. whether formal or informal .. you require the presence of just governance. Maybe this latter one is more of an ideal than a reality in many global societies.

If you want to examine these issues a much larger perspective needs to be taken .. a global perspective. If not then a look into our own backyards indicates that this subjective judgement you speak of judging the earning and social worth of individuals is flawed.

When we speak of "the lazy" who exactly are we talking about?? Welfare abusers?? If so .. then I have no issue with this point. but if yuo speak of all those on welfare .. or all that are poor .. then I have great issue with this approach.

anyway .. i will read on and come back

oh and dont think I do not recognise that I am one of the lucky ones .. I was western born .. had access to education .. food, clothing and shelter as a matter of course.

It was not my personal hard work that enabled my birth to a western state .. nor was it my hard work that enabled my access to good education .. From then on it has been my own hard work .. 3/5ths good fortune and 2/5ths hard labour!!

Avatar wrote:Heights by great men reached and kept,
were not attained by simple flight,
but they, while their companions slept,
were toiling upward through the night. --???

lovelly and platudinous

these kinds of words gratify the ego more than represent a reality.

CovenantJr wrote: Naturally it's different with people who have been born into money, but I'm talking about those who have become wealthy, and the answer is yes. The people who have made themselves wealthy are (with a few exceptions - there are always exceptions) the ones who were willing to push harder, go without sleep, work longer hours more diligently than anyone else. They are the ones who sacrifice in the short term for long term benefit. That's an enormous challenge of will and desire, and that's why most people never do it.

I could continue on this subject, but I think that'll do for now.

you are talking about the minority factor .. and if we just limit ourselves to that .. then I have no issue with your views. Though I will offer a warning to you .. be careful of the "get rich" scheme .. cos you oh so fatefully sound like a "testimonial" for pyriamid wealth scheme

And the other tragedy is the focus we are giving to material wealth in these kinds of "get rich" schemes .. All rich is not measured in money.

You can be rich and be making just substantive living.

Skyweir wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:No, I do not believe we owe any responsibility to others. (The exception being my children. I believe having children automatically comes with the responsibility of taking care of them in many ways.)

Then individuals who are dependants of society a responsibility is owed??

Could you reword this? I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking.

Skyweir wrote:What if no one feels to lift a finger to do anything for anyone else?? Do we sit back on our laurels and watch people suffer .. watch them starve? Sorry mate to me this isnt honourable or just. I am happy to share a portion of what I earn to invest in the lives of others.

As am I. But I will decide, based on whatever conditions are important to me, who gets whatever help I am able to give. I will not let you take what I have worked for, and give it to people that have satisfied your conditions. I think charity should be freely given, I don't think it should be compulsory.

And if we don't each decide for ourselves, the result is the systems in place in the USA.
-I had a step-sister who got pregnant every time her husband got out of jail, and was on welfare the whole time.
-I've worked in a convenience store that took foodstamps. Of course, you can't buy cigarettes with foodstamps. I think it's asking a bit much for me to give money to the needy so they can smoke. So some of the people who used foodstamps would buy little food items, keep the change, and buy cigarettes when they had enough. Others knew which stores would let them buy alcohol with the foodstamps.

The examples go on and on. If I don't get to decide who gets help, I'm not interested. Turning such things into giant organizations means that lots of cheating goes on. I don't want my money going to the cheaters.

But still, even if there was a perfect system, one where nobody could possibly take advantage of the system, how we each spend the money we've earned should be our own decision.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Skyweir wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:No, I do not believe we owe any responsibility to others. (The exception being my children. I believe having children automatically comes with the responsibility of taking care of them in many ways.)

Then individuals who are dependants of society a responsibility is owed??

Fist wrote:Could you reword this? I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking.

.. ok

where an individual who is dependant on an individual or on society .. to them we owe responsibility?

I am not talking just about one's biological offspring .. adopted children .. and not just children .. individuals who are dependant on others for survival as well.

Thus the extension beyond the parent/child relationship

Fist and Faith wrote:

Skyweir wrote:What if no one feels to lift a finger to do anything for anyone else?? Do we sit back on our laurels and watch people suffer .. watch them starve? Sorry mate to me this isnt honourable or just. I am happy to share a portion of what I earn to invest in the lives of others.

As am I. But I will decide, based on whatever conditions are important to me, who gets whatever help I am able to give. I will not let you take what I have worked for, and give it to people that have satisfied your conditions. I think charity should be freely given, I don't think it should be compulsory.

are you referring to me personally???? LOL ofcourse not I woudnt presume to make yuo subject to a sky-mandate either Infact despite my assertions that I am the LAW .. I am really not actually

But if you are speaking in regards to these decisions being legislatd or as coming from governance or like systems then I disagree!!

You say you dont want any one taking your money and deciding to give it to others or purposes that you have no say in. Well wake up and smell the coffee sweety What do you call taxes?? Arent they examples of the goverment taking your hard earned money and making decisions what to do without consulting you about where that money ends up or which individuals get to benefit from your hard earned money But I have already shakn' my booty down that whole issue so I wont recover it here

Fist wrote:And if we don't each decide for ourselves, the result is the systems in place in the USA.
-I had a step-sister who got pregnant every time her husband got out of jail, and was on welfare the whole time.
-I've worked in a convenience store that took foodstamps. Of course, you can't buy cigarettes with foodstamps. I think it's asking a bit much for me to give money to the needy so they can smoke. So some of the people who used foodstamps would buy little food items, keep the change, and buy cigarettes when they had enough. Others knew which stores would let them buy alcohol with the foodstamps.

again I have convered off on my view on welfare abuses and I acknowlege that there are individuals abusing the system .. but there are also genuine articles that suffer because of these examples.

Fist wrote:e examples go on and on. If I don't get to decide who gets help, I'm not interested. Turning such things into giant organizations means that lots of cheating goes on. I don't want my money going to the cheaters.

You have opportunities for input even within your own flawed system .. and if you can come up with a better way of managing welfare abusers I am sure your local government would be interested. I think in any system there will always be cheaters .. imo the idea is not to cater to the cheaters but cater to those in real need.

Fist wrote: But still, even if there was a perfect system, one where nobody could possibly take advantage of the system, how we each spend the money we've earned should be our own decision.

Sure .. no arguement here .. but you forget one doesnt earn money in a vaccuum .. there are social responsibilities even beyond the welfare needs of a society which in relative terms welfare make up a small sector of the overall goverment revenue and budget ..

there remains roads, all levels of necesary maintenance re: infrastructure, policing, education, health, national defence, state security, telecommunications infrastructures and information technology, science etc.......

the list goes on ...

all those things that sustain a society ..

Skyweir wrote:where an individual who is dependant on an individual or on society .. to them we owe responsibility?

No, not "we." I do not owe responsibility to anyone but my children. I believe it is wrong to bring children into this life, then ignore them. I believed this before having any, and agreed to these terms beforehand. (Agreed in my mind and heart, that is. I didn't sign a contract or anything.)

Skyweir wrote:I am not talking just about one's biological offspring .. adopted children .. and not just children .. individuals who are dependant on others for survival as well.

Thus the extension beyond the parent/child relationship

Personally, I am willing to do a lot for children. If a child is orphaned or abandoned, I am willing to help. Aside from the fact that children are among those truly in need, which means I'm willing to help them, I think it is impractical to let children grow up without love, and surviving by whatever means necessary. Sounds like a good way to raise criminals.

However, I do not think that helping children should be forced on anyone. I think there are enough people willing to help.

And there are others who are truly in need. I work with the developmentally disabled (almost always mental retardation), and only a tiny percentage of them would survive a few days without constant supervision. Even if I didn't do this for a living, I could not live with myself if they died while I watched and did nothing. But, again, it's a personal choice. I do not approve of taking people's money against their will for this, either.

Skyweir wrote:are you referring to me personally???? LOL ofcourse not I woudnt presume to make yuo subject to a sky-mandate either

Yes, you would. You do not think that we should all be allowed to decide for ourselves whether or not to help others, but that we should be required to - that it is our responsibility. Responsibility means no choice.

Skyweir wrote:You say you dont want any one taking your money and deciding to give it to others or purposes that you have no say in. Well wake up and smell the coffee sweety What do you call taxes?? Arent they examples of the goverment taking your hard earned money and making decisions what to do without consulting you about where that money ends up or which individuals get to benefit from your hard earned money But I have already shakn' my booty down that whole issue so I wont recover it here

Thanks for the news flash, hon. (Maybe we could skip the terms of endearment in the future.) Yes, of course this is what taxes are. I've said a couple times that, if you want to decide what to do with my money, rather than let me decide what to do with it, you'll have to bring a gun. Well, the government has LOTS of guns, and are entirely willing to use them. I know what will happen if I refuse to go along with their thievery. They're the biggest protection racket going. But I'm still doing well enough that the cost of rebellion is greater than the cost of being robbed.

Skyweir wrote:You have opportunities for input even within your own flawed system .. and if you can come up with a better way of managing welfare abusers I am sure your local government would be interested.

Good one!

Skyweir wrote:I think in any system there will always be cheaters ..

Correct. So let's not have one!

Skyweir wrote:imo the idea is not to cater to the cheaters but cater to those in real need.

Exactly!! But this is impossible within systems. There is no way to keep the cheaters our. So stop trying that, and let us all help as we will.

Skyweir wrote:

Fist wrote:But still, even if there was a perfect system, one where nobody could possibly take advantage of the system, how we each spend the money we've earned should be our own decision.

Sure .. no arguement here ..

You've done nothing but argue that exact stance for many posts now. You believe I should be required to give some of what I earn away; that I should not have the choice to spend it as I choose.

Skyweir wrote:but you forget one doesnt earn money in a vaccuum ..

I do not forget. But you forget that earning money can occur without legislation.

Skyweir wrote:there are social responsibilities even beyond the welfare needs of a society which in relative terms welfare make up a small sector of the overall goverment revenue and budget ..

there remains roads, all levels of necesary maintenance re: infrastructure, policing, education, health, national defence, state security, telecommunications infrastructures and information technology, science etc.......

the list goes on ...

all those things that sustain a society ..

Well, I'm not sure those who homeschool should have to pay school taxes. And maybe roads can be paid for by those who actually use them, with tolls. And can science exist and advance without federal funding? You are only speaking of a particular kind of society. Yes, that kind must be sustained in the ways you say.

Fist and Faith wrote:Well, the government has LOTS of guns, and are entirely willing to use them. I know what will happen if I refuse to go along with their thievery. They're the biggest protection racket going.

A very accurate observation. IMO, when governments change, it's the people who are the most effective at getting rid of the old one who decide what the new one is going to be.

For everyone else, it's just new holidays, new money, and new faces in parliment. Goverments become this way by their very nature. They have to assume the position that the last government occupied. All promises, all expectations, are lost in the scramble of creating an effective power-base.

Excellent points Fist. Why have a system in the first place? It's not only abused by the people, it's often abused by the governments as well. There are enough people who do care, for whatever reasons, that charity would still be given, even if it is not legislated. In fact, it may be more effective without that sort of interference.

But is it "Evil"? Unjust, unfair and wrong are not necessarily the same as "Evil".

Later
--Avatar

Are you guys [Fist, Av] talking about chucking all government activity, or just the ones that seem to be spending your hard-earned money in ways you don't approve?

Fist, you said you work with the handicapped. Would you be working at a facility that is either partially or wholly funded by State/Federal money, or do you happen to be working for one of those rare places completely funded by private money?

That by itself of course doesn't justify government, but I personally find it very hard to imagine an orderly modern society that functions without government. I don't find governments to be efficient, not even close, and especially the very large ones. Corruption will occur to some degree wherever you have systems in place that rely on continuous personal honesty. These systems should be audited heavily and better tracking done on where attention/money is going, but I think the concept of a publicly funded assistance program is a good one that could be improved by becoming more efficient.

But to chuck it all away just because there are some cheaters on both sides of the office? I think that would do a terrible disservice to those honest but on-hard-times folks who rely on such systems for a one-time hand up, and the assumed lack of structure in having no system would be chaotic, kind of like anarchy .

Maybe I'm misreading the intent, or focusing on the wrong thing here , but despite the many swiss-cheese problems in modern government systems, with our modern government I have at least some level of confidence in my own personal safety, that of my family, and the hope that my place of business will be here tomorrow... and that we all are at least somewhat protected from those unlike us are not rational, thinking, self-supporting, responsible, caring, just citizens.

Just like the cheaters in a modern-governed society take advantage of the public programs in place (whether they be government officials or program-abusers), there would be those who could/would take advantage of privately-offered assistance. Privatize welfare if you want, but that won't make the cheaters go away. It just gives them a different system to abuse/beat.

Stop me if you think I'm getting either too theoretical or too practical; I hate it when I do that

DukkhaWaynhim

No, no, DW! You're doing fine!

Man, you step away for a couple of days, and look what happens. When I left, we were talking about Good and Evil; now we're talking about those other constants of human existence, Death and Taxes.

Re: taxes for education: I used to have this same argument with a coworker who'd never had kids. He didn't see why he should have to pay to educate somebody else's kids. I pointed out that he'd *better* pay to educate the little cruds so that they could grow up and get good jobs in order to fund his Social Security in retirement!

Re: personal responsibility for the kids one brings into the world: Fist, your view on this is admirable. I wish you would have a conversation with my ex-husband, who was in the habit of giving me rubber checks for child support before I had his wages garnished. This is the same guy, BTW, who is filing bankruptcy with his new wife in order to have their debts forgiven so that they can go out and buy more stuff. This is also the same guy (getting back to suicide for a minute) who, a few months after we split up, dropped a "goodbye" card in the mail to me before he tried to kill himself. Because we were still married, guess who got called to the hospital to talk him into committing himself for mental health treatment?

I would argue, BTW, with whoever said that it's reasonable to prevent someone from killing themselves if they'll leave their children in physical want, but not reasonable to prevent it if they'll leave their children in emotional want. Pain is pain. Society pays for it, either way.

But anyway.

I think one of the basic definitions of "society" is that it's a group of people who have agreed to live together for the betterment of the whole. In a primitive sense, society forms when some folks find themselves under a physical threat from other folks, and get together to fight off the "bad guys". Once defense is taken care of and the society begins to live in peace, more definitions of "better for everybody" get tacked onto the social compact, until you get to the point where we are now in our "First World" societies: so many of the decisions on what's "best for everybody" were made so long ago that some of us wonder why we're stuck paying taxes/supporting the local schools/insert your favorite social-compact target here. It's not such a bad thing to question these "best for everybody" priorities once in awhile. So I salute the anarchists among us!

BTW, I am entertained when folks cheer on the rich for finding tax loopholes, but mutter darkly about people who cash in their food stamps and keep the change for cigarettes. Both the rich loophole hunters and the poor smokers are exploiting the system, aren't they? So why is one admirable and the other scum? (Those are rhetorical questions, BTW. )

But getting back to Good & Evil: I agree with Fist (I *think* it was Fist -- it was awhile ago!) who said that if there's no Evil, then there's no Good. And I agree that there is neither Evil nor Good. The Universe just Is; it exists, and that's all; it's true, in and of itself; and we impose our definitions of good and evil (and beauty and ugliness and...) on it, sometimes in concert with society and sometimes on our own. It just kind of drew me up short when I thought about, for instance, the way a parent will encourage their kid with "That's good, Susie," and how the parent determines "good" if they don't use "evil" as a benchmark. But the answer is that you don't *have* to define good in terms of "opposite of evil".

And since the length of this post is approaching Evil, I'll stop now.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Are you guys [Fist, Av] talking about chucking all government activity, or just the ones that seem to be spending your hard-earned money in ways you don't approve?

I'm talking about having a government that has a much smaller role. As I've said, we are a social animal, and have, for the most part, always been driven to live among other people. Plus, the size of the world's population makes it increasingly difficult for too many people to live as hermits. So if people are going to live in close proximity to each other, some rights will be lost. It's unavoidable. (For example, a hermit can run into an apple tree in the woods, and take what he wants from it. The Earth provides, eh? But if I plant an apple tree in my back year, water it, weed around it, etc, only to have my neighbor come take the apples, I'm gonna be a little upset. So who has the greater right, my neighbor to take what he finds, or my to the *ahem* fruits of my labor?) Whatever government exists should be making sure the loss of rights is kept to a minimum. Nothing should be taken from anyone if at all avoidable, least of all our right to choose.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Fist, you said you work with the handicapped. Would you be working at a facility that is either partially or wholly funded by State/Federal money, or do you happen to be working for one of those rare places completely funded by private money?

Heh. I'm a NY state employee.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Maybe I'm misreading the intent, or focusing on the wrong thing here , but despite the many swiss-cheese problems in modern government systems, with our modern government I have at least some level of confidence in my own personal safety, that of my family, and the hope that my place of business will be here tomorrow... and that we all are at least somewhat protected from those unlike us are not rational, thinking, self-supporting, responsible, caring, just citizens.

If a government is not helping us attain these things, I don't think it should exist. What good is it? The trick is to help us attain them with minimal loss of the individual's rights. As I said, some loss of rights will occur. But I don't want to lose my right to walk down the street without being searched, on the outside chance I have a gun, so that everyone's personal safety is assured. Yet I think everyone has the right to be safe from s.o.b.'s with guns. Should guns be banned entirely? Or just the ones that are specifically designed to make them easier to conceal? No answer will make us perfectly safe AND allow us to retain every possible right. It just seems to me that the US government is always moving away from the individual's rights.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Just like the cheaters in a modern-governed society take advantage of the public programs in place (whether they be government officials or program-abusers), there would be those who could/would take advantage of privately-offered assistance. Privatize welfare if you want, but that won't make the cheaters go away. It just gives them a different system to abuse/beat.

Absolutely true. Which is why I am against any system. If I see someone in need, I can help without needing an organization behind things.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Stop me if you think I'm getting either too theoretical or too practical; I hate it when I do that

Yes, we all hate that about you. In fact, SRD said that about you!!!

aliantha wrote:Man, you step away for a couple of days, and look what happens. When I left, we were talking about Good and Evil; now we're talking about those other constants of human existence, Death and Taxes.

LOL

aliantha wrote:Re: taxes for education: I used to have this same argument with a coworker who'd never had kids. He didn't see why he should have to pay to educate somebody else's kids. I pointed out that he'd *better* pay to educate the little cruds so that they could grow up and get good jobs in order to fund his Social Security in retirement!

Hmm, maybe I'd better rethink this one. But seriously, you're talking about someone with no kids. Children are my weakness, and I'd love it if everyone helped them whenever possible. Maybe it shouldn't be required, but how can you NOT want to help these innocent little things, who want nothing more than to be loved, and who can absorb just about any information they are given access to?

However, I said those who homeschool. If someone is willing to put the time and effort into educating their children in what could easily be a better manner than the US's public ed system, it's kind of hard for me to justify making them pay for the children whose parents are NOT willing to do so. I'd say they're doing enough to help educate children. Not only being concerned enough to do it that way, but being an example to others. If nothing else, it could encourage others with kids in the public ed system to at least help their kids with homework.

aliantha wrote:Re: personal responsibility for the kids one brings into the world: Fist, your view on this is admirable. I wish you would have a conversation with my ex-husband, who was in the habit of giving me rubber checks for child support before I had his wages garnished. This is the same guy, BTW, who is filing bankruptcy with his new wife in order to have their debts forgiven so that they can go out and buy more stuff. This is also the same guy (getting back to suicide for a minute) who, a few months after we split up, dropped a "goodbye" card in the mail to me before he tried to kill himself. Because we were still married, guess who got called to the hospital to talk him into committing himself for mental health treatment?

When my ex-step-father was in a building, surrounded by the police, having just beaten and raped the woman he had been dating while still married to my mother, guess who he called on his cell phone, saying, "You have to help me! Please! I'm in big trouble!!" Yep, my mother.

I'm sorry you've had to go through what you've gone through. There are many, many, many, many times it's extremely difficult to find pride in being male.

As for his attitude toward his kids, I'm always at a complete loss to understand. Sky once helped me believe that we do, indeed, have free will, but my feelings for my children are not an example. I don't feel any more freedom to change the way I feel for them than I do to change myself into a polar bear. I didn't even want kids, but when they came - BOOM!!!! All my feelings hit me like the proverbial safe falling on me. Yes, I accepted responsibility for them even before the first was born, and I don't think much of those who do not do the same. But, as they say, it takes all kinds. But how your ex cannot love them with every cell in his body, not want the best for them, not help them financially... It's beyond me. If loving my children is not a choice for me, maybe not loving theirs is not a choice for others. Maybe there's a part of his brain's wiring, or chemical makeup, or something, that's missing. I just don't know.

aliantha wrote:I would argue, BTW, with whoever said that it's reasonable to prevent someone from killing themselves if they'll leave their children in physical want, but not reasonable to prevent it if they'll leave their children in emotional want. Pain is pain. Society pays for it, either way.

In fact, I think emotional pain is worse. One child could be raised by a parent who never physically abuses him, but always yells, belittles, embarrasses. And another child could be raised by a parent who loves, or has a compulsion, to physically harm their child, but always makes it seem like an accident, so the child never thinks the parent tried to harm him. Which child will grow up to be happier and more stable?

aliantha wrote:I think one of the basic definitions of "society" is that it's a group of people who have agreed to live together for the betterment of the whole. In a primitive sense, society forms when some folks find themselves under a physical threat from other folks, and get together to fight off the "bad guys". Once defense is taken care of and the society begins to live in peace, more definitions of "better for everybody" get tacked onto the social compact, until you get to the point where we are now in our "First World" societies: so many of the decisions on what's "best for everybody" were made so long ago that some of us wonder why we're stuck paying taxes/supporting the local schools/insert your favorite social-compact target here. It's not such a bad thing to question these "best for everybody" priorities once in awhile. So I salute the anarchists among us!

I also think that some of the decisions in question were made when the society was much smaller, or before technology became what it is. When the writers of the US Constitution said we have the right to bear arms, did they mean uzi's? Did they ever conceive such a thing? Things work different now, and so some of the rules need to be changed.

Other decisions made for our benefit are just... How to say it? Why are many non-harmful, consentual sex acts against the law when performed in the privacy of my bedroom???

aliantha wrote:BTW, I am entertained when folks cheer on the rich for finding tax loopholes, but mutter darkly about people who cash in their food stamps and keep the change for cigarettes. Both the rich loophole hunters and the poor smokers are exploiting the system, aren't they? So why is one admirable and the other scum? (Those are rhetorical questions, BTW. )

Yeah, right! Rhetorical questions on a message board??? IMO, a case could be made that, since the government is often stealing when they force us to pay taxes, those who get around it are just avoiding being robbed. More power to them! But the food stamp abusers are taking whatever taxes are being paid, some of which are mine, and smoking!! Maybe if smoking was not among the stupidest things humans do, I'd be ok with it. Dessert is not a necessity of life, but I think occasional treats are a part of emotional well-being, and don't begrudge food stamps being used to buy ice cream. Particularly not chocolate ice cream!!

However, if taxes were used well, rather than the extraordinary waste and thievery that is currently happening, I would think everyone should just pay the same percentage. (Maybe those who don't make above a certain amount can pay less or none.) Then, I'd be upset with the rich who find loopholes.

aliantha wrote:But getting back to Good & Evil: I agree with Fist (I *think* it was Fist -- it was awhile ago!) who said that if there's no Evil, then there's no Good. And I agree that there is neither Evil nor Good. The Universe just Is; it exists, and that's all; it's true, in and of itself; and we impose our definitions of good and evil (and beauty and ugliness and...) on it, sometimes in concert with society and sometimes on our own. It just kind of drew me up short when I thought about, for instance, the way a parent will encourage their kid with "That's good, Susie," and how the parent determines "good" if they don't use "evil" as a benchmark. But the answer is that you don't *have* to define good in terms of "opposite of evil".

I tell my kids that they're good as long as they're not trying to hurt others. That's my definition. Be a pain in the ass, cut the bed sheets because you're trying to make some weird outfit, make a mess while you try to do something you know you're not supposed to do, whatever... You're still a good kid, and I love you. In fact, I probably love you because of the imagination that makes you do these things! But when you intentionally hurt your baby sister, you're being bad.

aliantha wrote:And since the length of this post is approaching Evil, I'll stop now.

FINALLY!!! I just hate lengthy posts!!!!!





Obviously.

Whoa, some great posts here folks. Keeping it all straight is becoming difficult.

Fist and Faith wrote:

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Are you guys [Fist, Av] talking about chucking all government activity, or just the ones that seem to be spending your hard-earned money in ways you don't approve?

I'm talking about having a government that has a much smaller role.

Much as I would like to do away with government, I'm all too aware of the fact that on the whole, people would be unable to continue functioning as a society without it. So I'll have to go with Fist here and say that we should try to reduce the role that they play.

Fist and Faith wrote:If a government is not helping us attain these things, I don't think it should exist. What good is it? The trick is to help us attain them with minimal loss of the individual's rights.

I agree. The government is intended to serve our interests as individuals and citizens. However, it seems their primary motivation is to serve the interests of government, rather than the people who choose the government.

Fist and Faith wrote:

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Privatize welfare if you want, but that won't make the cheaters go away. It just gives them a different system to abuse/beat.

Absolutely true. Which is why I am against any system. If I see someone in need, I can help without needing an organization behind things.

I agree to a certain extent. The mere existence of any kind of system induces people to try and circumvent it. This is not to say that there wouldn't be equally great problems with no system in place, but they would be different ones, which may encourage us to attempt different solutions. As it is, it seems that we simply accept that the system is imperfect, without much attempt to rectify it.

Fist and Faith wrote:

aliantha wrote:I would argue, BTW, with whoever said that it's reasonable to prevent someone from killing themselves if they'll leave their children in physical want, but not reasonable to prevent it if they'll leave their children in emotional want. Pain is pain. Society pays for it, either way.

In fact, I think emotional pain is worse. One child could be raised by a parent who never physically abuses him, but always yells, belittles, embarrasses. And another child could be raised by a parent who loves, or has a compulsion, to physically harm their child, but always makes it seem like an accident, so the child never thinks the parent tried to harm him. Which child will grow up to be happier and more stable?

I recognise aliantha's point, but the original comment stems from the fact that while we can, and do, do anything we can to protect children from physical harm, it is impossible to try and constantly shield them from emotional pain. Emotional pain is a given in any life. If you live, you will at some point be hurt. We cannot enforce anything on the basis that someones feelings may be hurt. Yes, hurt feelings (perhaps emotional damage is more accurate) may at some point contribute to some sort of instability, but if that "weakness" is inherent, then it may well be triggered by any of the emotional upsets that are certain to occur through the course of one's life.

aliantha wrote:
I think one of the basic definitions of "society" is that it's a group of people who have agreed to live together for the betterment of the whole. In a primitive sense, society forms when some folks find themselves under a physical threat from other folks, and get together to fight off the "bad guys". Once defense is taken care of and the society begins to live in peace, more definitions of "better for everybody" get tacked onto the social compact, until you get to the point where we are now in our "First World" societies: so many of the decisions on what's "best for everybody" were made so long ago that some of us wonder why we're stuck paying taxes/supporting the local schools/insert your favorite social-compact target here. It's not such a bad thing to question these "best for everybody" priorities once in awhile. So I salute the anarchists among us!

Thank You
Not only is it "not a bad thing" to question the "best for everybody" desicions, but its essential. It is only through the constant questioning and re-evaluation of all aspects of societies great and ponderous machine that we can ensure that it doesn't start crushing the individuals that it is supposed to contain. I always distrust certainty. It leaves no room for improvement. Doubt is essential to our continued well-being and safety.

Take it easy folks
--Avatar

Avatar wrote: Emotional pain is a given in any life. If you live, you will at some point be hurt.

Physical pain is also a given in any life. I vividly remember the day my oldest daughter found out it was a Bad Idea to throw a hissy fit when she didn't get her way. She was 2 or 3 at the time, and we were in a toy store. She threw herself on her back in preparation for a screaming, stamping tantrum, and whacked her head (not too hard) on the concrete floor. Nipped that tantrum in the bud -- and I don't think she ever threw another one!

Anyway, I agree, pain is a given. The question is one of degree. My daughter's whack on the back of the head (kind of Zen, in a way! ) was educational pain, if you will. So are everyday frustrations, embarrassments, etc. These are all healthy types of pain because they help us grow. But starvation, physical abuse, etc., do *not* help us grow, or at least they don't help us grow in healthy ways (you may learn to cope with starving by stealing from your neighbor's apple tree -- and btw, I'm tempted to read "'Tis" by Frank McCourt just to see whether he ever did send loaves of bread to the rich people of Limerick from whom he stole when he was a kid, as he promised himself), and I would put some types of emotional pain -- including emotional abuse, verbal abuse, and living through a parent's suicide -- in that same category. And, yeah, I *do* believe we should stop people from doing those things -- and not just to kids, but to everyone around them.

For a long time in America, mental illness has been something to be ashamed about. Thank goodness that's changing, and we're beginning to recognize the harm that it causes -- not only to the sufferer, but to the family and friends who have to cope with the mentally ill person -- and to begin to do something about it.

Avatar wrote:
It is only through the constant questioning and re-evaluation of all aspects of societies great and ponderous machine that we can ensure that it doesn't start crushing the individuals that it is supposed to contain. I always distrust certainty. It leaves no room for improvement. Doubt is essential to our continued well-being and safety.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Fist and Faith wrote: However, I said those who homeschool. If someone is willing to put the time and effort into educating their children in what could easily be a better manner than the US's public ed system, it's kind of hard for me to justify making them pay for the children whose parents are NOT willing to do so. I'd say they're doing enough to help educate children. Not only being concerned enough to do it that way, but being an example to others. If nothing else, it could encourage others with kids in the public ed system to at least help their kids with homework.

Sorry, I missed that you were referring to homeschooling. But the argument is the same, whether it's homeschooling or private schooling or "I don't have kids": If I'm not using the state's services, why do I have to pay for 'em? And here's another question along the same lines: Is it okay for kids in Southside Virginia, where the economy sucks, to get a worse education than the kids in Fairfax County, where the median family income is among the highest in the nation? Or should the state send extra education money from Fairfax to Southside to even up the disparity? The answer to both is that ol' social-compact thing. We decided long ago that it's better for everybody if all kids have an equal education available to them, regardless of whether they take advantage of it. What would be the better course for society in the long run -- improving the system, or letting folks go their own way? IMO, it's better to improve the system. YMMV. That's what makes America great. <ali climbs down from her soapbox and readies herself for the next quote.>

Fist and Faith wrote:When my ex-step-father was in a building, surrounded by the police, having just beaten and raped the woman he had been dating while still married to my mother, guess who he called on his cell phone, saying, "You have to help me! Please! I'm in big trouble!!" Yep, my mother.

Oh, jeez, I'm sorry.

My ex does love his kids; he just has an odd way of showing it sometimes. Rubber child support checks are mild compared to some of the stupid stuff he's done over the past couple of years. But a full description would *really* make this too long a post.

Fist and Faith wrote:In fact, I think emotional pain is worse. One child could be raised by a parent who never physically abuses him, but always yells, belittles, embarrasses. And another child could be raised by a parent who loves, or has a compulsion, to physically harm their child, but always makes it seem like an accident, so the child never thinks the parent tried to harm him. Which child will grow up to be happier and more stable?

Exactly.

Fist and Faith wrote:Other decisions made for our benefit are just... How to say it? Why are many non-harmful, consensual sex acts against the law when performed in the privacy of my bedroom???

I'm with you on that one, too.

Fist and Faith wrote:

aliantha wrote:BTW, I am entertained when folks cheer on the rich for finding tax loopholes, but mutter darkly about people who cash in their food stamps and keep the change for cigarettes. Both the rich loophole hunters and the poor smokers are exploiting the system, aren't they? So why is one admirable and the other scum? (Those are rhetorical questions, BTW. )

Yeah, right! Rhetorical questions on a message board??? IMO, a case could be made that, since the government is often stealing when they force us to pay taxes, those who get around it are just avoiding being robbed. More power to them! But the food stamp abusers are taking whatever taxes are being paid, some of which are mine, and smoking!! Maybe if smoking was not among the stupidest things humans do, I'd be ok with it. Dessert is not a necessity of life, but I think occasional treats are a part of emotional well-being, and don't begrudge food stamps being used to buy ice cream. Particularly not chocolate ice cream!!

Yeah! Chocolate ice cream should be an inalienable right! We need to amend the Bill of Rights! Who's with me?

Well, I see your point, and I agree that smoking is stupid. But I guess I don't see taxes as legalized robbery. It's more like the price that we pay to get what we've got. I wouldn't personally authorize some of the spending decisions that have been made lately, like Dubya's penchant for going to war to avenge his daddy's honor, but that's why we get to vote his a** out in November. So when I hear of people looking for ways around paying what I consider to be their fair share, well, rich or poor, it just seems to me like they're scamming the system. Which is the same, in spirit, as saving the change from food stamps to buy, uh, ice cream. Morally, if the tax loopholer is a hero, then the food stamp guy should be one, too; and if the food stamp guy is wrong, then the tax loopholer is, too.

And you'd get no argument from me if we went to a flat-tax, no-loophole system.

How'd I get back up on this soapbox again? <climbs down carefully and backs away slowly>

The thing that amazes me about the tax system is that the more money we make, the less taxes we pay, and the bigger and bigger our refund gets every year.

And we're not going out of our way looking for loopholes. It seems to be the way the system is set up. Back when we first got married and were a few dollars away from living on the street, taxes were a huge burden. And we always had to pay more in April, even after paying through our checks all year long. Now that we are financially comfortable, my first question to our bookkeeper is "How many thousands will be getting back this year?" That's the money that pays for things like attending Elohimfest, and my son's upcoming school trip to France.

Fist, I am truly sorry about your ex-step-father. You have told me other things about this man, and he seems to be a very not-nice person. It is a testament to your inner strength that you survived him, and went on to be come a compassionate and loving person. The contrast between the two of you could well be fuller explored in the good/evil context of this thread...

One thing about the people who do not think they should pay education taxes because they have no children, homeschool, etc. -- some of them might have very well had their own educations paid for by the public, or in the case of seniors who think they should no longer pay because their children are grown (a complaint I hear a lot) -- those children or perhaps grandchildren might well have had or are having their educations paid for by the public.

About sexual practices in private -- hey, as long as it is between consensual adults -- the government has no business in it as far as I am concerned. None at all. In fact, I think that people trying to regulate and criminalize nonharmful consensual private sexual acts between adults could be considered both intrusive and evil, IMHO. If no one is hurt, and no one involved in the acts is complaining -- its no one's business but theirs.

wonderful post aliantha and loved yours too duchy!!

I agree with the sexual acts arguement .. if its private and non-harmful and consensual where is the issue with the legislature??

LOL .. no really where isthe problem?? LOL

what sexual acts are in danger of being criminalised that are non-harmful, consensual and belong in the private domain?

As for the taxes arguement I do not see taxes as robbery .. I do however see taxes as the privelege of living within a social compact such as it is.

and wow!!! How this thread has shot off in all directions .. brilliant posts everyone .. dukka av and fist!