Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 17:54:59 GMT -5
"Yes", and "sometimes", respectively. You'll have to give me more than that. of course. in the "sometimes" cases- is it DESIGNED to do that, or does it just sorta happen on accident? It's not an accident. It's a known side effect; a liability that accompanies a benefit. In certain cases charity is designed to engender dependence, such as drug lords making life comfortable for local citizens in order to curb their willingness to cooperate with authority, but for sake of argument I'll say "No, charity is not typically designed with the goal of creating dependence. Dependence is an unwanted but inseparable side effect." And... ?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 24, 2013 17:55:01 GMT -5
Millennia ago, the "social contract" was "tribal". "We" banded together to prevent "Them" from wiping "Us" off the face of the earth... and stealing "our" stuff. And the nature of that threat was so immediate that there wasn't the opportunity to spend much time in mental masturbation.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 24, 2013 17:55:41 GMT -5
ROFL! Just like those "useless eaters", leeches have hidden talents. Unless one gives credit to the leech for having said ability and uses the leech's abilities in the proper manner, it's easy to look at the lowly leech as a parasite. The leech is probably the best promoter of arterial circulation in reconstructive surgeries we've got. Amazing little creature.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 17:59:49 GMT -5
In certain cases charity is designed to engender dependence, such as drug lords making life comfortable for local citizens in order to curb their willingness to cooperate with authority, but for sake of argument I'll say "No, charity is not typically designed with the goal of creating dependence. Dependence is an unwanted but inseparable side effect." ok. if so, what IS the purpose of charity, if NOT to create dependence?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 18:00:58 GMT -5
ROFL! Just like those "useless eaters", leeches have hidden talents. Unless one gives credit to the leech for having said ability and uses the leech's abilities in the proper manner, it's easy to look at the lowly leech as a parasite. The leech is probably the best promoter of arterial circulation in reconstructive surgeries we've got. Amazing little creature. they also have a fantastic anti-coagulant in their saliva, apparently.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 18:03:59 GMT -5
ROFL! Just like those "useless eaters", leeches have hidden talents. Unless one gives credit to the leech for having said ability and uses the leech's abilities in the proper manner, it's easy to look at the lowly leech as a parasite. The leech is probably the best promoter of arterial circulation in reconstructive surgeries we've got. Amazing little creature. They help with varicose veins and arthritis too. They're still not too far above uncian at the rock bottom of the list of things you'd want to come back as.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 24, 2013 18:11:45 GMT -5
ROFL! Just like those "useless eaters", leeches have hidden talents. Unless one gives credit to the leech for having said ability and uses the leech's abilities in the proper manner, it's easy to look at the lowly leech as a parasite. The leech is probably the best promoter of arterial circulation in reconstructive surgeries we've got. Amazing little creature. they also have a fantastic anti-coagulant in their saliva, apparently. They've got any number of very useful components in their saliva. It's a virtual medical cocktail if used correctly!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 24, 2013 18:14:02 GMT -5
ROFL! Just like those "useless eaters", leeches have hidden talents. Unless one gives credit to the leech for having said ability and uses the leech's abilities in the proper manner, it's easy to look at the lowly leech as a parasite. The leech is probably the best promoter of arterial circulation in reconstructive surgeries we've got. Amazing little creature. They help with varicose veins and arthritis too. They're still not too far above uncian at the rock bottom of the list of things you'd want to come back as. I don't look forward to "coming back" as anything, personally. However, if such were to be the case, being a real leech would be one heck of a lot better than being a human parasite. You and I (and paul) differ, though, on what a human parasite might look like. At least, leeches do good for those who need them. Being leeches, they even do it without whining incessantly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 18:16:39 GMT -5
They help with varicose veins and arthritis too. They're still not too far above uncian at the rock bottom of the list of things you'd want to come back as. I don't look forward to "coming back" as anything, personally. However, if such were to be the case, being a real leech would be one heck of a lot better than being a human parasite. You and I (and paul) differ, though, on what a human parasite might look like. At least, leeches do good for those who need them. Being leeches, they even do it without whining incessantly. if having other people provide services for you is lacking "independence" then every businessman who has employees is a human parasite. to see this ONLY as a problem with public institutions is to completely ignore objective truths that are flowing like air around us.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 24, 2013 18:17:38 GMT -5
Interesting, isn't it, dj, the matters upon which the lowly leech can shed light?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 18:24:29 GMT -5
In certain cases charity is designed to engender dependence, such as drug lords making life comfortable for local citizens in order to curb their willingness to cooperate with authority, but for sake of argument I'll say "No, charity is not typically designed with the goal of creating dependence. Dependence is an unwanted but inseparable side effect." ok. if so, what IS the purpose of charity, if NOT to create dependence? Charity has a broad range of purposes. The most universal component is to alleviate suffering. Some charitable actions promote dignity. Some promote happiness. Some inspire people. Some edify and establish people. Many--including many government programs--are designed to supplement and sustain a minimum standard of living. Some are social investments. Some expect no returns. Some are purely preventative (for example, free anti-gang education in middle schools). Some seek criminal or social justice. These are the typical purposes of charity. I add the immediate disclaimer that a charitable action may or may not accomplish its purpose, and (as already discussed) may or may not produce other (possibly undesirable) effects in its implementation. Keep going.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 24, 2013 18:27:00 GMT -5
... They're still not too far above uncian at the rock bottom of the list of things you'd want to come back as. If karma necessitates that need, who am I to question.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 24, 2013 18:32:09 GMT -5
There's another purpose for charity that's too often seen. Charity is used, in some cases, to shine the light of beneficence on an individual. "Am I not wonderful? Look at what I've given so selflessly!" Yeah. Right. Frankly, I'd rather give anonymously through the government. I'd like to see our social welfare programs better managed, and more productive, to be sure. However, I'm not particularly anxious to line the pockets of some overfed, over-indulged, two-legged leech sitting atop what he/she calls a "charity". I've seen more than enough of that, thank you!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 18:32:42 GMT -5
...to humans, if and only if applied properly, and after which they're promptly tossed into a jar of alcohol to shrivel up and die. Anywhere besides a medical clinic, they're painful, unhealthy, and most unwelcome. Hence if we're holding them up as an exemplar, the human equivalent would be people that are ordinarily considered loathsome, but can be temporarily used and then discarded for the purposes of making a person of a higher caste feel better.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 24, 2013 18:37:14 GMT -5
...to humans, if and only if applied properly, and after which they're promptly tossed into a jar of alcohol to shrivel up and die. Anywhere besides a medical clinic, they're painful, unhealthy, and most unwelcome. Hence if we're holding them up as an exemplar, the human equivalent would be people that are ordinarily considered loathsome, but can be temporarily used and then discarded for the purposes of making a person of a higher caste feel better. If you wish to see it that way, it certainly allows you to denigrate. To some, that capability is quite important. I see it differently. I see it such that the most lowly may have something of import to offer, given the chance. If, instead, one chooses to consign that individual to the position of "useless eater", one has oneself to live with. I won't choose that path. I think it might be more crowded than I would have hoped.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 18:41:03 GMT -5
I'm not the one who came up with the expression. Lord Bertrand Russell was. And if you want to worry about something, let it be that the 310 families that collectively own 95% of the world's wealth positively idolize the man (along with Malthus and other like-minded Royal Society types) in their writings.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 24, 2013 18:49:26 GMT -5
I don't believe I gave you credit for the expression, Virgil. I'm well aware from whence the expression came. I'll worry about what I choose to worry about. You worry about what you choose to worry about. The families of which you speak are only those who have been most successful at what too many consider the right thing to do.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 24, 2013 19:20:15 GMT -5
Because you don't define 100% self-reliance as 100% reliance on the self? ok, guessing is not your forte.Or are you sticking on the difference between "100% for self-reliance" and "for 100% self-reliance". What would it mean if you were "85% for self-reliance"? Would this not mean you found self-reliance was best for 85% of one's needs, and not best for 15% of one's needs? nope. let me ask you two questions that will help sort it out: 1) do you believe in charity of any sort? 2) if so, do you think it fosters dependence? 1) Yes. 2) It can. But let me now dismiss the question as a diversion- government is not charity. If it were, we could choose to "give" to the causes we support, and withhold our gifts from the causes we don't. Compulsion isn't compassion. Putting a gun to my head and threating to put me into prison, take even more of my money, or outright kill me if I resist and taking my property, putting me to forced labor to support another person is the textbook definition of slavery.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 24, 2013 19:22:17 GMT -5
Millennia ago, the "social contract" was "tribal". "We" banded together to prevent "Them" from wiping "Us" off the face of the earth... and stealing "our" stuff. That's all well and good- if we're free to leave without the tribe shooting us in the back. And by leave, I don't mean to physically re-locate, but to say I am now no longer participating in tribal activities. I'm actually looking into the status of the Amish, and others who have managed to "opt out".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:16:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 19:25:38 GMT -5
When all is said and done, a cabbage is not a stapler. EVER.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 20:46:33 GMT -5
ok. if so, what IS the purpose of charity, if NOT to create dependence? Charity has a broad range of purposes. The most universal component is to alleviate suffering. Some charitable actions promote dignity. Some promote happiness. Some inspire people. Some edify and establish people. Many--including many government programs--are designed to supplement and sustain a minimum standard of living. Some are social investments. Some expect no returns. Some are purely preventative (for example, free anti-gang education in middle schools). Some seek criminal or social justice. These are the typical purposes of charity. I add the immediate disclaimer that a charitable action may or may not accomplish its purpose, and (as already discussed) may or may not produce other (possibly undesirable) effects in its implementation. Keep going. this was a really good response, Virgil. what if i told you that i saw charity as creating dependence? that i saw charity as "misguided sympathies" for "freeloaders" and "miscreants". what if i said that charity had no business providing comfort to the poor- that they should stick strictly to teaching self reliance. that just as often as not, charity would end up providing parasites with a substitute for a living, rather than motivating them to find a living, or make one, or earn one, or plan for one. how would you respond to that attitude?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 20:52:48 GMT -5
nope. let me ask you two questions that will help sort it out: 1) do you believe in charity of any sort? 2) if so, do you think it fosters dependence? 1) Yes. 2) It can. But let me now dismiss the question as a diversion- government is not charity. no, government is leadership by social contract. stop jumping to conclusions. i was not going there, and i wasn't asking you. i already know how you will reply to that. i was asking Virgil, who i consider to be actually fairly reasonable.If it were, we could choose to "give" to the causes we support, and withhold our gifts from the causes we don't. Compulsion isn't compassion. Putting a gun to my head and threating to put me into prison, take even more of my money, or outright kill me if I resist and taking my property, putting me to forced labor to support another person is the textbook definition of slavery. two things. first, nobody is putting a gun to your head. and nobody is going to. your hyperbole is not helping your argument. second- i have several friends that belong to conservative churches. they "tithe" 10%. it is not considered a choice. if you don't tithe, and the church finds out, you are OUT, unless you can come up with some reason that basically means you should be a recipient of their charity work rather than a contributor to it. if you belong to one of these organizations, you basically pledge that money, and you get no say in how it is spent, unless you sit on one of their committees. as to the slavery argument, unless you are working entirely for yourself, you work to support another person. you don't have to work. if you refuse to work, nobody will hold a gun to your head, and you would owe no taxes. you CHOOSE to work, because the money is better. that is not slavery. that is freedom. stop making a fool of yourself, unless you have decided that is how you want to be seen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 20:54:14 GMT -5
Millennia ago, the "social contract" was "tribal". "We" banded together to prevent "Them" from wiping "Us" off the face of the earth... and stealing "our" stuff. That's all well and good- if we're free to leave without the tribe shooting us in the back. And by leave, I don't mean to physically re-locate, but to say I am now no longer participating in tribal activities. I'm actually looking into the status of the Amish, and others who have managed to "opt out". why not get all militant, and go the Sovereign Citizen route?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 21:46:06 GMT -5
Charity has a broad range of purposes. The most universal component is to alleviate suffering. Some charitable actions promote dignity. Some promote happiness. Some inspire people. Some edify and establish people. Many--including many government programs--are designed to supplement and sustain a minimum standard of living. Some are social investments. Some expect no returns. Some are purely preventative (for example, free anti-gang education in middle schools). Some seek criminal or social justice. These are the typical purposes of charity. I add the immediate disclaimer that a charitable action may or may not accomplish its purpose, and (as already discussed) may or may not produce other (possibly undesirable) effects in its implementation. Keep going. this was a really good response, Virgil. what if i told you that i saw charity as creating dependence? that i saw charity as "misguided sympathies" for "freeloaders" and "miscreants". what if i said that charity had no business providing comfort to the poor- that they should stick strictly to teaching self reliance. that just as often as not, charity would end up providing parasites with a substitute for a living, rather than motivating them to find a living, or make one, or earn one, or plan for one. how would you respond to that attitude? It would depend on what I assumed the scope of "charity" is. Immediately there are three issues: i) what types of charity are you talking about?, ii) to what extent must the statements apply?, and iii) what group of recipients are we talking about? You seem to touch on ii with "just as often as not", hence I'll assume "more than 50% of the time" is the standard for all claims. Regarding iii, you're all over the map. You identify "freeloaders" (quoted) and "miscreants" (quoted), implying these are labels you don't necessarily support; also, "the poor" (unquoted) and "parasites" (unquoted). I'll assume "parasites" (quoted) so that you're not asking me whether I support charity for parasites. And from the context I'll assume that all of the terms refer to the poor, which is fine although the poor are by no means the recipients of charity. Bringing us to i: what types of charity are you talking about? Evidently charities that help the poor and that "you" consider freeloaders and parasites. My assumptions would depend heavily on who "you" are, which is 95% of what would determine who exactly we're talking about. But I'll consider "you" to be Rush Limbaugh since his "undeserving" category would be particularly broad, which I boldly presume to be "in the spirit" of our present Socratic journey. Given all of the above, my response would be: "Charity should indeed provide comfort to the poor and destitute, provided the funds can be procured without long-term borrowing, the charity does not reward or encourage irresponsible behaviour, and the recipients submit to a reasonable degree of oversight in their disposal of the funds. Furthermore, it is right that private (not public) charities have compassion on individuals whose poverty came upon them due to irresponsible behaviour and to help them, subject to the charities' discretion and oversight. "Although I disagree with you that more than 50% of all charity monies presently benefit undeserving individuals, I very much respect your concerns that the modern structure of welfare too often rewards irresponsible behaviour, creates dependence, fosters an immoral sense of entitlement, and in many cases benefits wholly undeserving people. I agree with you that we've long since erred on the side of being too generous with public funds and have been too lax in setting preconditions, although we likely won't agree on how deeply the cuts should go or where they should occur. "And in general, I reserve the terms 'parasite' and 'miscreant' only for the institutional and unrepentant abusers--the ones with little or no appreciation of the help they've received and no desire to better their own situation or anyone else's."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 21:51:32 GMT -5
this was a really good response, Virgil. what if i told you that i saw charity as creating dependence? that i saw charity as "misguided sympathies" for "freeloaders" and "miscreants". what if i said that charity had no business providing comfort to the poor- that they should stick strictly to teaching self reliance. that just as often as not, charity would end up providing parasites with a substitute for a living, rather than motivating them to find a living, or make one, or earn one, or plan for one. how would you respond to that attitude? It would depend on what I assumed the scope of "charity" is." exactly as you described it, Virgil. i am using YOUR definition. YOUR view of it. really, this need not be so difficult.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 24, 2013 21:59:54 GMT -5
It took me half a bloody hour to write that. You're asking me how I would respond to an individual who calls the people I personally consider worthy of charity "parasites" and "miscreants"? How about "You're mistaken. This is so because ... etc. Give me one good reason otherwise."? As in: the same thing I'd say to anybody reasonably contesting my beliefs, assuming I cared.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 22:04:17 GMT -5
I agree with you that we've long since erred on the side of being too generous with public funds and have been too lax in setting preconditions, although we likely won't agree on how deeply the cuts should go or where they should occur. "And in general, I reserve the terms 'parasite' and 'miscreant' only for the institutional and unrepentant abusers--the ones with little or no appreciation of the help they've received and no desire to better their own situation or anyone else's." we use that term in the same way. i would presume that based on some of your replies earlier, that you would say that parasite could very easily describe some charity recipients. yes? i would also assume that you see value in charity, regardless of that fact, yes? i really think we see charity the same way. i would ask you to consider the following argument i heard recently about welfare. the argument was that people would take more risks to better themselves knowing that if they fell short, they could rely on government help to get them "over the hump". i am not sure exactly what that meant (it was based on a study i never read), but how i interpreted it was THIS: if i just lost my job in the slide rule factory, and i needed industrial retraining in electronics or drone warfare, and i had a bit of savings, and enough to keep me in house and home for maybe 18 months if i flipped burgers part time, but i knew that if it took two years, i could probably get 26 weeks of food stamps and/or housing assistance, i might just go ahead and try to better my life. it seemed like a fairly convincing argument to me. there is another argument i make often, but Paul and you view it as a threat, so i won't make it here. i don't view it as a threat at all to point out that when people need things like food and water, they NEED THEM. these are not wants. they WILL get them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 22:05:25 GMT -5
It took me half a bloody hour to write that. it will take me that long to respond to it. relax.You're asking me how I would respond to an individual who calls the people I personally consider worthy of charity "parasites" and "miscreants"? How about "You're mistaken. This is so because ... etc. Give me one good reason otherwise."? that is precisely how i would respond.As in: the same thing I'd say to anybody reasonably contesting my beliefs, assuming I cared. good. no further questions.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 22:08:02 GMT -5
You seem to touch on ii with "just as often as not", hence I'll assume "more than 50% of the time" is the standard for all claims. you spent too much time on that. i was just talking as i would talk to a friend: casually, over a cup of espresso and a cheese and tomato plate. i didn't mean 50%, even tho that is what it strictly means. i meant "not in all cases, but in enough cases that i will point out that there is a potential for abuse AND use, so you can take either side, if you wish".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2013 22:23:09 GMT -5
Virgil- as to your point about government services, here is how i view it.
every day, i get up and go to work. i pick my time of arrival, because i can.
when i get there, i walk the shop. if things are not going as i expect, i ask why. otherwise, i might stop to make a suggestion, or tell someone they are doing a nice job. then, i go plug in my laptop and spend an hour or two answering email, which runs into the hundreds for me. when i am done, i make about 15 minutes worth of posts, and then i grab some coffee.
the entire day for me consists of no productive work. by "productive" i mean converting material into finished goods. i never drill a hole. i never make a weld. such things are a waste of my time. i solve problems. and those solutions make it into the work, and keep the guys busy. i should get paid a lot more for what i do, because i am really good at it, but i am not greedy, and i treat it like a part time job, because i value my time more than money.
but here is my point: those guys make me money. because i don't HAVE to do that work, i have time to do as i wish. if i want to take a day at a health spa, i can. they will miss me, but the business will go on without me. that is a really good life, but it is not what i would call a life of "independence" by your standards. but it is by mine.
i view public services the same way. i could spend my entire day at the fire house, or have fire suppression equipment on site. i don't. i could hire a security guy, or set up a massive arsenal on site, and guard my place 24/7. i don't. the reason is that it is better to have MASSIVE resources at my disposal on an irregular basis that MINIMAL resources available to me constantly. and the only way i can do that is to work collectively with my community to ensure that is how it works (unless you have another model for me to consider). if you broaden the community large enough, you have a NATION. you have airplanes flown in from out of state to suppress a fire that threatens my house. you have FEMA bringing water to me when the municipal water system, or the well has collapsed. now, you can go all survivalist, and that is just ducky. but that takes time. and let's face it, there was no professional class in Western society before Mesopotamia. it is division of labor and trading that allow for that, and that is the trajectory we are on. that does not make us lazy. it doesn't mean we are dependent. it means we are INTERDEPENDENT. and it means that we care about things like INTELLECTUAL PURSUITS: to muddle over philosophy, and chess, and bridge. it means we value leisure time- pleasure- hobbies- vacations. and i don't know about you, but i like that just fine.
|
|