|
|
|
Do you have iron clad ethics that don't change no matter what?
BC and I discussed this the other day and it got me thinking about the topic.
Is stealing always wrong? Do your particular circumstances change the “rightness” or “wrongness” of your actions?
Killing an innocent person for no reason is murder. Killing a person who is assaulting a family member whom you reasonably believed would not survive the assault, would be considered “justifiable homicide”.
These are basically the same act - the only difference being the circumstances of the individuals involved.
This being the case is stealing always wrong?
If your babies were starving to death and you had the opportunity to “steal” food to feed them would you pass that opportunity up in order to stick to your guns?
I suspect none of us have ever had to walk in those particular shoes, so a real opinion on the topic may be hard to come by, but I am interested in this idea of “situational ethics, vs. etched in stone ethics.”
JCM
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be MittenHed
on
Mon Feb 2 02:28 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
If my kid was hungry I'd get a job. In fact, when my kid was hungry and the sickest baby in the USA, I got three jobs. You are the solution, not the problem. Get over it and stop waiting for the rest of us to help you with a handout. If you think that the government should solve your problems, move to China.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Mitten Head:
Spoken like a true conservative. Your wisdom reads like it comes off of a bumper sticker. “hand-outs” that’s what you were looking for from US Customs. Isn’t it funny how when it benefits someone else it’s a “hand-out” but when you stand to benefit from it it’s simply the government righting the wrongs of NAFTA? Typical hypocrite!
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
Every situation demands its own optimum solution. Some are simple, some are tremendously complex. But I would never define ethics as an ACTION--only as a RESULT. The results of one's actions at any given time are ethical or unethical. We judge those results by our upbringing, our experience, our role models, and by our gut. Ethical results would be those in which the least harm is committed and the most good done. It's a matter of ratios and balance.
And who's to decide when it's ok to harm one but not another and what is the definition of "good"? Very individual. My best "formula" for being ethical would include brutal self-honesty, the ability to see things from others' points of view, and the integrity and humility to learn from life's lessons. Those would be my "iron clad" components of ethics. I guess I would say that one continually strives to become more ethical, to harm less and help more, to integrate self-fulfillment with compassion. I think all the great humanitarians had these qualities to exceptional degrees.
Perhaps someday I will decide that it would be much better for me to drive a Prius than a rip-snorting V8 Volvo. But I'm not there yet. I oppose the fur industry but I eat the meat of animals who were probably raised and killed quite inhumanely. I strive to improve the help/harm ratio in my life and I have a lot of work to do!
--
'84 '285' rice-eater with lotsa hp & performance goodies
|
|
-
|
|
|
Besides mine, one of the few good posts! Thanks for sharing.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
Besides mine, one of the few good posts! Thanks fo sharing.
JCM
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Earl
on
Sat Jan 31 04:22 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
"Do you have iron clad ethics that don't change no matter what?"
Pretty much. I think it's a matter of ones personal character and upbringing.
I still think on the same lines today as I always have for the most part except that with age, I try even harder to correct my own personal faults as I havent always been "perfect" (being human and all) :)
There are those who are also "schmucks and/or a-holes" and those who truely fit those titles always were that way and always will be that way in my book.
|
|
-
|
|
|
so you would alow your child to die rather then steal bread?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Would you steal before exhausting other options like:
Getting food from a food charity?
Dumpster diving?
Begging?
Stealing includes the risk of getting caught and going to jail, which makes it quite difficult to provide for your hungry child.
|
|
-
|
|
|
that didn't answer my question....
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm in the same/similar boat.
90% of the time when I do my job (go/no go on Quality Control of Construction Engineering/Materials) no one is there to back up what is done or not done. Just me or one of my guys/gals.
I'm not patting myself on the back, my arm's sin't long enough, but I have a simple rule.
Right is right-Wrong is wrong.
Especially when no one is watching!
They pay me to be the watchdog, peoples lives can be a stake, there is no gray text-just black and white.
Last week a nice young lady got electrocuted while walking her dog. She didn't die right away, it took a minute or so. And no one was able to get her free from the source.
The cause? 6 months earlier someone forgot or neglected to put the second wrapping of rubber insulating tape on a 200 amp electric cable. Between the rock salk and snow slush that worked its way into the sidewalk chamber, the cable shorted against the sidewalk cover plate and the nice young lady and he 2 dogs got hit with 58 volts at 200 amps for 90 seconds.
That's why there is no gray in my world. Just black and white.
and I'm glad I'm not the poor SOB who OK'd the wrapping...I hope he/she can sleep at night.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Stoney,
When tasked with something as important as quality assurance with a product that is potentially lethal I focus 100% on it until it’s done, and done right, all other stuff aside. I know me, and if I killed someone like in the scenario you described (innocent person no need, etc...) I would not be able to just shrug it off.
That one is a no brainer – but I had been talking about situations where we are exposed to unusual stress or hardship. Some have said “wrong will always be wrong” Since nothing in nature is 100% I deem this view to be rather naïve and one made from a top a safe and cozy vantage point.
The baby bird high in the nest doesn’t understand all this bother with these silly 4 legged creatures walking about below.
Instead of grand proclamations as to how they would walk if they were there how about a little humility, and just say “I don’t know because I haven’t’ been there yet.”
When I was a kid I shot and killed a deer while hunting with my father. I was 13. I cried silently as my father gutted it. I never hunted again. Flash forward 15 years later, me standing on the porch of my Flagstaff, AZ apartment with my .357 pistol drawn down on a man who looked not to dissimilar from that deer. He had made some trouble for me earlier and had at that moment had crossed my brother and was in his face. I actually had tension on the trigger which was cocked back. I didn’t even think to say anything; I was silent, just waiting for him to move on my bro. He just so happened to look up from my brother, looked behind him and he saw me, all the blood dropped out of his face. Looking back had he moved on my bro I would have shot and killed him without him even knowing I was there. It wasn’t a hateful thing, but rather I felt like a by stander who happened to be charged with ending that piece of shit’s life that day.
This is how quickly my ethics can adapt to my environment. I grieved for that deer, which was an innocent creature that I killed without reason, for several years. I still feel bad about it. Alternately I causally prepared to dispatch a fellow human being who had almost made the biggest mistake of his short life. I honestly believe that my only regret would have been the felony conviction I may have received (that is unless my bro planted his spider knife on him and we claimed SD, I don't know how often that one works)
Makes you think! Moral of the story: don’t mess with my bro! Unless you are a deer, then I won't bug you.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
Very understandable.
I've done a similar thing when one of my crew was threatened by a contractor, via the use of a Bobcat as a weapon. My weapon was a 5 gal jerry can of unleaded
gas and a Bic lighter.
Would I have used it? In a heartbeat as the cances of my guy surviving a hit from a Bobcat were slim/none and maybe the chance to become a "crispy critter" backed the jerk off...
When pushed, which I and my crew are frequently-having to make serious decisions ina split second-are difficult at best and very liable at worst.
This week a cop on routine night time patrol of a Housing project shot and killed a 17 year old kid who took a shortcut across a roof and opened a door into the cops face at the wrong instant.
the hallway was dim/dark, the area is a known lair for rapists and muggers, the cops gun was drawn and at his side (SOP for rooftop/stairwell patrol)and he reacted and the kid is dead. The kid wasn't a mugger/rapist, just a kid and a pretty good one at that. The cop is still trying to figure out what went wrong and so are we.
In a different situation/different night,the reaction would have saved hs life and that of his partner...
No one is right and no one is wrong-a young man is dead and a cops life is forever changed.
And so are we for the loss of both.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Samurai
on
Fri Jan 30 14:55 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
Kant's "Categorical Imperative" HERE.
"Categorical imperatives are good, because they formulate what one ought to do despite its outcome. They give a command to the will to perform actions that have moral worth in themselves. For example, if someone desires food, that person may reason that in order to achieve this end they could steal. Reason would then form a hypothetical imperative that they ought to steal in order to obtain food. A categorical imperative, formulated by reasoning that the universal law prohibits stealing, would state that one ought not to steal, because stealing, in itself, is prohibited no matter the ends it may achieve."
|
|
-
|
|
|
Sami,
I always do like your posts.
And that one sounds very good now that I just hauled home $250 dollars worth of groceries, the kid is laying on the floor yelling at his "hangy-toys" and my wife's and my belly are full of cheap doey pizza.
All those words paint a wonderful picture and make you think.
All the meaning goes away when the kid is hungry and there's nothing to feed him. That's when I become a shark.
Like I said, currently I have no needs, there fore I am a sea slug, or tad pole, but give me need (not want, you know the greed factor) and whatever depts you can imagine, I'd sink to it to protect and provide.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Well, no - I don't think so. So why don't they? Decision-making processes, or having a "soul" or having understanding of "the other guy/gal", or maybe they just run on instinct, maybe that's the extent to which their brains have developed, OK?
This is my understanding of a shark: The world is divided into two categories of things - food and furniture. The work of the day is (1) locating food, and (2) discerning food from furniture.
Thing like blood in the water are part of activity #2. Once done, then maybe activity #1 is complete and the shark gets breakfast.
So - where's the relation to S.E.?
Is it easy for most humans to identify a shark? Probably. Do humans have an idea of that a shark is likely to do? Probably. We've learned from the movies, or a visit to an aquarium, or picture books, or something.
Are there humans who behave like sharks? Yes. Mugger - you're food. Carjackers and door-kick-in house burglars, same type. Folks who lie under oath in the witness stand? Well, they may not see you as breakfast, but they are ready to burn your ass to save theirs.
Is it easy to identify which humans are sharks and which are not? Not to me, unfortunately. But - most humans in a society usually abide by and behave according to some set of ethics. Whether by the action of an internal compass or set or rules (Boy/Girl Scout Laws, Ten Commandments, other, etc.) or by the certain action upon them of a surrounding legal structure.
If you expect another human to abide by a set of ethics that is the same as yours, and that most folks in a society abide by them, society as a whole is safer and people are free to devote time and resources to non-defensive things.
If you believe most other folks follow situational ethics, then you have no idea how they view the situation, and therefore must be defensive, un-compassionate, and dedicate some resources to protection (walls, guns, etc.)
So situational ethics is a pathway that leads to a downfall. Humans have the ability to discern, to reason, and make reasonable choices. In the interaction between people, a common understanding is paramount to having the trust and mutual reliance to build a better community/society. This is one of the benefits of living within the rule of law.
If I believe that to you I look to be rich, and that you have as your guideline situational ethics, and you seem to be less rich than I, then I must expect you to want to steal/rob/mug or otherwise avail yourself of something I have, money or car or fence-able electronics or daughter or ATM card. I must behave accordingly, even at the risk of seeming very selfish and insensitive to your needs, be they hungry babies or the avoidance of crack withdrawal.
Not being inside your head, I cannot tell whether you are a shark type or a person with whom I share a common ethical code.
Once I can identify which type your are, I can behave accordingly.
Remember why men (and nowadays women) shake hands with the right hand? Most folks believe that most folks are right-handed. So - as long as I have your right hand in mine, you cannot use it to draw your sword or sidearm. Mutual trust? Well, it was a begining.
Regards,
Bob
:>)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Everyone's a shark. Look at the people who effectively proclaim themselves to be the only people on the planet who do nothing wrong.
Honestly, I know a lot of nice people. But they're really only nice to a point, and then it's every man and woman for themselves. Look at the anti-gay, anti-abortion discussions that show up here. They're championed by very upstanding types of people who would probably give another the shirt off their back... as long as nobody is having an abortion or having sex with someone with the same body parts as the other. You know, one minute someone is buying you dinner for helping them with a car problem, the next minute you hear hateful crap coming from their mouth. But it's with a smile.
The messages I've seen on this forum are getting really funny and they're a direct result of the sharks that infest THESE waters. If you're a Republican, you're an asshole. If you're a democrat you're an asshole. Everyone should have a nice life, except for those gay couples who want to adopt kids, or people who dare to consider an abortion, and of course anyone who doesn't fit the description of others' perfect person.
And the most mind-boggling part is that people talk like this, and then wander to church on Sunday, to listen to a priest who has a questionable background. Makes no sense. But everyone is like that in their own way, and it doesn't matter who it is. You are, I am, everyone is. To some extent, every one of us is an asshole and a shark. I don't necessarily like it, but I'm OK with it.
|
|
-
|
|
|
right on. "shark" may conjur up a a bit more ominous image than I deserve.
I would put any of you down before I'd let anything happen to my loved ones, and I would sincerely hope you would do the same for your loved ones.
Be mindful though, that "need" is the key. I wouldn't hurt anyone or take from them in order to sit my fat ass in a luxury car, or just to have excess.
Many conservatives do not like to acknowledge the difference between true need and greed. Thus BC reference to "what I think is wealthy" when in all reality there is a numeric indicator as to just what wealth is.
I would say to all those who don't understand the difference between "need" and greed that they've never known need, and perhaps should think twice before supporting an administration that habitually abuses and steals from those who have real need.
Want of a summer home in the hamptons, and want of enough money to afford to move out of the ghetto are in the opinion anyone with any heart or brains, two very different things.
But then again, I'm a big meanie who makes people feel bad. Maybe that's for a reason.
jcm
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm not sure. One thing about this country is, there is always a push for more. More power. More features. More food. More drink. More houses. More money. All you have to do is look at people's physiques to see that. Everyone wants more. Some people define more by their ample bellies, some by what they drive, some by what they wear or what they live in.
Personally, I like it. I love a challenge, I love making positive change. I love being burdened with the task to achieve a certain level, or to achieve a list of major accomplishments.
That desire brings about a lot of constant improvements. Sometimes they make people feel bad when they happen. Sometimes making things better means making other things worse. It isn't an all-or-nothing battle, and improving things isn't necessarily all evil.
Wanting a house in the Hamptons and working for it is fine with me. Wanting to move out of the ghetto, but not being willing to work at it, is not fine. There are different ways to look at that situation. Everybody's getting screwed. The slumlord isn't getting his rent but he's screwing his tenants by charging too much when he DOES get paid. The guy who is looking for a house in the Hamptons is screwing people too, and at the same time getting screwed by everyone who services his cars, fixes his roof, puts in his plumbing, stores his yacht, and fixes his lawn. I'm sure the landscaper doesn't care that the guy took his overinflated quote. Or the yacht harbor doesn't care that they're getting $3000 for a job that is worth $500. It might be on a different scale, but everyone's getting screwed. Just that it looks "OK" for others to do it to wealthier people because what the hell, they can afford it, right? People hate to hear it, but I've never seen a case where that wasn't true to some extent. It is "ok" to screw those wealthier than yourself. But not the other way around.
I'm the first to agree that greed abounds in this country. I grew up in basically a very nice, very old money type community. I went to a Christmas party up there recently. Heard people talking about it beforehand, very hoity-toity, must be nice, la-ti-dah, the usual silly comments about parties like that. Anyway... it was two blocks from my parents' house. I was amazed that people have that view of the area. So what looks like greed to some people really doesn't look like greed to others. I think that my old neighborhood was certainly very beautiful, but not "greedy". Plenty of nice people. I guess some of it depends on who you are, and how you look at it. To their neighbors and friends, they didn't seem greedy. To someone with little, they would look like ruthless tycoons. But to say that wealth and greed are always mutual, is crazy. There are greedy people who aren't wealthy and wealthy people who aren't greedy. Simply acquiring wealth doesn't make one greedy. Nor does it automatically steal food from the table of someone else.
Besides that, why not reward people who work hard, educate themselves well, and put forth a very solid effort to be the best that they can be. Some people want a 9-5 job, no extra responsibility, and don't want to put in any extra effort. Fine with me. But why reward those people equally with someone who puts in 60hrs/week for ten years to become successful. Should that person not be able to afford a big house or nice cars? Should that person not be able to take nice vacations, or come and go from the office as they please (especially since they own it)? People work very hard to achieve things like success, and wealth, early retirement, travel, etc.
|
|
-
|
|
|
"Wanting a house in the Hamptons and working for it is fine with me. Wanting to move out of the ghetto, but not being willing to work at it, is not fine."
The innocence of your words is striking. Did the thought ever occur to you that it's not a matter of not wanting to get out of the ghetto, but not being able to?
Those people, the same ones who have the ability to accumulate enough money to own the house in the Hamptons ALSO WORK AGAINT THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE who are simply wanting to live. (See the new law removing your rights to take action against you medical practitioner, or the laws banning Unions, etc...)
I don’t propose we all get a house in the Hamptons, but rather, laws that protect the lower classes from the upper. If you own one of the said houses you obviously no longer have to worry about covering your needs, and you ought not be allowed to buy legislation that protects you from what you owe society, taxes.
I believe there should be a directly proportional increase in the % of taxes you pay as your income goes up. I justify this with 6 tiny words, “because the rich can afford it.” No fancy charts, graphs or explanations.
You say that working hard should be rewarded. I believe that too. Just as the words “need” and “want” are often erroneously used interchangeable by conservatives I question just what most here means when they use the phrase “working”.
I’ve “worked” to the point of losing feeling in both my hands (carpel-tunnel syndrome) the Army “worked” me until I need to have my feet surgically re-constructed. That’s work. With holding vital good and services until such time as ransom is paid on top of the actual cost is not working. Interfering with the democratic process the in order to increase the amount of capital you have is not working, it’s stealing.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm no more or less innocent than you are, except perhaps the areas in which we are innocent, may be different.
In some ways it is true; wealthier people have more ways to get around problems than do less wealthy people. But the same things are true in reverse. The poorest of the poor, can walk into the hospital and get treated; they're not paying and it is well known. I can not walk into the hospital and get treated without producing either my insurance card, or a "deposit" that says that I'm good for the bill.
Who paid for it, when someone with no insurance put a $10,000+ crash in the side of my Volvo? I did of course. Choice was between $6k of TMV on my car, or escalated insurance premiums for the next three years. What did I do? Chucked the car. My loss, thousands of dollars.
"But that's OK. I can afford it."
But can I *really* afford it? And how many times? Does that make it OK? Could that $5k (whatever the car was worth at that point) have made a difference in my life? Sure! Is it a smaller crumb to me than it was to the guy who put the hole in the side of my car? Undoubtedly! Does that make it OK, then, because it was less for me than for him?
SHould I have gone to his house and totaled HIS car so he couldn't drive it? After all, a 70's gunboat still runs after that kind of thing. A 90s Volvo doesn't.
Did forgetting about it, make me a better person?
Did writing it off of my taxes make me greedy? Did I take advantages of tax breaks that I could get, that the person who caused the damage could NOT get? You'd better believe it!
And what if the person who was driving my car at the time it got hit, got injured or killed? Then what recourse is there? How is that different from a doctor accidentally killing a patient? Because the doctor has a big pot of gold, so therefore it becomes an event for which one can acquire money. That is the big difference. People can be "taught a lesson" through their pocketbook. So therefore, the wealthy are more liable to be "taught" or punished, while everyone forgets about the other side of the equation.
Another thing is the definition of need. I need food, water, and a place to live. The place must have heat in the winter. I don't need two cars, not even one car. I don't need to park underground. I don't need to have anything nice to wear; I only really need to keep warm in the winter. I don't need to drink anything alcoholic. I don't need to eat anything expensive. I don't need soft toilet paper, carpet on the floors, paint on the walls, or a big TV. I don't need "whitening" toothpaste, hair care products, cologne, designer shirts, brand-name peanut butter, a fast computer, candles on the table, or air conditioning. I don't need designer shirts, underwear or socks. I don't need to take an elevator; I can walk the stairs. I don't need plants, I don't need deck furniture, I don't need to go boating all summer long, or to go on vacation. I don't really even need a bed because I could sleep on the floor on a soft blanket if necessary. I don't need a fancy mountain bike, although it keeps me in great shape being able to have it. I could do without that too. I don't need six coats, or twenty pairs of pants, or a bunch of different shoes either.
But, on the other hand, I keep small places (except for one monster, and only for a few years). I have little furniture, just enough to not look like I just moved in. I have nice clothes, but I work in a professional environment and am the head of my group at work, so I have to wear at least decent things. I eat well and drink well, but I don't eat a lot, and don't drink a lot, so while I might have those things, I'm not a little piggy. I travel, but not excessively. I eat out where I want to, but I don't go to Wendy's every lunch; I go home and cook tofu and eat salads, cheaper, more healthy, better for the skin and good for the physique. I have nice glassware and decent plates and silverware, but nothing fancy by any stretch of the imagination.
The way I figure it, I've masterfully avoided being a slave to my things. I have no worries when I close the door and leave, for a day or for a month. Someone steals something, oh well. The place goes up in smoke? Oh well. I can replace EVERYTHING I OWN, in less than a week. Save for some artwork my sister hand painted for my houses, that's all there is. No un-replaceable things except some things that may be a hassle to replace like passports and documents. Tools can be bought. Bikes and clothes and furniture can be purchased in any suburban shopping area. I have photographs on my FTP site or on CD offsite. Computer? "Hello, Dell?" I figure if one of my places blows sky high, as long as I walk out of it alive, I'm good. I pay my insurance premium every year, and hope for the best. I don't give a shit if my friends and neighbors think I'm poor, or think I'm rich, or what they think. I guarantee it is a direct product of my upbringing. One of my friends is the same way. He grew up with everything, and now he's the master of being really conservative with his things. He's got a nice house, but only a FRACTION of what he could have. He drives two older cars--nice, but older--and like me, wears very nice things, all bought for very reasonable prices. He travels, but he's not excessive. He doesn't spend a fortune on proving to his neighbors that he has more than them. ALthough he does have more; he isn't that kind of guy though.
So do I "need" anything I mentioned? Not really. I think I need some of those things. Does that make me greedy? By your definition, I am greedy. But am I greedy compared to other people? How greedy?
(As an aside, why is "need" attached to cigarettes and alcohol? Why is it that cigarettes and alcohol are advertised so heavily in poor areas? Why is that "need" perpetuated?)
The reason I ask these questions is because I was raised in the places and with the people you see as greedy. Not Donald Trump types, but very well to do professionals and owners of companies. On the whole, there wasn't much obvious greed. People didn't "need" things like you say. That's what you're seeing in Hollywood movie scripts, the great drama of first-generation riches. How Hollywood says "rich" people are supposed to act.
So on that note, what do you "need"? Do you have anything that you don't need? Any fancy clothes, or cologne, or wine, or food?
Your greed scale might be different than other people's greed scale, but I would be really surprised if you didn't live a life of greed as well. How can one greedy person criticize another? I'm not trying to single you out as an exception to anyone else; in fact, I'm pointing out that you're not an exception that perhaps you consider yourself to be. I'm of the humble but accurate opinion, that there are very good rich people, and there are very good poor people. I am also of the opinion that there are very bad rich people, and there are very bad poor people. I suspect that the motivations of both good rich and good poor, are quite similar. Conversely, the motivations of both bad rich and poor, are similar as well. The major difference is the scale upon each operates. Not so much the distinction between what each wants.
|
|
-
|
|
|
"...the wealthy are more liable to be "taught" or punished, while everyone forgets about the other side of the equation...."
Name the last millionaire that was executed in the Unites States.
As for the need vs. want I guess I'm think on a macro level:
Do you need to victimize those who have less money than you?
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
Name the last millionairre convicted of an executable crime comparable to other death row inmates, in other permissive states, who was NOT executed because he or she was a millionairre.
Am I victimizing people?
Should I victimize people based on the amount of money they have? Or not? It is only fair in one direction with your arguement; your way. I'm not a big fan of unidirectional arguements because most things work two ways. Whether fair or not.
|
|
-
|
|
|
you take a crumb from a millionaire it doesn't hurt them, an action done to one person may be a crime, while that same actin done to another may not be.
so the millionaires don't even get charged, that's how much pull they have...
|
|
-
|
|
|
Exactly my point!
If *I* had plowed into the side of the uninsured, indigent guy's car, *I* would certainly have been liable for all sorts of damages, property and otherwise!
I may have avoided the charge--the ticket that he got (either in court or on the scene)--but that wouldn't have fixed the issue of damages.
But for him to do it to me, it was not a crime. No recourse. It's OK, because "my insurance will cover it". Which is somehow acceptable because my supply of money is greater and therefore it is fine if I have to pay an additional $1000 a year for the next three or four years, because someone else couldn't.
It may be how it is, but I still don't see it as right. And the fact that I decided to do nothing about it wasn't right either. But I didn't feel like butting my head against a wall trying to recover something I wasn't going to.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm not proposing that the guy who wronged you get off.
If he hasn't got a pot to piss in, and he's driving without insurance, he needs to be in jail. If we send him to jail (Jails require taxes to run though!)and he owes you money, his sentence ought to be for however long it takes him to pay you back while working at the prison laundry service (or whatever they can do on the inside without putting decent people out of work on the outside)
My original stance was the "wrongness" or "rightness" not legal or illegal.
Legally speaking, stealing is stealing be it from you or from Bill Gates, I don't propose otherwise for obvious reasons. What I feel though is stealing from you is in my mind not the same as stealing from Gates or from the bum in the street. It's all degrees.
If I break into your garage and steal a life vest you have hanging on the wall, that's theft. If I take a life vest off your boat at night while you are asleep in the hold, and the next day you drowned while frantically looking for said life vest, that's man-slaughter (I am responsible for your death but didn't not intend for you to die) If after finding our selves on a sinking ship and I take your vest by force knowing you can’t survive without it, and you drown, that’s murder.
Would you try the petty thief who took the vest out of you garage for murder? The forcible removal of the vest that resulted in death as petty theft? Of course not.
To me, non-situation dependent ethics are the product of unrealistic thinking.
Here’s another situation. If Jo Rich guy and you collide at a traffic stop, and it’s your fault should you be responsible for replacing his $250,000 car? In the minds of many here the answer would be yes, but in my mind any car beyond bare bones transportation (e.g. a $10,000 Hyundai) was his option to buy, so he would be out the $240,000.
In reality I don’t know how that would work. I would imagine those top end exotic car drivers must have special type insurance for us pee-ons out there who could work their entire lives and never be able to pay that kind of scratch back. If it ever happens to me, I’ll just invest the $500 for filing for bankruptcy…
|
|
-
|
|
|
Don't the top 5% of earners already pay over 50% of the total income taxes in the country? Where you gonna say "enough"? When those who create the jobs have said "screw it!", and moved the jobs and themselves out of the country?
You gonna stick it to the guys who did get out of the ghetto by working their way through school because they are now "the rich"?
Where's the motivation to work your way out of the lower class (however you want to define that), when you can just sit on your ass and have the politicians rob the "rich" for you?
--
We have met the enemy and they is us. [Pogo] S70 cop car : Rough Rider tires& suspension, Walmart fog lights, eBay speakers, ambiance by Pall Mall, trim by Le Duc d'Tape, 8-channel THD by OEM amps
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be 240 Allison
on
Sat Jan 31 09:34 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
I love to see them quoted, floated, and reloaded....
the top 5% pay 50% of all the tax revenue. Um, well, that top 5% actually includes corperations, so its not just a coupla rich guys and gals.
Well, the WSJ a month ago placed an articale that based on the current tax
plans, only the top 50% of earners paid any income taxes.
Well, I guess nobody but me amongst the lower half did. I sure as hell paid taxes. Now I guess I am above median, which isn't hard in this nation, so I pay a bit more. But I sure paid taxes below the median. So, that is inaccurate as a statement, isn't it?
So , be careful of what you read, becuase it only shows a very specific part of any given picture.
Consider that while those individuals who are paying such a large portion of our tax revenue still do not care a much higher tax rate proportionally than you or I. Their avg taxes rung about 36%. Last time I checked, making a tiny proportion comparatively-hey Cheney got a greater one year tax break than I make and I do pretty well-I am in the 32% tax bracket. So, I really don't care that their revenue total is that much higher, their relative % is not.
I also have yet to se them clsoiung their business doors, moving to India, or doing any other of a number of things becuase they pay the taxes they do. Indeed, they stay in the US becuase life is quite good-paid for by their taxes.
Many of the wealthy do not complain that loudly when it comes to helping the unfortunate, and often donate large sums to schools, universities, and the arts. You will also note that those same individuals rarely turn up in scandals and are rarely found cheating on their taxes.
Those who squeel the loudest are always those who you find chisslin away and cheating left and right. they do it, so they think everyone else will.
The US has the lowest income taxes in the developed industrialized world. Considering that in 1970 the top 5% actually paid 70% in taxes, things are looking pretty good at 36%. They aren't going to quite working.
|
|
-
|
|
|
240:
My point is no matter what the stats say I see Hummers clogging the Interstate, $8 billion spent on Viagra last year! Every 2 days the war in Iraq costs enough money to send a man to Mars....ALl of that leasds me to believe that whatever rate we tax the rich at (the lowesrt of all western countries) we need to tax them more, tax the crap out of them.
Spend it on hot meal programs, more cops, better pay for teachers, less corporate welfare. On and on I could go.
We have the lowest tax rate and the highest crime rate among Western Nations. We have th ehighest military bdget and the highest combat deaths...hum I think I see a pattern....
that sums it up
|
|
-
|
|
|
“Don't the top 5% of earners already pay over 50% of the total income taxes in the country?”
You know, I don’t know for sure, but they are obviously not being taxed enough. They still have enough money to meddle with Democracy.
“Where you gonna say "enough"?”
When the working class and the poor are no longer being victimized by the wealthy.
“When those who create the jobs have said "screw it!", and moved the jobs and themselves out of the country?”
Rich don’t create jobs you moron, they simple profit off the need of society. If you want to leave for another country don’t let the door hit you in the as on the way out. Good riddance.
“You gonna stick it to the guys who did get out of the ghetto by working their way through school because they are now "the rich"?”
If by “stick it” you mean require them to be responsible to the society that made them rich then yes, I am.
“Where's the motivation to work your way out of the lower class (however you want to define that), when you can just sit on your ass and have the politicians rob the "rich" for you?”
Your brilliance is awe inspiring. I don’t define “lower class”, Economists do. Anyone earning less than $200,000 is considered non-wealthy. You really seem to enjoy putting quote marks around words. While it does little to strengthen your position it makes reading it a little less painful. “Stick it” and “robbing” are the two terms you use when we talk about taxing the wealthy. I think this give us all a pretty good idea that you are yet another member of the “free lunch” crowd. You want the benefits of society without any of the costs. So do I but I realize life doesn’t work that way.
Where’s the motivation? Wealth is. I don’t propose taxing the rich to the point of no longer being rich, just to the point that is fair. If you are going to cease your input to society because you have to pay taxes then we need to kick you out of the country. Judging by the content of your post I think it’s safe to say that you are probably not real high up on the food chain so I don’t think you’ll ever have to worry about getting into that higher tax bracket!
JCM
--
|
|
-
|
|
|
I have seen the light! Thank you, thank you. Excuse me while I go burn down my house, quit my job, give away my belongings, and set out on a life of righteous theft from those who are now suddenly wealthier than I.
--
We have met the enemy and they is us. [Pogo] S70 cop car : Rough Rider tires& suspension, Walmart fog lights, eBay speakers, ambiance by Pall Mall, trim by Le Duc d'Tape, 8-channel THD by OEM amps
|
|
-
|
|
|
Bru:
Don't forget to leave your GOP, NRA and Moral Majority ID cards in your house before you burn it down.
Tax and spend baby, tax and spend....
|
|
-
|
|
|
Macroeconomics, and microeconomics. You'd benefit greatly from those. Someone who starts a company creates no jobs, they just steal from people? Whether rich or not, they may be rich someday. And they definitely create jobs; they don't take away jobs.
This is the classic "fixed" supply of money arguement that all those worldly/pseudo-liberal marketing students used to use in college, to tell everyone why money is so evil. One dollar to a rich person = one dollar taken from a poor person. As if the supply of money is simply distributed, never grows, never changes.
Wealth can be created. Can be, and is.
Why can't you have a reasonable discussion without trashing someone or regressing to the sixth grade level to call names? I don't see how being a child gets the point across to adults. Don't confuse routing people off the board via intellect, to driving people off the board by screaming and shouting names. There is a big difference.
I highly suspect there to be a lot of 200k+ earners on this board, and you know it. You might not like it, but you know it. You get a feeling about people, typically it is right. You get to know who is educated, what kind of lifestyle they lead, what kind of people they are... just from online chat. It is more revealing than people think, sometimes.
I suppose until you've at least experienced life around people with that sort of income, you will never be able to get a grip on anything about it. It isn't any different from me saying something like poor people are all lazy and the cause to all the problems in this country. It wouldn't be right, I'm sure, but since I don't understand what it is to be poor, I don't pretend to know all about it. Or what it is like to walk in the shoes, or what the motivations are. You make a lot of assumptions about people you know nothing about. Hollywood portrayals aren't accurate, either.
There are bad people in any slice of life.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be 240 Allison
on
Sun Feb 1 02:57 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
The question is, would he actually accept anything?
But Just as his arguments are a bit simplistsic, so is the argument that the wealthy automatically create jobs. They don't. And by the way, I have done more than just take the equivalent of Econ 201 and Econ 202.
Of course the money supply should be and is dynamic. Currency monitoring is propbably the one area where there is unanimous agreement about gov't participation, so there you go.
The business world we see today is far more like 1900 than 1955. companaies have no loyalty to their employees, and there are costs associated with that. Remember when Ford was howled at for daring to pay his people 5$ a day, that he would kill the car industry. Turns out he didn't, did he? And he was very loyal to his people, and honestly tried to pay close attention to car quality. All his people were the best, and could buy his cars. The business world knows that good emplyee relations are paramount for producing far more at lower costs, yet somehow, when it comes to gratifying a CEO with a few millions more in stock returns, and keeping people on board for a down turn, they just can't get it right.The same principle governs the attitude over paying divivdends. Comppanies that pay dividneds are always far better about handling their money, and far more responsible, becuase they have more respect for the shareholder, and they have less playcash. When you don't pay your employees, you havbe no respect for them.
One final economical comment about somehow the rich providing jobs. When markets don't exist, a well run company will not need to raise capital, jobs will not be created, and wealth isn;'t created. People have to have money to spend. And occasionally, when interest rates are very low, certain projects that are questionable are undertaken that probably shouldn't be.
( Of course, none of this is declaiming the strength of the entrepreneur, and their ability to get wealthy and create jobs!)
|
|
-
|
|
|
You're making up words that I didn't say. I never said that the rich automatically create jobs, but an up-and-coming business owner has a lot mroe likelihood of needing people than not needing people to make it happen. I would consider that creation of jobs.
Of course, somewhere down the line someone lays people off or moves the company overseas, or something else like that. That can be considered removing jobs.
"And by the way, I have done more than just take the equivalent of Econ 201 and Econ 202"
We're on the same page, then.
Nobody said that the wealthy "automatically" create jobs, you invented that up. I think it is stupid to simply assume that the wealthy only take jobs away. Or that they do not have the ability to create jobs while becoming wealthy.
In school I used to hear all the pseudo-super-liberal kids (products of $500k annual income homes too, which is funny) try to convince people that making a dollar, unquestionably removes that dollar from the free supply of money. What a stupid theory, a fixed supply of money. People constantly apply microeconomic theory to macroeconomic principles and assume that it everything operates under the same set of rules. You take a dollar from my wallet, you are a dollar richer, I am a dollar poorer.
I've never seen it as being that basic.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be 240 Allison
on
Tue Feb 3 05:32 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
I did not say that you claimed that the wealthy always create jobs at all. But it IS a statement we hear non-stop from the right, and even on this board. In this case I was just trying to highlight a recognition of a particular argument, and make comments on that as well as your own.
I would imagine your grasp of econ is more than avg. I see one other person here on this board actually quoting theory. I myself recently posted sometrhing very esoteric, but very understandable to economists, and it got the non reply I expected it would. ON BC had some interesting comments, and he often does.
We can agree that markets are hardly static and at some point elasticity comes into play. My fears, supported by work this fall, is that by shipping to many jobs to very low income earnings changes things from comparative advantage to losing consumers of highly knowledge based products. Simply, they cannot be paid for.
Unfortunately, while micro and macro economics and not the same, we are all caught in our own little micro economies. Even big business is caught in a micro market essentailly. If something affects them, they don't like it, even if in the grand scheme, its beneficial.
|
|
-
|
|
|
That is very true, I misinterpreted your first post then.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Rich don't create jobs............then who/what does?
The jobs will be there regardless.........Ask a K-Mart employee.
Given those two statements........where the hell do you think a job comes from? Where did yours come from?
Think hard.
Bob
:>)
|
|
-
|
|
|
That one and the one about judge not lest, etc...Usually I don't find religious writing all the useful but they do come in handy. I especially like the story about Jesus tossing the MONEY-CHANGERS out of the temple…do you like that one?
I also think it comes in handy in deflating those who get a little self-righteous and have a tad bit too much false pride….you wouldn’t know anything about that, or about bearing false witness would’ ya BC?
Jcm
|
|
-
|
|
|
"those who get a little self-righteous"
Look in the mirror.
|
|
-
|
|
|
TJL:
Wow, that really hurt, I was sitting here typing away, and now, I've begun to question all that I once stood for. Yes, I feel a change coming, I love George Bush. No abortions! Stop all welfare unless it's Corporate welfare!
Wow, TJL has fianlly brought me over to your side fellas.
And all it took was a dose of you wisdom to do it.
I'm a better person for having shared your insights.
Thank you.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
the only thing that would benefit me would be less conservatives. rich don't make jobs, you credit one drop of rain for the entire crop. the jobs will be there regardless, the rich just suck the good out for themselves.
typing with one hand, feeding kid with other, thus the economy with words!
|
|
-
|
|
|
"rich don't make jobs, you credit one drop of rain for the entire crop. the jobs will be there regardless, the rich just suck the good out for themselves."
Evidently that's what President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe thought. After all, the land that the rich white farmers were farming there really was stolen several generations ago. So his political supporters, with government acquiescence, forced the farmers off the land at gunpoint and took it.
But they know little or nothing about farming. Zimbabwe went from a food exporter to a country that needs food aid. And most black (as well as white) people in Zimbabwe are poorer as a result of that and other disastrous policies by Mugabe's government (the country's economy as a whole has been shrinking). Even Mugabe's political supporters are probably no better off. Now some of them are sitting on farm land that they cannot use to generate wealth for themselves, or the economy of Zimbabwe as a whole. Needless to say, that farm land probably isn't generating any tax revenue for the government either.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I credit the farmer for having something to do with it. The farmer can't make the rain, but there is still some involvement.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Well then why pray at the feet of those who oppress the farmers?
Makes you think, doesn't it?
There are those who build our society, and then there are those would just happen to profit from other building society. I think you are barking up the wrong tree my friend.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
Pestilence. True.
Works on a lot of levels, farmers, humanity.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Main Entry: pes•ti•lence
Pronunciation: 'pes-t&-l&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : a contagious or infectious epidemic disease that is virulent and devastating; especially : BUBONIC PLAGUE
That's a very good choice of words, since 2000 we have been ravaged by this disease of conservatism. I like that.
Nothing else explains the sorry state of affairs…
|
|
-
-
|
|
|
Oh the disease of the lowly workng class that is sweeping across America...I'm onto your facism....you facistical facist you...
|
|
-
|
|
|
No, speaking of people's attitudes. Why do you get so pissed at everyone who doesn't agree with every word you speak? And why do you get so defensive and angry?
Funny, though, your response. Freakish, but so freakish it's funny. My friend David is in a highly skilled technical/manufacturing job. He makes the same money I do, but he still chides me that at least he "works for a living".
You know little about me, I don't know how you can suddenly infer that I'm a Fsscist? Do you really know what that means? If you spent a day in the life, you'd laugh at yourself for saying such a thing. I don't see things along any party lines; I trust my brain to figure out who is good for what, and when. As far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of issues with every political candidate, and with every dog, you get a lot of fleas.
If you took the time to step down from your pedestal for a few minutes, you'd find that I think a lot like you in some areas. But don't interpret that to mean that I think you're right. I just happen to share similar viewpoints on certain things, that's all. You'd have realized that if you took the chance to listen instead of just giving flippant, name-calling responses.
My standard line, and what I believe, is that everyone is entitled to a decent life, if they are decent people. That goes for rich and poor alike. I don't see being rich as being indecent, likewise for being poor, middle class, anything. Some people don't CARE if they're ever rich. Doesn't mean they don't care if they're poor, or in the middle, or whatever.
I don't think that someone's financial status is merit enough to rip off their heads, because it works in two directions. Plus the ambition to escalate onesself drives a lot of improvements, both personal and otherwise.
|
|
-
|
|
|
"I don't see being rich as being indecent"
Nor do I, but when you are rich and use said wealth to oppress those who have less (aka being a republican) that's evil.
Basically, in our 2 party system you are either good or evil. If you vote (D) I got no problem with you, if your vote (R) you are evil. I know there’s more to it than that, and once you’ve cast a vote for (R) we’re done talking and you’ve demonstrated the proper pre-requisite attitude you need in order to be my enemy.
You reasons, either way are of no concern to me, I don't care about your day to day activities, or how you justify your vote, just vote D baby!
|
|
-
|
|
|
So what do you think of those who vote (G), (L), (AI), or (PF)?
|
|
-
|
|
|
TJL
didn't you run under the (A-H) ticket?
;-)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Good enough reasoning, you painted your colors. Basically, hates anyone who doesn't fit a certain mold. Pretty straightforward.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Who is painting now? Seeing as you are taking liberties... I think I've got you figured out. Pretty even keeled, pretty well educated, you are probably doing some hold over type work (volunteer type) until such time as the trust fund kicks in...Am I right? Mom and Dad were old when they had you and now it's sit and wait for the inheritance. If I'm wrong, fill me in.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
No, not true. Well, the even-keeled, well-educated part I'll have a problem denying.
But the rest is the late-night rerun version.
It would make a good backdrop for one of those re-re-rerun movies where a character needs to be painted like a major hole. Would be good in 80's trim, Mercedes 560SL with top down, Polo shirt with collar turned up, sweater tied around the neck, poofy hair, aviator glasses. Annoying guy who has nothing else to do except complain about the rotten service he gets while lunching at the country club, while having someone pump his gas, getting his car washed, having his landscapers manicure the property, person who cleans his house, etc. Wait, that might already be a movie.
|
|
-
|
|
|
sadly all I hear are the words of someone who has never know want, yet insists they've suffered....what more is there to say? You won't admit it, never will, but we both know the truth, don't we?
Yeah, I thought so...
|
|
-
|
|
|
``Be mindful though, that "need" is the key.''
But how do you know what is want and what is need? How much did you spend on groceries? For how many people for how long? How large a house or apartment (as opposed to a room in a shared house or apartment -- and how many per room?) do you live in? At what temperatures do you set the heat and/or air conditioning? Isn't that computer that you use to post on forums here a luxury item in terms of resource and energy use? If you drive a car, could you have gotten by with a less expensive and more fuel efficient car, or no car at all?
It is easy for people to be judgemental about others. When looking at a bigger spender than themselves, they see "wasteful" spending on "wants". Of course, their own spending is almost all "needs". But someone with lesser spending habits may have a different view about "needs" versus "wants" in the first person's spending.
|
|
-
|
|
|
You want a list?
Smug evasive attitudes don’t make for a good defense of the indefensible. Want vs. need is pretty clear to some one who is not blinded by greed. Like a 3 year old child everything is “needed” by conservatives. I “need” that Mercedes. Sorry – that ain’t gonna fly here.
If you need a lesson in need just take a trip to your local ghetto, or homeless shelter.
It’s funny that I have to explain hunger. Just that I have to educate some of you as to what need is just proves my point all the more.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
The self-righteous one is usually a hypocrite.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Self-righteous? Me?
You must have me confused with one of our conservative posters. Self-righteous person is one who is convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic.
For example those who prays to Jesus for forgiveness and then support, whole heartedly, the pernicious activities of current administration because it results in a larger check back from the US Treasury in April. Now THAT’S good old fashioned hypocrisy for ya!
"If any of us are going to burn in hell, it will surely be a Republican."
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
Good point, that. Want vs need. The real crux of the matter is WHO DECIDES?
Should it be that I decide what my needs are and what my wants are? Why not? Why should anyone else have any right to make that decision for me?
In some situations "society" has a say-so. I may "need" or "want" to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but either course of action is prohibited by law and by common sense.
I may "want" that parking place, regardless of the handicapped sign, but the law prohibits that (that one is practically unenforceable and usually unenforced).
I may need a balanced diet - and I determine what that is for me - but maybe the family income won't cover that and the house note and the SuperBowl tickets or the new Volvo XC90 I want. Who decides which to do without? ME! And maybe other family members. But Not you.
That's where the point is - who decides. You seem to have decided for many others, about whom you assume things, what their wants and needs should be, and you use a value scale that is of your making - you have no knowledge of their value scale.
I believe that ALL people, world around, want to make that decision for themselves. I believe that any government is to be chartered for the sole reason of protecting that right, and - at the same time - ensuring that no person is exploited by another. And, determining just what government should do to protect, and just what is the precise definition of exploitation, is a matter for the governed to determine - done best by election.
'Nuf said.
Bob
:>|
|
|
-
|
|
|
BC –
We are the government, the government is us. For you to conceive of a society without a government is not more realistic than the ant dreaming of a colony-free life.
Who determines need? Nature does. You need food, clothing, shelter, water, etc…Then you get into deeper psychological issues. People need hope, love they need respect, and they need to feel safe.
Conservative politics is the art of holding hostage these needs in order to extract profit.
My father once worked at a sawmill in Montana. The mill had been started by 2 brothers from Norway who, the day after the mill opened, organized, launched and then removed themselves from the first local Union for the workers. The brothers were business men from Europe and were interested in building up the entire area, and realized that a well represented and paid worker would be a happy and loyal one too.
Flash forward some 40 years later. The youngest brother was still alive and decided to retire. The mill had been a massive success. Over the years there had been some strikes, but all in all the brothers not only grew rich, they also provided a back bone for the rest of the small town’s economy.
Enter the corporate sawmill company who bought the little mill that could. First thing the new owner decided was he was not going to have any Union operating in his mill. He tried the old threat and intimidation tactics to bust it up, “necessary repairs” around Christmas time that resulted in all but non-union members getting laid off right at the holiday time. The last straw was when the new owner decided he was going to give the workers a pay raise, but take their medical benefits. The Union said they were willing to take a pay cut to keep their benefits. He said no. They went on strike for 9 months.
The owner closed the mill and (off the record of course) said he would open it only if the Union got new leadership (his boot licks) voted in. A vote was held against the will of about half the Union members. (Mostly the younger punk bastards who rolled over and took the F’ing) The lackeys were voted in, and the old school Union members, some of whom had worked at the mill for 30 years ended up having to burn it down, instead of let it run scab.
This was a horrible thing to force these men to do.
All because of this man’s ego. 180 men lost their livelihood because one prick decided that he had the right to take their Union from them.
I only wish the new owner would have been chained up to some pipes in the basement of the place when the Union torched it.
You can only push people so far, take only so much from them. Victimize them only so often before the whole thing comes apart. Money equals power and too much money means too much power, redistribution through taxation baby. Don’t make us torch the whole thing.
|
|
-
-
|
|
|
Or maybe desperation. You see BC sometimes it ain't about winning, or losing, but rather, just fighting.
As a result of said fire, many men, my father being one of them got a lot of money from the Federal Government under NAFTA for Federal retraining.
Either work for an animal who would take them apart piece meal or, improve your situation. It worked. The mill owner never rebuilt, there’s still just a vacant lot there, and his Corp went back to Northern California. The scab pricks who came in to under mine the older Union guys didn't have enough time in grade so back to the soup lines for them, and the older guys who wanted it, got 4 years of college on your and my dime. God bless Bill Clinton and NAFTA!
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
BC -
A shark with a full belly won't bother you.
A capitalist with more moeny then he needs will still shake you down and call it "business".
Thus the difference between men and sharks.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
A shark with a full belly won't bother you.
A capitalist with more moeny then he needs will still shake you down and call it "business".
Thus the difference between men and sharks.
That information is absolutely correct, and absolutely worthless, UNLESS you provide a method for me to determine which shark has a full belly and which capilatist has more money than he/she needs.
I stay away from all those I can identify as sharks, two-legged or seagoing. Stay away from places they are known to hang out - like certain parts of the ocean or parts of the city. It helps to have a means of defense, too.
Capitalists, well, that's another matter. I think they look like ordinary human beings, maybe even behave like them, too. Hard to tell just be looking at them. So what to do? Treat everyone above the government-determined "rich" level (it's around $50K a year, I think) as a capitalist who is after my money?
Roll on, MacDuff -
Bob
:>)
|
|
-
|
|
|
BC -
I don't have the option of staying away from the sharks, they are running the country. Becuase of pro-business politicians, I can't find peace. They are there in my pocket every time I turn around. That's the problem.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
It's safe and ok to swim with them, you'll be alright.
But keep your eye on the ones sticking thier fin up out of the water.
tim
|
|
-
|
|
|
Not since FDR made the great social saftey net, violaters are criminal, no excuses, not here in America anyway.
Go to the Dept. of Social Welfare, or go to Jail.
tim
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Samurai
on
Fri Jan 30 14:17 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
Crime stats: exactly the OPPOSITE effect from LBJ's Great Society. The bigger the "safety net" the more the crime....
|
|
-
|
|
|
here comes chart guy...how long did it take for you to wip that up? Hoz about Clinton vs. Bush stats?
nice try...
|
|
-
|
|
|
It would be nice to see the attribution for the data. I am certain that "Chart guy" did not concoct them out of thin air, as you imply.
You ask about the Clinton and Bush years. The time line includes the Clinton years, not GW's years. Could be that data is not yet available, I dunno.
The point was the changes in crime during the "Great Society" years.
Perhaps you will at some time jump to your own conclusion.
Regards, 'til then
Bob
|
|
-
|
|
|
BC -
Those number he posted may well be accurate. Would you take a 1963 Ford and compare it to a 2004 Ford? Things are supposed to improve over time. If anything Sami's chart shows what effect government can have over society. Good or bad. I won't lament the actions of a politician from half a century ago, I'm in the here and now. Vietnam should have taught us about meaningless and unjustified wars. Apparently we only support those when they are conducted by the right.
Sami - So how do you interpret those numbers?: 0 money spent on entitlement programs will reduce crime? 0 entitlement would increase your tax breaks thus allowing a select few of you to move to Beverly Hills, hire more private police, and leave us to the wolves. That’s what the right wing wants to do.
I would even go so far a to propose a limit on income past which you pay 100% income tax rather than allow the above scenario to unfold.
JCM
|
|
-
-
|
|
|
What, no priggish response? BC you disappoint me...
|
|
-
|
|
|
I know republicans are dumb, but can't they follow a 50 year old lead.
Bobody's Nerfect BC. The Dems made mistakes half a century ago, but why are you not focusing on Bush's mistakes, from 8 months ago NO WEAPONS OF MASS BLAH BLAH, BLAH, Why aren't you concerned with that lie?
Hey BC while you are at it, why not criticize Wilson. Why not FDR? BC why don't you speak about our Nation's greatest President, President Clinton?
‘Cause his mistakes were the Lewinsky kind, they had no bearing on the economy like Gee-Dub and the men who tell him what to do.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
That's so moronic I have no words.
I'm speechless. well done....
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be 240 Allison
on
Fri Jan 30 09:46 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
I have to admit, I am one who tries very hard to live by ethics and values systems which apply to pretty much any situation. This prevents hypocricy, becuase actions are what defines so much of what you actually believe. Hence, if I think druga abuse is destructive, I don't try and place anyone in a responsible position who abuses drugs.
Yes, I always try and correct the bill if I notice it, and never attempt to hedge on things or chissle.
But I must also admit, I have also tried to live by the stament " There is a time and a place for everything." There are times when I just don't show up somewhere looking like a bum, and other times when being overdressed is just not appropriate.
Of course, I do have failures, becuase I am a mortal being.
A wonderful book by a retired US Navy Cpt gave and excellent way of determining what was right, and what was wrong...
If you put it into the Wash POst or the NYTimes, would it totally embarrass and discredit you, or would it show a sense of fairness, justness, and equitable treatment to our fellow man. If the asnwer is yes, then what you did was right. This can of course, include actions which do involve death. He followed this in his later career, and as a result, he had some of the most combat ready ships ever, highest retention rates, and loyal crews the Navy has ever seen. Literally. At the same time, he did it always on less than budget.
So, yes, ther are gov't managers who are efficient, and also charged leaders who are humanitarian and equitable and ruffle few feathers along the way. So, it is possible.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be 91_240
on
Fri Jan 30 08:16 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
Not a simple question.
Simplify the question by making it a bit more real world for most.
If the checkout person at the store, or the waitperson at the restaurant forgets to put an item on the receipt, does one call it to their attention or not?
Does it make a difference if the store is WalMart or SAKs?
Does it make a difference if the restaurant is McDonalds' or high end (you pick)?
Does it make if difference if the item is $1.00 or $100.00?
In my mind the answers to the little questions, like these are not much different from an ethical/moral point of view than the bigger questions like yours.
Proposing a problem like 'does one kill to protect family' actually puts one in a box where there is no reasonable alternate solution. Is it ethically/morally correct to kill in that situation? Probably not. Is killing in that situation necessary? Probably. I think most would say there is no choice.
Change it a little and ask 'does one kill to protect a buddy in a military situation?'. Immediately this extends to 'does one kill to protect a buddy in a military situation in an unjustified conflict?
Situationally, I think the answer, would be to protect one's buddy no matter how justified the conflict.
Now lets move the same problem to a gang fight on the street outside the local high school. Police move in. Gang members and police are hurt and/or killed. Some of each by gang member actions, some of each by police actions. Everyone has the 'to protect my buddy' defense. Situationally, I think most would say the police had the higher duty and were therefore 'more' justified in their actions than the gang members. In my mind, being 'more' justified is no excuse, it is just what society expects in that situation.
I guess my point is that I think ethical/moral judgment cannot be anything but situational within the context of society. In the conservative Muslim world of Iraq, not much more than a year ago, it was acceptable, in that society, to cut off the hands of a thief, or stone a woman to death for adultry. Niether of those offenses are treated that way in this society.
I think the best most of us can do is deal with the simple questions around us every day in the best ethical/moral way that we can. When the big stuff happens, we do what seems necessary at the time.
May the big stuff never come your way.
91_240
|
|
-
|
|
|
In response to your "real world" questions, I lways pointout when the amount is not correct. I would never "forget" to do that if the bill was in my favor. It is not right. Besides, some innocent sales person/waitstaff, ect. might have to pay for the error when their till does not come up right.
I am a big believer in karma, and the concept of what goes around, comes around. I would not like to be taken advantage of if I make an arithmetic error, ect, nor would I want to take advantage of someone who made such an error. I try and treat people as I would want tobe treated. When I do that, then I know I have done my best.
--
Sensual Ascetic. Three Volvos. Average age 37 years. No damn cupholders. Good wine.
|
|
-
|
|
|
"I guess my point is that I think ethical/moral judgment cannot be anything but situational within the context of society..."
You put into words what I was thinking!
Thanks for the input.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
If you are going into situational ethics, would you also, in this situation, consider whom you would be stealing from?
I.e. would you steal from someone else who may also have hungry babies (or perhaps a grocery store whose employees may be feeding hungry babies with their paychecks), versus stealing one-day out of date food from a dumpster behind a grocery store (if the grocery store in question considers that to be stealing -- if not, then there wouldn't be any ethical problem)? Then again, in many places, there are charitable soup kitchens, and begging may be less dangerous than stealing (from other than dumpsters).
|
|
-
|
|
|
Taking food from dumpsters I feel corrects the immoral practice of throwing food out in the first place. When I worked in a fodd-related business, I would have to throw out perfectly good food. It really bothered me. I also knew that the dumpsters were checked on a regular basis by epople in need. I would carefully place the food in a box that was being thrown away, and carefully place the box with the food in the dumpster in a way that the food was not in contact with the other garbage. The box was always on top, and anything else that got I made sure to put in the other side of the dumpster away from the good food. Isaw for myself that the food was taken; even got thanked once by one of the people in need when they saw me carrying out the food in the box and putting it in the dumpster.
Unfortunately, I got in trouble from the management for doing that. I argued that it was thrown out in the dumpster. Apparently, placing it so it could be used was the problem. Obviously, I am not corporate material. For that, I am grateful.
--
Sensual Ascetic. Three Volvos. Average age 37 years. No damn cupholders. Good wine.
|
|
-
|
|
|
The manager was no doubt a minimum wage republican!
|
|
-
|
|
|
So, you just disregard your company's rules for any reason whenever you disagree?
Giving food to people could land the whole joint in a lawsuit if someone got ill from it. E. coli. Hepatitis. Salmonella.
Giving certain food to food pantries or homeless shelters is nice but most restaurants still won't do it for the above reasons. They're a target for lawsuits. However they will often give nonperishable foods (cans) to food pantries. It's just the already-cooked food that never gets given out.
Nationwide, it is the same everywhere. The "minimum wage" $60k Republican running the restaurant might just be taking orders from someone else, not him or herself. Like the holding company for example. Which expects as a whole, not to be sued because the manager was putting out old food that other people had eaten half of, where the mayo sat out in for a few hours, or the chicken got a little too cold, or someone dropped on the floor. What about the bread? SUre, that's clean, except that it touched some of the chicken or some of the mayo.
Besides, how humane is it if a homeless person pukes up a lung and pisses out of their ass for three days? Lands in the hospital, maybe, or even dies? Or are their digestive systems "immune" to the food poisoning that makes the rest of us ill? I doubt it.
"But I was just trying to help..." It's good that people would, but making someone sick wouldn't be a big help.
Restaurants don't trust their employees to distinguish between what is "Safe" to give away and what isn't. Health departments don't trust people either which is why there are laws about a lot of things like that. Restaurants throw anything that isn't eaten or used within a certain period of time, otherwise they're outside of the laws that govern cleanliness and importantly, licensing. And from what I understand there are really not any laws that say when you can put food out for the taking, and still keep your license if someone gets sick.
Strangely, the restaurant managers I know are collegiate people with very nice paychecks. Hardly "minimum wage Republicans". Of course, I don't know any fry joint managers.
One last thing. Restaurants can get sued for making people sick with food, even free food. But bars never get sued for providing poor ventilation from cigarette smoke. SOmething is wrong here. How much better or worse is it, when a bartender serves someone too many drinks, or when a restaurant owner puts old, salmonella-laden food out in back of the restaurant? The end result could be the same, but the ways which it was reached may be different.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be 240 Allison
on
Sat Jan 31 09:53 CST 2004 [ RELATED]
|
|
Actually, a lot of resturaunts in my area give away a lot of food to different charities. especially bakeries with bread that didn't sell in a given day. they just freeze it, and the groups come by making their rounds. One company I did some work for some time ago has been supplying the UVA Cancer center with daily made from scratch scones, muffins, cookies, and baguettes. It is frozen everynight, and they just thaw.
No illnesses, and no lawsuits. So yes, food is given away to charity, becuase it is no longer considered premium, but also is still perfectly good to eat, and has not been dropped on the floor, or partially eaten.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Chris,
Just free forming here, do you happen to run a KFC for a living by any chance?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Salmonella and rancid mayo... I see where you're coming from.
There's an old KFC I've driven past a few times. It has one of those giant buckets on top of it. On top of the bucket is a perpetual colony of pigeons, lining the edges. I have to get a picture of it; too appropriate to pass up.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Missoula, MT had one exactly like that, right in the middle of "Malfunction Junction" I think it's gone now, but the pigeons looked like death row prisoners awaiting the needle...
|
|
-
|
|
|
"The "minimum wage" $60k Republican running the restaurant might just be taking orders from someone else, not him or herself..."
Where the hell do you live? The last time I checked, managing a "Wendy's" paid slightly better than a Public school teacher, about $18,000 a year after workin 60+ hours a week...
jcm
|
|
-
|
|
|
I don't have any Wendy's, McDonalds, Burger King, Hardees, or any other burger joint, anywhere nearby. There are some, but out of my area. Out of my area enough to have to plan to drive there to get them. I live right in the city, too; skyscrapers within walking distance type of neighborhood. But people here (I think) are looking for something more personal, less greasy, less nasty, and you're not saving any money eating at the grease joints either. There are a few sub shops around that pay managers in the high 20s (advertised) but that's about all I know. Like I said, I know some higher end restaurant managers, but they're very well paid for what they do. They DO work a lot, that much is true. Like seven days a week sometimes.
But then, so do I...
|
|
-
|
|
|
NYC?
If you are in THAT city then $60 K a year IS MINIMUM WAGE!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Ha, I used to work in Newark, right near Belleville Park, beautiful. Would never live near work! Living in NYC is rather pricey, but not the worst. The Bay Area is pretty tough to afford. Ruined by the dot-bomb era. People are starting to come out from under it though, homes purchased through careful estate planning by relatives. Been there and tried that. What I would've paid for a dump there, gets me two nice places here in two cities. I'd rather have it that way.
|
|
-
|
|
|
It's amazing how your location, sometimes just a mile or two, can change the amount you have to pay for a house. What I’ve seen happen is people who live next to the foo-foo pricey neighborhoods but not quite in them, just begin to claim that neighborhood name.
“Oh, yes, I live in East Rich-town.” When in reality they live in West Crack-town!
Human nature to always to been seen as more than you are. I am what I am, I own very little, have just about as much debt as I do worth (financial that is) so what the hell?
When someone looks down their nose at me because they have money I am grateful, they identify themselves to me, and when shit goes down, I'll know who to go victimize should the need arise.
|
|
-
|
|
|
The USPS even has allowable vanity addresses. The most notable is "Hollywood", CA. Which is truly Los Angeles, but the USPS figures people are going to use Hollywood as their address anyway, so they have allowed it in as a CASS-compliant city/st/zip/zip4.
People are people-- not going to change.
|
|
-
|
|
|
What's the zip code for Compton?
That's funny. I've never cared what others thought about me. Save my loved ones, but I mean if someone wants to look down their nose at me because of where I live, go for it. If I need anything from them I usually can charm it from them. I guess you are right.
FYI - I'm typing this not from my sub-urban 2 bedroom Rancher, but rather, from my diamond encrusted palace which is surrounded by a moat filled beer with chicks floating in rubber dingies guarding me with Uzis....
|
|
-
|
|
|
90220-90224. Very famous zip codes, brought up lots of urban music artists!
I don't even own a house that stands on it's own piece of property... you have to be loaded to do that around here. Or move 40 miles away.
So how can I get a moat? We all have one, so to speak. Also, you're just being modest. That's champagne, I can smell it.
And I gave Bill Gates another $39 today (and Uncle State of IL 7% more for the privilege of purchasing it there) for my new ergonomic keyboard. This thing is the best invention ever to hit the streets, I got one at work and I had to get one for my house when I used it for a few days.
They tried to score another $7.99 for a "two year replacement plan" when I checked out. I pointed out that it said "Two Year Warranty" right on the box, so I'd pass on the seven dollars since I'd kinda be paying for two warranties. Wonder how many of those they actually sell?
And by the way, I'm drinking a $8 bottle of wine. So to hell with you and your fancy moat-girls, your Lake Champagne, and your swarthy goons. And tomorrow I'm waking up to have Bloody Marys and a big, fat Tofu Scrambler, before climbing beneath a Volvo and an Explorer to do some service. Because I can think of nothing I'd rather do, than rolling under a car in 25 degree temps.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I was getting ready to scold you once you menyioned giving Gates mor money, as I thought you were buyin software from him. I haven't bought non-pirated software since the mid 90s'. They charge tooo much! Just think of it as me "out sourcing" my software providers...
jcm
|
|
-
|
|
|
"I haven't bought non-pirated software since the mid 90s'. They charge tooo much! Just think of it as me "out sourcing" my software providers..."
If you are using pirated Microsoft software, you are still contributing to Microsoft's market dominance, by keeping your mindshare and your file formats within the Microsoft market.
Truly free options exist. Using them fosters competition without any sort of legal or ethical problems involving pirated software.
|
|
-
|
|
|
"Truly free options exist. Using them fosters competition without any sort of legal or ethical problems involving pirated software."
I'm sure they do, I am not very computer savy, nor do I feel the need to level the softare playing field. I'm not all that interested.
I have no ethical or legal problems now with the software I use. It's all just zeros and ones, I don't recognize that as being cny corporation's property. If the Federal Government can't fight Micrsosoft, why should I bother trying?
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
"If the Federal Government can't fight
Micrsosoft, why should I bother trying?"
1. The government was actually winning the Microsoft court case. But the Bush administration changed goals, apparently deciding that big business almost-monopolies aren't so bad for a market economy, letting Microsoft off easy on a settlement.
2. Given the security risks of using Microsoft software, it is often in your own best interest to use the more secure truly free software.
3. Railing against Bill Gates and Microsoft while aiding Microsoft's market dominance is not setting a good example.
4. Even if the government is ineffective, it isn't the only thing. If you vote in political elections because you feel that your one vote (out of millions) counts, then you should be willing to vote in the marketplace.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I was doing what I was asked, which was depositing the food in the dumpster. I just happened to be centralizing the stuff before I put it in the dumpster. People were checking out that dumpster anyway before I would throw it out ina box, and I am sure they were doing the same thing after I quit. In a way, I might have prevented some illnesses by putting it all in a box and avoiding cross-contamination from other materials in the dumpster.
The solution would have been a lock on the dumpster, if the company didn't want people going through their trash, or a locked enclosure for said dumpsters. Of course, that would make it more inconvenient.
--
Sensual Ascetic. Three Volvos. Average age 37 years. No damn cupholders. Good wine.
|
|
-
|
|
|
My point isn't to say that you were doing anything wrong. My point was, if you were being told not to, I'm sure it wasn't because the boss wanted to short anyone of dinner. Also probably that he wasn't just saying that because he was a "minimum wage republican". Everyone who isn't JCM is a minimum wage republican, that's about what it boils down to. And if that description doesn't fit, then they're an asshole, jackass, moron, loser, or whatever other label he can tack on their forehead.
Anyway, I don't know many of those people. Well, I don't know any of those. They all live in backwater lumberjack camps (they call them "cities") in Montana and North Dakota... but that's for another thread.
I used to save all the cans of LaCroix or other fizz water that I drink. I drink a lot of it, and I used to hang them on the handle of the little yard dumpsters that they give you in the city. I'm sure it made someone happy and it didn't take any more effort on my part. These guys go up and down alleys all day long and collect cans. They go back across the river with HUGE carts full of cans, every day. My waste is their gain. So why not help them out. They're not breaking into my house or stealing my car, they're cleaning up the neighborhoods and the parks.
Same thing for Sanford & Son. These guys used to collect stuff from my alley all the time. They loved it when I'd drag a few old alloys, or a transmission out there. I always put it where they could see it. I gave a garage full of lumber to a Mexican guy in a Toyota pickup truck. Who knows what he was doing with it -- he was just putt-putting down the alley and asked if he could take a few pieces I had in my backyard.
"A few pieces", I thought... "Hmmmm..."
So, he drives away with a truck full of very decent building materials that I didn't want. They came with the house and I had newer stuff delivered already. I could've put an ad in the paper for someone to come over and maybe get $50 for it, but I wasn't hurting, so why not just be done with it. Maybe the guy is trying to build something that'll make his life better. Maybe he's going to make a little more money on some work he does for someone else. No worries on my part -- he can do what he wants.
Come to think of it, I give away a TON of things. I gave away a nice late 90s Trek road bike to someone who couldn't afford it, but could afford to put a little work into it, maybe $50 or $60. I give away a ton of clothes.
Now let me tell you what IS a waste. I know a guy, personally, family friend, who lives in a fixed-income apartment building for retirees on Social Security with certain income levels. The building is a nice building, in a hot area, right in the middle of everything, and very safe too. Every Monday (or whatever day, you get the picture) the local food pantry comes around and puts BOXES of cereal, juice, and canned products in the lobby of the apartment building.
Every Wednesday early morning, what isn't taken, gets dragged out to the dumpster and chucked. Dumpster guys come on Wednesday and they don't want that crap sitting around their apartment building. Everyone in the building is too proud to take handouts, I guess. I've looked -- brand name cereal, everything current dates. All donations.
Imagine that; straight in the dumpster. My friend takes what goes out next to the dumpster and redistributes it to local people he knows, who need it, but don't fit the state or federal government's description of "needy". If it weren't for him, there would be boxes and boxes of good food getting chucked, and that's only at that building. Too bad for the grocery stores and people that donate all the product, just to have it pitched. And of course the federal government stuff too. Your tax dollars go into that.
But I guess it's probably just the fault of the Republicans, like everything else in this forum lately. Probably the fault of those rotten minorities, or those aberrant gays, or any other catchall group too.
|
|
-
|
|
|
In Minneapolis here there is a website that is just for people who want to give things away, a "free" web page, if you will. You can list things there, and invariably, there is someone who needs it.
I had a whole attic full of bales of fiberglass insulation that the former owners left here. Ididn't deal with it for years. Who wants to carry itchy insulation down from the third floor of a house, and anyway, I would have to hire a dumpster for it. I put an ad in the local neighborhood newspaper, and got a guy who called right away. He and a buddy came and took it all away. They were building a garage.
There are a group of people who distribute organic and natural food that is close to going out of date. They take it to various public housing spots. A friend of mine volunteers to drop off the stuff. There is a public housing project a block north of me. There have been times recently in my past where her stopping by with some bread or produce has really made a difference.
I, too, leave stuff for garbage pick-up in very obvious places. There are people who go upand down the alleys, and I am always happy if the stuff I don't need gets used by someoneelse rather than sent to the incinerator.
--
Sensual Ascetic. Three Volvos. Average age 37 years. No damn cupholders. Good wine.
|
|
-
|
|
|
can't fight the logic, so go after my style...
it's been attempted, go whine to Jarrod.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm not seeing any intellect to fight against... I'm not saying you might not be a smart guy, and being only a few years older than myself, maybe you've got some tidbits of wisdom I don't have. I thikn a lot of it is, you and I are from different sides of the earth, at least to a large extent.
As far as style goes, it isn't that hard to string together a bunch of names and put them in a paragraph. It couldn't convince me of much, except that making a scene, is interpreted as routing people from the board. I don't see where the victory is in that. It doesn't look as much as intellectual victory as just beating people off with a stick.
WHat has Jarrod got to do with this? Have you arranged something with him? If he wants to chuck me, he can go ahead and do it. I'm far from a "destructive presence".
|
|
-
|
|
|
Well, that's refreshing; at least you have your youth as an excuse for your mistaken political beliefs. Many here with whom I disagree sadly don't have the inexperience to blame it on.
As for “stringing” stuff together, I suspect you wouldn’t mind it if I were using the same style to defend your “Screw you, I stand to inherit mine, go get your own” attitude.
I admit I don’t piss my time away on trite little niceties. I’ve always been more interested in the actions of people rather than there words, and as the right wing sodomizes the working class they’re trying to whisper “sweet-nothings” but they can’t be heard over our screams of pain. Sorry if I’ve offended. I guess it’s important enough to me to drop the pretense of civility. It’s my life after all and only your excess.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I don't have any mistaken political beliefs, actually.
I may be wrong about some things, but not politics. You don't even have any idea who I vote for, or if I even vote.
Am I even a US Citizen? Maybe I'm just a permanent resident. I might make $0 a year, or I might make $200k a year. I might have family money, I might not.
You know nothing about me, except that I'm younger than you, but I don't think by much. You're in what, your early thirties? Right behind you.
I might yank the republican switch, or the democrat straight-party. That is, if I am even eligible to vote in the first place. Anything could happen. You have no idea what I'm inheriting, or if I even want a part of any inheritance. You don't know my excesses, or the excesses of anyone else here. Anything beyond food/clothing/shelter could be considered excessive. It depends on the spin placed upon it, and the agenda it serves. That works both ways, too... not just one.
One place you're definitely wrong, is that I wouldn't mind if you were using the same style to defend what I'm saying. I would. I enjoy and respect a (moderately) professional-slash-intellectual form of discussion. Doesn't even have to be every single time, even once in a while would be nice.
|
|
-
|
|
|
ok, point well taken but the nicey-nicey crap gets boring.
It's like two boxers who just keep circling...and jabing, but not connecting.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
That usually fixes everything.
Or gets me in dangerously hot water.
Anyway.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm blushing....they don't have akey for that on this board so I gotta tell you instead...
|
|
-
|
|
|
I'm still trying to find it.
|
|
-
|
|
|
yeeewoo all of this work is making me thirsty, where's my Tab?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Was the concern a fear of lawsuits if someone got sick eating out of date dumpster dived food? Would be sad if it was (whether it is a real lawsuit risk, or just overblown fear of a lawsuit), since it is hard to imagine anyone having a moral / ethical problem with salvaging physical goods like food that were meant to be discarded (inadvertantly discovered abusable information like credit card receipts are a different matter).
|
|
-
|
|
|
He was probably thinking "If I prevent them from eating out of the dumpster, they just might somehoe come in a buy something....thus ensuring my wealth!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Taking my last crumb, or one of the many, many, many crumbs of the rich, may be the same thing on paper, but two big factors come to play in my mind:
1.) My last crumb is more important to me than the many crumbs of the rich.
2.) The crumbs of the rich were taken from me. “Legally” perhaps, buts that’s only because the rich paid to have the laws changed to fit their modus-operandi. Morally they were stolen.
Just as the right-wing seems to believe that being poor or working class opens one up to all sorts of assault from the rich, I believe that being wealthy opens one up to all sorts of assault from those who have nothing. Basically you can’t “steal” (in a moral sense) from a rich man until he gets down to the bare amount of crumbs he needs to survive.
I you steal $100 from me and $100 from Bill Gates, chances are I’d never see any money back or justice done to you whereas Gates would probably have you locked up for 100 years.
|
|
-
|
|
|
So it sounds like you believe that it is morally ok to steal from someone richer than you, since his/her wealth was stolen from you. Would you also say that anyone poorer than you is morally justified in stealing from you, since you are "rich" compared to him/her?
Then again, suppose persons X and Y start out working from similar family economic backgrounds, in the same type of jobs (something morally acceptable by your standards) earning about the same amount of money and living in the same cost of living areas. Suppose X manages his/her personal finances carefully and saves a bit every year, while Y spends (often wastefully) like the current crop of Republicans in the US government or the recent past crop of Democrats in the California government, ending up on the treadmill of debt. Now, what do you say about the morality of X and Y? Do you think it is more ok to steal from one compared to the other?
|
|
-
|
|
|
"So it sounds like you believe that it is morally ok to steal from someone richer than you, since his/her wealth was stolen from you. Would you also say that anyone poorer than you is morally justified in stealing from you, since you are "rich" compared to him/her?"
Yes, if I don't need it and they do, yes indeed. Hell, take it. I'm not a greedy pig.
The funny part is if we as a society all gave our fair share you and I as working folks wouldn't notice a difference. We already give enough, the vacuum occurs due to the wealthy.
How many hot meals could we turn a hefty portion of Bill Gates fortune into? It's mind boggling. I’m not even proposing turning Bill into a poor person, but just less of a rich person.
There is no valid justification for the excessive wealth and poverty in the world.
You can post charts, explain business models to me, sing the virtues of the modern day capitalist and it all comes down this.
Last year in the US we spent 8 billion dollars on Viagra.
8 billions dollars a year to get a hard dick, and yet fly covered children lay out on the mud floor of their huts dying from simple hunger,US bombs or easily treated diseases.
I say “F-you” to anyone who tries to say that’s the way things should be, or has no compulsion to change them.
Call me all the smug little nick-names, “pinko” “commie” whatever, but I have a heart, I can’t help but to feel the way I feel when I survey the hypocrisy of some of the luckiest people eon the face of the planet. AMERICANS.
Can you imagine how much better things would be if we were dropping humanitarian supplies in lieu of BOMBS?
I can.
|
|
-
|
|
|
What is a fair social model? Is it one where the pot is shared by those who need it, or is it one where you grab what you can and run? The latter is the law of the jungle - it can surely not be tolerated in a measured, civilised society. That is what distinguishes man from animals, surely.
Of course there are those who, through greed or desperation, grab as much as they can and to hell with their fellow men. An evolving, civilised society would surely aim for the ideal of "to each according to his need". You can call that Communism (no, we better hadn't, it's too emotive) or Socialism or Democracy, whatever.
Of course, our instincts are coloured by our surroundings, our parents, our upbringing, our preacher etc. so there needs to be some agreed set of rules that we can live by. They are called laws. To steal is to break the law (and if you are a Christian, it is a sin). It's that simple.
Of course, none of us are angels. If I were up against it, my instinct would be to protect and care for my family, of course it would - that is the human condition. So I might break the law if I had to. But I'd feel dreadful.
Of course you may not AGREE with some laws. So we have a system for seeking reforms and curbing injustices. This depends for its success on reasonable and responsive governments - I won't go there yet.
So I guess I'm saying that for society to work we must comply with the rules or laws that have evolved. Otherwise we degenerate into chaos.
There's my thesis - please discuss. Regards.
--
BillB
|
|
-
|
|
|
People hide behind "corporations" when they commit their evil deeds, they're no different that the common thief (such as me) except I stnad by my actions. If I need, I'll try to get it legally, but won't hesitate to do whatever I need to do to provide for my family.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
Assuming that there exists such a thing as a "fair" social model (since the concept of what's fair is usually the bone of contention), it would likely not be either of the ends of the spectrum of social behaviour posited in your msg.
I will cheerfully admit to having a concept of "fair" derived more from Ayn Rand than from FDR.
That being said, there is likely to evolve over time some sort of system which allows the innovater or the creator or the worker some additional share of the fruits of his labor, or there will be no motivation to continue creating/ working/ innovating for the benefit of those who take but do not produce.
will there be aberrational individuals in any system? In a pure "to them that needs from them that does" system, you'll always have them that exaggerates their needs--after all, it would be judgmental for anyone else to determine the validity of their needs, right? In your jungle scenario, the biggest/fastest will get the best, and the slowest/weakest will starve. Somewhere in the in-between scenario, you will have those who grab and run, those who squat and squander, and those who genuinely need and through disability of some sort are unlable to improve their lot by their own efforts or those of their families.
However, I submit that in a society with any hope of continuing to evolve, there will need to be rewards for success--otherwise, we slide backward to the jungle. Just don't expect to ever get it perfect or to keep it that way--humans are involved, after all.
--
We have met the enemy and they is us. [Pogo] S70 cop car : Rough Rider tires& suspension, Walmart fog lights, eBay speakers, ambiance by Pall Mall, trim by Le Duc d'Tape, 8-channel THD by OEM amps
|
|
-
|
|
|
So it's "unless I'm given full permission to victimize my neighbor I ain't going to work"?
Like I said, if that's the case, pack your bags.
If without the prospect of becoming a mini-King you can't get out of bed in the morning, you need help form a shrink.
How about do good work for good pay, have a good life and tread not on your brother unless the absolute need arises and do so as lightly as possible?
You have no right to excess when there are those in need. Sorry some of us out here have real moral codes by which we live, we don't put them on hold when it suites us or our bank accounts.
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
Read whatever you want to in the message, whether or not it is really there. Let's say I work more than 5 days a week, and don't take all the available vacations for thirty years or so. Yeah, I could work five days a week, 40-hour max, and bitch about the "rich", or I can make my "wealth" by working extra and taking care of it when I get it. You wanna tell me that you're entitled the fruits of my extra labor because you're lower class? How are you being victimized because I am willing to work more to get more? In the vernacular of the uncouth: Eat my shorts.
--
We have met the enemy and they is us. [Pogo] S70 cop car : Rough Rider tires& suspension, Walmart fog lights, eBay speakers, ambiance by Pall Mall, trim by Le Duc d'Tape, 8-channel THD by OEM amps
|
|
-
-
|
|
|
If you gonna start up with the biblical stuff at least vary a bit...cite the sections too, I love when they do that. "In John 3:45 it sez..."
like I care!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Apparently you must have picked up that something I said has a Biblical reference. Which of my words do you attribute to the Bible?
Like I think you care?
|
|
-
|
|
|
I thought the "casting pearls" comment was attributed to J.C. Maybe not. I was trained in science, not literature....so I could very well be wrong in this particular instance…
jcm
|
|
-
|
|
|
"You wanna tell me that you're entitled the fruits of my extra labor because you're lower class?"
No, I'm not entitled to the fruits of your labor.
What I am entitled to are the fruits of my labour, which is currently sitting in the bank acounts of those who have perverted our Deomcracy with purchased legislation.
THINK just for a second.
Bill Gates is probably easily 500 million time richer than I am.
Does that means he's worked 500 million times harder than me? No, he didn't. So where did he get all that extra money?
My and your pockets.
No, I doubt there are many Americans who have toiled as hard as I have. I got the scares to prove it.
I say tax them until they vomit, or just beofre they leave the country. WHere is Bill Gates going to go? England, they'll tax the shit out of him there and any other Western Country. We are the tax break whores of the western world. Time to change that.
Cheers,
JCM
|
|
-
|
|
|
"So where did [Bill Gates] get all that extra money?
My and your pockets."
No one is forcing you to buy Microsoft software which adds to Bill Gates' wealth. If anything, software is one item where you can get what you need for typical household use for no additional marginal cost (than the computer and internet connection you already have if you are posting here).
|
|
-
|
|
|
Gates, being used as a symbol for super rich business doesn't need my voluntary support, they purchase legislation that forces me to hand my money over to them.
|
|
-
|
|
|
"Gates, being used as a symbol for super rich business doesn't need my voluntary support, they purchase legislation that forces me to hand my money over to them."
You might be surprised, since Bill Gates (both of them), Warren Buffett, George Soros, Ted Turner, and David Rockefeller Sr. opposed the Bush administration's elimination of the estate tax. Bill Gates Sr. (the father of the Microsoft one) wrote a book and took out newspaper ads in opposition to the Bush administration on this issue.
Obviously, they weren't successful in this respect.
Then again, many of those people are not inheritors as far as how they go to be super-rich. So it may not be that surprising if you think about it.
|
|
-
|
|
|
point well taken, Gates is much "lefter" than the old school JP Morgan types, and I do give credit where credit is do, however, I wont' prasie him for simply making gestures toward doing the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
