Poor People/Lazy People
Monica Cellio
> Sure, there is work available for *MANY* (not all) who are able to work.
> BUT, can one earn a LIVING WAGE doing the work that is available. In most
> cases, no. According to every survey and study I have encountered, of all
> the "new jobs" being created by the economy MOST are minimum wage jobs.
> It is simply not feasible to provide for a family on minimum wage.
Fine. Rather than not work and collect everything they need from welfare,
why don't they take the minimum wage job and only get in aid the difference
between that income and what they "need" (by welfare standards)? It's the
lazy people who decide they don't need to work *at all* in order to receive
enough money to live on who are ripping off the taxpayers.
And by the way, while it isn't possible to support a family on minimum wage,
I do know individuals who are supporting themselves on minimum wage or
thereabouts.
The implementation of the current welfare system leaves a lot to be desired
(as does, probably, the system itself). The system does little to weed out
the lazy bums (who are probably a small fraction of welfare recipients), so
they take advantage of it. I'm tired of supporting cheats and bums with my
money; I don't object to helping the genuinely poor. (And yes, I *do*
consider it to be *our* money, not *theirs*. They have no right to it; they
are merely receiving it as a gift.)
-Dragon
--
UUCP: seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!!cmu-cs-cad!mjc or if that doesn't work:
{seismo, ihnp4, qantel, ucbvax!ucdavis} !lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
Thomas J Keller
> From: mc6...@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller)
> > Sure, there is work available for *MANY* (not all) who are able to work.
> > BUT, can one earn a LIVING WAGE doing the work that is available. In most
> > cases, no. According to every survey and study I have encountered, of all
> > the "new jobs" being created by the economy MOST are minimum wage jobs.
> > It is simply not feasible to provide for a family on minimum wage.
>
> Fine. Rather than not work and collect everything they need from welfare,
> why don't they take the minimum wage job and only get in aid the difference
> between that income and what they "need" (by welfare standards)? It's the
> lazy people who decide they don't need to work *at all* in order to receive
> enough money to live on who are ripping off the taxpayers.
Well, gee. What a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, people *USED* to be able
to do just that. Many people in fact DID take minimum wage jobs, and
collect only what they needed as assistance over their pay. Then Reagan
was elected to the presidency. One of his earlier actions was to do away
with such programs, "to save money."
Try checking out the facts next time. This was a harmless enough piece
of business, involving a legitimate question. I get so sick of the idiots
who claim that welfare recipients are living in "comfort." I suggest that
these self-righteous jerks just *TRY* to survive on $456/month for a single
mother with one child. Then I will listen to their evaluations of the
"comfort" welfare recipients live in.
>
> And by the way, while it isn't possible to support a family on minimum wage,
> I do know individuals who are supporting themselves on minimum wage or
> thereabouts.
>
> The implementation of the current welfare system leaves a lot to be desired
> (as does, probably, the system itself). The system does little to weed out
> the lazy bums (who are probably a small fraction of welfare recipients), so
> they take advantage of it. I'm tired of supporting cheats and bums with my
> money; I don't object to helping the genuinely poor. (And yes, I *do*
> consider it to be *our* money, not *theirs*. They have no right to it; they
> are merely receiving it as a gift.)
Oddly enough, I agree that your money is yours. What the "libertarians"
fail to comprehend is that the very opportunity to produce wealth is a
benefit of the society in which we live. Therefore, it is not completely
unreasonable that each individual return a small portion of that wealth
to society to provide for societal needs.
I'll tell you what, when I see the people bitching about welfare trying
to do something constructive about $600 toilet seats, $45 nuts and bolts,
and multi-trillion dollar SDI boondoggles, **THEN** I will pay some
attention to their complaints. I say they're just using the poor as
scapegoats, because the poor aren't in a position to fight back.
(of course, *MANY* of the so-called "libertarians" who bitch so loudly
about the government make nice comfy livings either directly or indirectly
from the government they hate so much)
I have said before, and I will say again: I do not accept that society
or any individual in society has the right to expect a person to devote
their entire workday to performing functions to meet that society's or
that individual's needs, and not pay the worker sufficiently to live with
dignity and pride. It is not reasonable to expect people to do your
dirty work for you, and to live in poverty and degradation as their
reward. Anyone who claims otherwise is a self-serving, inconsiderate
jack ass.
--
Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!!
tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!"
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
Maurice E. Suhre
>
Welfare stuff deleted.....
> Oddly enough, I agree that your money is yours. What the "libertarians"
> fail to comprehend is that the very opportunity to produce wealth is a
> benefit of the society in which we live. Therefore, it is not completely
> unreasonable that each individual return a small portion of that wealth
^^^^^
> to society to provide for societal needs.
If the tax bill passes, and state taxes are deductible, then
the marginal rate for us Californians will be
.28 + .11 -.28*.11 = 35.9%. Is this a small portion?
(Note I've only included income taxes. Not sales taxes,
excise taxes, property taxes, etc.)
--
Maurice Suhre
{decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre
Alan Hedge
probably worth the investment to make sure the poor don't get unhappy
enough to do something about their plight. In history, the poor sometimes
became noticeably irritated in rather violent and unpredictable ways when
things got bad enough. If they happen to gain any measure of control in
these situations they are rather unmoved by libertarian arguments from
their perceived former oppressors.
But there's nothing to worry about as long as we control the vertical and
the horizontal. :-)
Alan Hedge
Hewlett Packard, Spokane Division
hp-pcd!hpspkla!hedge
Clayton Cramer
> > From: mc6...@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller)
> > > Sure, there is work available for *MANY* (not all) who are able to work.
> > > BUT, can one earn a LIVING WAGE doing the work that is available. In most
> > > cases, no. According to every survey and study I have encountered, of all
> > > the "new jobs" being created by the economy MOST are minimum wage jobs.
> > > It is simply not feasible to provide for a family on minimum wage.
> >
> > Fine. Rather than not work and collect everything they need from welfare,
> > why don't they take the minimum wage job and only get in aid the difference
> > between that income and what they "need" (by welfare standards)? It's the
> > lazy people who decide they don't need to work *at all* in order to receive
> > enough money to live on who are ripping off the taxpayers.
>
> Well, gee. What a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, people *USED* to be able
> to do just that. Many people in fact DID take minimum wage jobs, and
> collect only what they needed as assistance over their pay. Then Reagan
> was elected to the presidency. One of his earlier actions was to do away
> with such programs, "to save money."
>
I've seen one study on the results -- only about 10% of the "working poor"
ended up completely on welfare. The rest were interested enough in
working to continue working.
I agree that this action by the Reagan Administration was a mistake --
I firmly believe anyone with enough character to work when they could sit
back and do nothing are the LAST group that should be penalized.
> Try checking out the facts next time. This was a harmless enough piece
> of business, involving a legitimate question. I get so sick of the idiots
> who claim that welfare recipients are living in "comfort." I suggest that
> these self-righteous jerks just *TRY* to survive on $456/month for a single
> mother with one child. Then I will listen to their evaluations of the
> "comfort" welfare recipients live in.
>
Levels of comfort differ dramatically. I couldn't live comfortably on less
than $3000 a month. I know druggies (like my brother-in-law) who can live
comfortably on $400 a month -- of course, he chooses to live at a level I
find incredible, because the alternative is working.
> >
> > And by the way, while it isn't possible to support a family on minimum wage,
> > I do know individuals who are supporting themselves on minimum wage or
> > thereabouts.
> >
> > The implementation of the current welfare system leaves a lot to be desired
> > (as does, probably, the system itself). The system does little to weed out
> > the lazy bums (who are probably a small fraction of welfare recipients), so
> > they take advantage of it. I'm tired of supporting cheats and bums with my
> > money; I don't object to helping the genuinely poor. (And yes, I *do*
> > consider it to be *our* money, not *theirs*. They have no right to it; they
> > are merely receiving it as a gift.)
>
> Oddly enough, I agree that your money is yours. What the "libertarians"
> fail to comprehend is that the very opportunity to produce wealth is a
> benefit of the society in which we live. Therefore, it is not completely
> unreasonable that each individual return a small portion of that wealth
> to society to provide for societal needs.
>
"Small portion"? You obviously haven't looked at a withholding statement
recently.
> I'll tell you what, when I see the people bitching about welfare trying
> to do something constructive about $600 toilet seats, $45 nuts and bolts,
> and multi-trillion dollar SDI boondoggles, **THEN** I will pay some
> attention to their complaints. I say they're just using the poor as
> scapegoats, because the poor aren't in a position to fight back.
Pay more attention. Much of the complaining about absurd military spending
comes from "cheap conservatives" like Newt Gingrich (R-GA) who resent money
being wasted. Also, much of the material on military waste was originated
by Ms. Dina Rasor while working on a stipend from the Cato Institute --
a libertarian "think tank".
The poor aren't the constituency that fights for welfare -- it's wealthy
liberals who want to make sure their good-for-nothing kids have welfare
offices to work in when they get out of school.
> (of course, *MANY* of the so-called "libertarians" who bitch so loudly
> about the government make nice comfy livings either directly or indirectly
> from the government they hate so much)
>
This is an interesting moral problem: is it OK to work on government
contracts, since your taxes are funding the contracts, or should a
libertarian only work in free market originated businesses? Most
libertarians I know try for the latter -- but as the government has
enlarged its activities in the last 20 years, this becomes an increasingly
difficult action.
> I have said before, and I will say again: I do not accept that society
> or any individual in society has the right to expect a person to devote
> their entire workday to performing functions to meet that society's or
> that individual's needs, and not pay the worker sufficiently to live with
> dignity and pride. It is not reasonable to expect people to do your
> dirty work for you, and to live in poverty and degradation as their
> reward. Anyone who claims otherwise is a self-serving, inconsiderate
> jack ass.
>
> tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!"
Define "poverty". Define "degradation". These are highly relative terms.
I find being enslaved by the government through taxation to be the
most degrading action I will tolerate without violent resistance -- and
it's not just the money. I'm offended that I fund a mechanism designed
to burn millions of people to death (although I can see no better solution
at the moment). I'm offended that I fund a mechanism that rewards laziness
and irresponsibility.
Speaking of self-serving, inconsiderate jackasses, are you STILL unemployed?
There's no shortage of jobs -- maybe you are just lazy to go get a job.
I'm not surprised you spend a lot of time trying to justify laziness.
Clayton E. Cramer
Clayton Cramer
> probably worth the investment to make sure the poor don't get unhappy
> enough to do something about their plight. In history, the poor sometimes
> became noticeably irritated in rather violent and unpredictable ways when
> things got bad enough. If they happen to gain any measure of control in
> these situations they are rather unmoved by libertarian arguments from
> their perceived former oppressors.
>
This assumes that "the poor" have enough initiative to do something
organized. It is certainly my feeling from watching how the welfare
class lives (from far too close up) that much of the poverty in this
country is the result of pure laziness.
The one thing I absolutely assure you of: If the lazy bums I've known over
the years feel they have a legitimate claim on my wealth, produced by me
working while they were off doing their drugs, I don't care how many of
them die trying to rob me.
Clayton E. Cramer
Chris Grevstad
>The one thing I absolutely assure you of: If the lazy bums I've known over
>the years feel they have a legitimate claim on my wealth, produced by me
>working while they were off doing their drugs, I don't care how many of
>them die trying to rob me.
>
Hear hear!!! Where people get the notion that someone has a claim on my
wealth only by virtue of being a member of the same society I will never
know.
I have no problems helping those who really need help, but I refuse to
finance the activities of those who have no interest in helping themselves.
--
Chris Grevstad
{sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!chris
ihnp4!nrcvax!chris
"Plan? There ain't no plan."
Ed Horch
>the lazy bums I've known [who] feel they have a legitimate claim on my
>wealth, produced by me working while they were off doing their drugs
And ch...@minnie.UUCP (Chris Grevstad) adds:
>Hear hear!!! Where people get the notion that someone has a claim on my
>wealth only by virtue of being a member of the same society I will never
>know.
>
>I have no problems helping those who really need help, but I refuse to
>finance the activities of those who have no interest in helping themselves.
I second both motions. I used to live in a town where a substantial
fraction of the population lived "on the dole". At the time, the
economy was rather depressed, so the scarcity of jobs mitigated the
problem greatly. However, when I visit there now, with the local
economy booming, I still see the same people in the same projects,
on the same welfare, "help wanted" signs notwithstanding. (BTW, this
is in a part of the country where one *can* live on minimum wage. At
one point, my friends said I was crazy for spending $310/month for a
one-bedroom apartment.)
Perpetuating the stereotype. *sigh*
-Ed Horch ihnp4!cord!ebh
Gadfly
> ch...@minnie.UUCP (Chris Grevstad) adds:
> >Hear hear!!! Where people get the notion that someone has a claim on my
> >wealth only by virtue of being a member of the same society I will never
> >know.
> >
> >I have no problems helping those who really need help, but I refuse to
> >finance the activities of those who have no interest in helping themselves.
>
> I still see the same people in the same projects,
> on the same welfare, "help wanted" signs notwithstanding. (BTW, this
> is in a part of the country where one *can* live on minimum wage. At
> one point, my friends said I was crazy for spending $310/month for a
> one-bedroom apartment.)
>
The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
"dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
you *do* have such obligations. So spare me your lookin'-out-for-ol'-
number-one pseudo-moral pseudo-outrage. If those unwashed low-lifes
knew how lame you are they'd murder you in your sleep.
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 07 Oct 86 [16 Vendemiaire An CXCV]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-8042 ** ** ** **
ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly *** *** <== NOTE NEW ADDRESS!
bi...@sigma.uucp
>>[...]
>The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
>"dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
>you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
>any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
Okay, Ken. You're on.
Why not let us in on what _your_ ethical system is that demands this
obligation? I'm not arguing the obligation; I am curious to hear to
your justification.
Marcus the Ranum
> The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
> "dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
> you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
> any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
> you *do* have such obligations. So spare me your lookin'-out-for-ol'-
> number-one pseudo-moral pseudo-outrage. If those unwashed low-lifes
> knew how lame you are they'd murder you in your sleep.
>
> ken perlow ***** *****
There are two major problems with your line of reasoning:
1) you are assuming some kind of universal morality, in that YOU assert
that those of use with yuppie-designer brains *DO* have some kind of
obligations. Simply put: this point is arguable, and depends entirely
on your moral/philosophical background. I am simply pointing this out,
and refuse to give my position on the matter of absolute morality, since
that would tend to distract you from my main argument that there is no
logically testable proof that "ethics" and "morality" exist outside of
the human imagination. Unless you make an unsupported claim like "you
*ARE* your brother's keeper" there will always be those who prefer to
assume they are not.
2) assume my point #1 is INCORRECT. In that case we do have a moral/ethical
imperative to succor our fellow man when he is in need. This applies to
the unemployed of Amerika, the starving of Africa, the oppressed in Russia,
the Chinese peasant who has a bad year, ad infinitum. Essentially, if you
are so courageous as to be your brother's keeper, YOU HAVE A MORAL IMPERATIVE
to help EVERYONE that is needy, cold, wet, hungry, poor, oppressed, imprisoned,
denied the right to vote, beaten, etc, etc. It is against your previous
statement that you "*do* have such obligations" if you are going to decide
to only help the poor of Amerika. In fact, people who get so upon their
high horse, speaking of the moral duty of yuppie-designer-brained people,
yet have the time to talk about it, are obviously failing to fulfill their
self-assigned duty. While you wrote those words above, hundreds of people
all over the world were suffering from one disorder or another. Why weren't
you, oh saviour of humanity, doing something about it ?
in short, either you assume that you owe nobody anything, but can
occasionally opt to help out, or you MUST assume the burden of all humanity
as brothers. I think the first option in this case is the more sensible
one. The last person I recall hearing about who tried the second got nailed
to a tree, or something like that.
Personally, it is your last sentence that I feel is the most sensible.
Were it not for the bread and circuses that our tax money provides, the
great unwashed would surely bring about the collapse of Amerika, and Usenet,
and murder anyone who makes over 25,000$/year in their sleeps. To think of
it as "protection money" is not out of the question. Remember the glory that
was Rome, and the gawdawful mess that followed.
None of this is dogma. I just hope to provide some fuel for thought.
Morality is a terrible responsibility, and I have never met anyone who has
had the strength to do anything other than TALK about it.
Live Free
mjr
--
Quite a hundred gourds
Be careful of pine-needle points
Waterfall Music
Dan'l Oakes
>
> There are two major problems with your line of reasoning:
>
>on your moral/philosophical background.
Actually, it is quite possible to derive a system of ethics (though never
morals) from sheer pragmatism.
>[I] refuse to give my position on the matter of absolute morality, since
>that would tend to distract you from my main argument
Ah. Thank you, oh Enlightened One, for not confusing our poor mortal
brains with what only your Magnificent Mountain of Mentality can truly
comprehend. We mortals need protection from that kind of confusion...
>2) assume my point #1 is INCORRECT. In that case we do have a moral/ethical
>imperative to succor our fellow man when he is in need.
>Essentially, if you are so courageous as to be your brother's keeper, YOU
>HAVE A MORAL IMPERATIVE to help EVERYONE that is needy, cold, wet, hungry,
>poor, oppressed, imprisoned, denied the right to vote, beaten, etc, etc...
>
> in short, either you assume that you owe nobody anything, but can
>occasionally opt to help out, or you MUST assume the burden of all humanity
>as brothers. I think the first option in this case is the more sensible
>one. The last person I recall hearing about who tried the second got nailed
>to a tree, or something like that.
Feh. Category errors abound. An ethical obligation to help does not
necessarily entail an obligation to always place that help above all else.
In Islam, for example, giving alms to the poor is a moral obligation for
any believer who makes more than a bare living wage -- but there is a set
formula for how much to give, and you do it in your own city, for your own
poor.
As for the guy on the tree, he had something to say about neighbors, if I
recall. And as for more distant needy, there was something about removing
the beam in one's own eye before going after the mote in someone else's.
Oh: and this, "The poor you will have always." So much for the Great
Society...
>Live Free
Nice trick, if you can do it. Bums manage pretty well, I believe.
The Roach Without Fear
"I am a child again -- the other children have a name for
me, a name because I stay in and do my -- Hey! Get your
damn finger out of my eye!"
e...@cord.uucp
>The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
>"dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
>you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
>any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
>you *do* have such obligations.
I was going to mail the following to someone who responded to me, but
now it seems to be worth posting...
As this discussion continues on the net, I think we'll see some debate
on just what "truly in need" really means. Are we talking about 3rd
generation welfare families with kids by the dozen? How about the
starving in Ethiopia? Or the bankrupt American farmers? Or my mother,
who can't afford her medical bills from last year's cancer? Or the
<whatever the number is> cancer patients that could all benefit
from a cure?
I think we all have to decide in our own minds just who is deserving
of the money we set aside for the "less fortunate". I can't stand it
when some government agency takes my money and gives it to people I
don't believe should get it. There are plenty of people that really
are in need, and there are plenty of mechanisms (read charities)
through which I can help those people. It's not a matter of whether
I know personally the beneficiaries of my money. It's a matter of
attacking the problems I feel are the most serious.
If I'm going to pay for somebody's drugs, don't I have a right to
want them dispensed by a doctor and not by a pusher?
Self-righteous? Possibly. But that's how I feel.
-Ed Horch ihnp4!cord!ebh
P.S. to Ken: It's too bad we didn't get a chance to talk more at
the net.party...
Gadfly
> ... Essentially, if you
> are so courageous as to be your brother's keeper, YOU HAVE A MORAL IMPERATIVE
> to help EVERYONE that is needy, cold, wet, hungry, poor, oppressed, imprisoned,
> denied the right to vote, beaten, etc, etc. It is against your previous
> statement that you "*do* have such obligations" if you are going to decide
> to only help the poor of Amerika. In fact, people who get so upon their
> high horse, speaking of the moral duty of yuppie-designer-brained people,
> yet have the time to talk about it, are obviously failing to fulfill their
> self-assigned duty. While you wrote those words above, hundreds of people
> all over the world were suffering from one disorder or another. Why weren't
>
> mjr
How do you know that I'm not? I'm not a doctor nor a farmer, so my physical
presence in underdeveloped areas might not be of much use. It would behoove
you, mjr, to study some real moral philosophy. By stating that you, I, and
everyone has some set of obligations to others does not mean that we must
spend every waking hour nurturing the less fortunate. There are some who do
hold this belief, and I am in awe of their courage.
It's a bit of an oversimplification, but you can divide most ethical codes
into two camps: (1) deontology, which posits a set of absolutes and appropriate
behaviors which derive from them; and (2) utilitarianism, which sets out a
relativistic algorithm (viz: greatest good for the greatest number) which one
adopts behaviors in order to maximize. We of course ignore all flavors of
ethical egoism (in a nutshell, "what's good for me is good") as garbage.
But even constrained to (1) or (2), we have quite a bit of freedom to
decide whom we help and how much.
And then, one's moral code is an ideal to live up to. If I ought to be
helping *everyone*, then I am not as good or complete a person as I could
be if I did so. That's the point. These damned Randists go beyond simply
"looking out for ol' number one." After all, we all do that to some
degree. But they've raised selfishness to a bloody sacrament.
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 09 Oct 86 [18 Vendemiaire An CXCV]
ch...@minnie.uucp
>--
>>ch...@minnie.UUCP (Chris Grevstad) adds:
>>>Hear hear!!! Where people get the notion that someone has a claim on my
>>>wealth only by virtue of being a member of the same society I will never
>>>know.
>>>
>>>I have no problems helping those who really need help, but I refuse to
>>>finance the activities of those who have no interest in helping themselves.
>>
>>I second both motions...
>>I still see the same people in the same projects,
>>on the same welfare, "help wanted" signs notwithstanding. (BTW, this
>>is in a part of the country where one *can* live on minimum wage. At
>>one point, my friends said I was crazy for spending $310/month for a
>>one-bedroom apartment.)
>>
>>-Ed Horch
>
>The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
>"dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
>you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
>any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
>you *do* have such obligations. So spare me your lookin'-out-for-ol'-
>number-one pseudo-moral pseudo-outrage. If those unwashed low-lifes
>knew how lame you are they'd murder you in your sleep.
>
Give me a break!!! To quote (in case you have a hard time reading):
>>ch...@minnie.UUCP (Chris Grevstad) adds:
>>>I have no problems helping those who really need help, but I refuse to
>>>finance the activities of those who have no interest in helping themselves.
Ken, Ken. Are you seriously suggesting that we continue to support people
who have no interest in working? I'm not referring to those that are unable
for some reason, but those that just don't want to; those that find it easier
to collect public dollars than to put in a day's work (much less a week's or
a year's work). I'm sorry, Ken, existence alone is not justification enough
to be on the dole. If you think otherwise, then you're welcome to pay my
'share' as well.
As an aside, how DOES this man come up with these brilliant insights into
my character? :-) He must use some crystal ball that we mere mortals haven't
access to.
> ... your yuppie, designer brains ...
> ... your lookin'-out-for-ol'-
>number-one pseudo-moral pseudo-outrage. ...
With all your labelling, Ken, I don't think you could recognize a moral
imperative if it punched you in the nose (much less murdered you in your
sleep). (Gad! Where is net.flame when you need it?????)
>ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly *** *** <== NOTE NEW ADDRESS!
^^^^^^
Says it all.
--
Chris Grevstad
{sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!chris
ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!chris
ihnp4!nrcvax!chris
"Too many notes. There are just simply too many notes."
Ed Hall
>occasionally opt to help out, or you MUST assume the burden of all humanity
>as brothers. I think the first option in this case is the more sensible
>one.
I read the rest of Marcus' posting carefully, and could find nothing that
forced the issue into this either/or framework. It may not be possible
to justify any particular ``percentage'' of responsibility (whatever
that would mean), but I think we all have dual responsibilities: to
our selves, and to our society. Those who put either responsibility
above the other have missed the boat, in my opinion. Those who claim
that their sole responsibility is to themselves have a cynically damaged
concept of reality.
You're going to die someday, Marcus, as will I, as will everyone else
reading this. What will outlive you is your influence on society, on
``all humanity as brothers.'' In innumerable subtle ways, each of us
will leave a trace. How you live your life is important--to yourself,
for each of us is important, and to the society you are a part of,
*for each of us is important*. Whether you like the idea or not, much
of what you are is what society has given you: your language, your
knowledge, the institutions you're born in, live in, work in and die
in. Individually you only create a fraction of that which is your life.
At least I hope so--you don't seem the hermit type.
You've talked of economic freeloaders. How about the social freeloaders
who give nothing back to the society that has supplied them with so much?
> None of this is dogma. I just hope to provide some fuel for thought.
>Morality is a terrible responsibility, and I have never met anyone who has
>had the strength to do anything other than TALK about it.
You must live in awfully small circles! Most people I know have a personal
morality, and tend to stick to it, too.
>Live Free
Certainly! But the question is, live free to what end?
>mjr
-Ed Hall
allegra!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
edh...@rand-unix.ARPA
Gadfly
> >The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
> >"dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
> >you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
> >any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
>
> Okay, Ken. You're on.
>
> Why not let us in on what _your_ ethical system is that demands this
> obligation? I'm not arguing the obligation; I am curious to hear to
> your justification.
*My* ethical system that demands "this obligation"? You say this as if
it had to be some bizarre cultist dogma. I'm a Jew, and my religion
specifies 613 obligations in some detail. Some of these are obligations
to my family, to my friends, to my community, and to G-d. If you're
interested in these duties, all of which derive from Scripture, there
are some good translations of Maimonides around. He lived and wrote in
the 12th Century, and it's interesting to see how he tried to justify
Torah with Aristotle. I am not a very observant Jew--I do not even try
to fulfill most of those obligations--and I am an incomplete (or if you
prefer, "worse") person for not doing so.
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 10 Oct 86 [19 Vendemiaire An CXCV]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-8042 ** ** ** **
Gray Michael A
> "dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
> you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
> any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
> you *do* have such obligations. So spare me your lookin'-out-for-ol'-
> number-one pseudo-moral pseudo-outrage. If those unwashed low-lifes
> knew how lame you are they'd murder you in your sleep.
>
Ad-hominem attacks + arbitrary assertions != persuasive argument.
What are these obligations? Where do they come from? On whose
authority? Etc.
Mike Gray
AT&T Bell Labs
cra...@kontron.uucp
> > ch...@minnie.UUCP (Chris Grevstad) adds:
> > >Hear hear!!! Where people get the notion that someone has a claim on my
> > >wealth only by virtue of being a member of the same society I will never
> > >know.
> > >
> > >I have no problems helping those who really need help, but I refuse to
> > >finance the activities of those who have no interest in helping themselves.
> >
> > I second both motions...
> > I still see the same people in the same projects,
> > on the same welfare, "help wanted" signs notwithstanding. (BTW, this
> > is in a part of the country where one *can* live on minimum wage. At
> > one point, my friends said I was crazy for spending $310/month for a
> > one-bedroom apartment.)
> >
> > -Ed Horch
>
> The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
> "dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
> you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
> any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
> you *do* have such obligations. So spare me your lookin'-out-for-ol'-
> number-one pseudo-moral pseudo-outrage. If those unwashed low-lifes
> knew how lame you are they'd murder you in your sleep.
>
Gee, Ken. You mean we are obligated to help people too lazy to work?
Why?
And I'm glad you admit what low moral caliber the welfare class really
is -- willing to murder us in our sleep for disagreeing with your
desire to force the rest of us to support them.
Clayton E. Cramer
cra...@kontron.uucp
> >>[...]
> >"dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
> >you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
> >any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
>
> Okay, Ken. You're on.
>
> Why not let us in on what _your_ ethical system is that demands this
> obligation? I'm not arguing the obligation; I am curious to hear to
> your justification.
And Ken's ethical system requires the government to send out men with
guns to threaten us into compliance. My ethical system doesn't require
aggression.
So Ken, you LIKE a system based on threats, force, and suppression of
political dissent, as our current tax system requires?
Clayton E. Cramer
Marcus the Ranum
>
> [...hacked] It would behoove
> you, mjr, to study some real moral philosophy. By stating that you, I, and
> everyone has some set of obligations to others does not mean that we must
> spend every waking hour nurturing the less fortunate. There are some who do
> hold this belief, and I am in awe of their courage.
keepers" and clarion calls about our "duty to our fellow man" are functionally
meaningless. This stems from a moral dilemma I have pondered for some time.
To wit: a starving person comes to me on the street and asks for money so
she can get her next meal. I give it to her. 3 minutes later another person
comes to me and is in equally sad shape, and also asks me for money. If I
take the moral stand that I have an absolute duty to these people, I am
failing in my duty if I say "sorry". Moral duty, when stated in the general
and very forcible terms you originally used in your first posting, is an
absolute. If I can help someone, and don't I am WRONG.
I really don't see how someone who is claiming that we have an absolute
moral duty to help our fellow man can then decide to select the level and
the type of obligation we are under. Moral philosophy has never been my strong
point, I admit. Generally it has struck me as little more than lots of words
that people use to convince themselves that they are nice guys. I have met
many people who are very upset about our poor Amerikan bag people, who
don't give a flying **** for the poor in Afrika.
it is all well and good to love one's fellow man of one's own
choosing, but to state it as a moral imperative is taking a lot of weight
on your shoulders.
>It's a bit of an oversimplification, but you can divide most ethical codes
>into two camps: (1)deontology, which posits a set of absolutes and appropriate
>behaviors which derive from them; and (2) utilitarianism, which sets out a
>relativistic algorithm (viz: greatest good for the greatest number) which one
>adopts behaviors in order to maximize. We of course ignore all flavors of
>ethical egoism (in a nutshell, "what's good for me is good") as garbage.
>But even constrained to (1) or (2), we have quite a bit of freedom to
>decide whom we help and how much.
Why do you "of course" ignore Eudaemonism ? ("what feels right is
right", and the related "what is good for me, etc..") That is a philosophy
that has been dear to mankind since the days we crawled out of the mud.
Anyhow, I disagree with you that there is such a thing as leeway
in any absolute moral system. That's why it's spelled "absolute". If
your God says it's right to help your fellow man, it must be wrong not
to.
The greatest good for the greatest number is an excellent idea,
but that was not what I understood you to be talking about when you
said that designer-yuppie-brained-people-from-hell-&c had to wake up
and understand that they have a duty to their fellow man. "Duty" implies
an obligation, as to all absolute moral codes.
>
>And then, one's moral code is an ideal to live up to. If I ought to be
>helping *everyone*, then I am not as good or complete a person as I could
>be if I did so. That's the point. These damned Randists go beyond simply
>"looking out for ol' number one." After all, we all do that to some
>degree. But they've raised selfishness to a bloody sacrament.
>
What's a Randist ?
Again, I feel you contradict yourself. A moral code is not an
ideal to live up to. It is a LAW. If you fail it, you have failed yourself.
If you choose to accept mankind as your brother, the moment you decide
to take a vacation from it, you have violated your moral codes, and
whatever punishment you inflict upon yourself is deserved.
--
You stupid screcrow !
Soup, the salad, fish and all...
Or even worse, without !
jea...@reed.uucp
The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
"dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
you *do* have such obligations. [...]
Why not let us in on what _your_ ethical system is that demands this
obligation? I'm not arguing the obligation; I am curious to hear to
your justification.
in response, gadfly says:
*My* ethical system that demands "this obligation"? You say this as if
it had to be some bizarre cultist dogma. I'm a Jew, and my religion
specifies 613 obligations in some detail.[etc]
Correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem to imply that anyone with any sense
of ethics in their yuppie, designer brains is a Jew (or at least
acknowledges these 613 specific obligations of which you speak).
The person who responded (and me) is asking not why you feel that *you*
have these obligations, but why you feel that they are self-evident
to anyone WASOEITYDB, and whence comes your right to impose said
obligations by force on one who does not share your view of them.
--
jeanne a. e. devoto | "The mind is an infinite resource...but
...!tektronix!reed!jeanne | only if you don't squander it."
USsnail: 5353 SE 28th #38 |
Portland, OR 97202 | James Hogan, "Voyage From Yesteryear"
Michael C. Berch
> > >The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
> > >"dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
> > >you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
> > >any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
> > >you *do* have such obligations. [...]
> >
> >
> > obligation? I'm not arguing the obligation; I am curious to hear to
> > your justification.
>
> it had to be some bizarre cultist dogma. I'm a Jew, and my religion
> to my family, to my friends, to my community, and to G-d. If you're
> interested in these duties, all of which derive from Scripture, there
>
> ken perlow
Mr. Perlow misses the boat. The question is not what what ethical
philosophy he follows that imposes these obligations on HIM, but what
ethical philosophy he follows that imposes these obligations on US.
It's perfectly irrelevant to me what Mr. Perlow believes are his own
obligations to various people; I merely would like him to state his
argument that I (and the rest of society) are similarly bound...
As for obligations owed to strangers, my yuppie-designer-brain (if
any) recognizes but one: to refrain from unjustified aggression or
coercion against fellow humans. Anything more than that is simply
gilding the lily.
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: m...@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
Clayton Cramer
> > >any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
> > >you *do* have such obligations. [...]
> >
> > Okay, Ken. You're on.
> >
> > Why not let us in on what _your_ ethical system is that demands this
> > obligation? I'm not arguing the obligation; I am curious to hear to
> > your justification.
>
> *My* ethical system that demands "this obligation"? You say this as if
> it had to be some bizarre cultist dogma. I'm a Jew, and my religion
> specifies 613 obligations in some detail. Some of these are obligations
> to my family, to my friends, to my community, and to G-d. If you're
> interested in these duties, all of which derive from Scripture, there
> the 12th Century, and it's interesting to see how he tried to justify
> Torah with Aristotle. I am not a very observant Jew--I do not even try
> to fulfill most of those obligations--and I am an incomplete (or if you
> prefer, "worse") person for not doing so.
>
1. You are attempting impose your moral and religous code on everyone
else. How would you like it if the majority religious belief system was
imposed on you? (There is historical precedent, alas.)
2. By your own admission, "I do not even try to fulfill most of these
obligations" yet you are quite willing to require everyone else to obey
SOME of the obligations you feel compelled to obey. Can you say "Hypocrite?"
But of course, you believe in the welfare state -- you don't have to be
intellectually honest.
Clayton E. Cramer
The Mad Tickle Monster
>> > >The question is not whether these shiftless and lazy (didn't you forget
>> > >"dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
>> > >any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
>> > >you *do* have such obligations. [...]
My apologies; I don't know any such thing. I don't mind helping, if I
can do something for someone in need of help, but I don't see that any-
one else in this world has any RIGHT to anything of mine, as you seem to
claim. Moreover, considering the uses that my money has been put to in
the past, I've quit contributing cash; I've found that it tends to be
misused. The incident under 'keywords:' was when I gave a two-dollar
bill (they're unlucky :-) to a man on the street collecting for a small,
privately-funded school for underprivileged children. I headed into
Kenmore to get some dinner at a pizza place; while I was waiting in line,
the man dropped in for his own dinner. Guess what he paid for it with?
Am I "obligated" to pay for his dinner?
In article <20...@styx.UUCP> m...@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>Mr. Perlow misses the boat. The question is not what what ethical
>philosophy he follows that imposes these obligations on HIM, but what
>ethical philosophy he follows that imposes these obligations on US.
>It's perfectly irrelevant to me what Mr. Perlow believes are his own
>obligations to various people; I merely would like him to state his
>argument that I (and the rest of society) are similarly bound...
Me too. But change the wording a bit: I'd like to see his argument for
why he believes I should buy that jerk's dinner.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Justice |
| BITNet: cscj0ac@bostonu CSNET: bor...@bucsb.UUCP |
| UUCP: ....!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!boreas |
| "Perhaps it was a result of anxiety." -- _Mad_Max_ |
| "Space: The Final Front" -- Ronald Reagan |
| (well, he COULD have said it. . . .) |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
Ronald O. Christian
>have obligations to other people and society in general. This is simply
>axiomatic. If you don't believe it, I certainly can't force you to,
>and I wouldn't want to try. There are, as I have noted previously, a
>number of tantalizingly different ethical philosophies--you have quite
>a banquet to choose from. I do not proselytize for any particular one.
>But if you reject them all, then you're adopting the yuppie credo:
>"The one who dies with the most toys wins." And then I really pity you.
>Tell me, O ethical egoists, just what do you think life is about anyway?
Well, to collect toys, of course. :-) I'd like to know, though,
what makes it axiomatic that we have obligations to other
people and society in general? I mean, in an absolute sense,
one can not avoid some obligations to society. After all,
it's society that allows us to procure all of those toys. But
who decides what obligations I have to others? You? In other
words, just who are you quoting as an absolute authority on
what I owe my fellow man?
So, you give 50% of your paycheck to the poor, and I toss my change
into the jar marked Jerry's Kids. The difference is one of degree,
not kind. Who decides how much of my money I owe to others?
Are we playing another game? "I give a higher percentage of my
earnings to the unwashed poor than you" and "whomever dies leaving
the largest sum to charity wins".
Let's say we're all (starting tomorrow) going to donate everything
above subsistance level to charity. Now,,,, how do you define
subsistance level? Sure, that means shelter and enough food to keep
alive, but you can do that by living in a lean-to and robbing anthills.
What Joe Public donates to the unfortunate must be up to the individual
parting with the cash. You can appeal to his morals, but you may find
that he resents you forcing him to cough up the loot. I suspect that
as the amount of cash taken from you increased, you would reach a point
where you'd resent it too.
Ron
--
--
Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
gad...@ihlpa.uucp
> > *My* ethical system that demands "this obligation"? You say this as if
> > it had to be some bizarre cultist dogma. I'm a Jew, and my religion
> >
> > ken perlow ***** *****
>
> 1. You are attempting impose your moral and religous code on everyone
> else. How would you like it if the majority religious belief system was
> imposed on you? (There is historical precedent, alas.)
>
> 2. By your own admission, "I do not even try to fulfill most of these
> obligations" yet you are quite willing to require everyone else to obey
> SOME of the obligations you feel compelled to obey. Can you say "Hypocrite?"
> But of course, you believe in the welfare state -- you don't have to be
> intellectually honest.
>
> Clayton E. Cramer
Oh, poppycock, Clayton. I was responding to a question about where my
own personal beliefs came from. I never maintained that it was a system
anybody else should follow. Indeed, Judaism finds proselytizing offensive.
But the point, guy, is that if a person has any morals at all--deontological,
utilitarian, whatever--no matter how you cut it, selfishness comes out at
best amoral. And so, your vacuous, pointy-headed accusations of "hypocrisy"
and "welfare-statism" are just self-righteous attempts to bait me. They
worked, though.
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 16 Oct 86 [25 Vendemiaire An CXCV]
gad...@ihlpa.uucp
> >Mr. Perlow misses the boat. The question is not what what ethical
> >philosophy he follows that imposes these obligations on HIM, but what
> >ethical philosophy he follows that imposes these obligations on US.
> >It's perfectly irrelevant to me what Mr. Perlow believes are his own
> >obligations to various people; I merely would like him to state his
> >argument that I (and the rest of society) are similarly bound...
>
> Me too. But change the wording a bit: I'd like to see his argument for
> why he believes I should buy that jerk's dinner.
Sigh. Alas, the universality of inter-personal obligation is axiomatic.
To me, and fortunately, to a lot of other people. And fortunately to you,
too, unless you've never personally profitted from somebody else's
kindness. (Insert halo here. No, that's too bright. OK, a little bit to
the left--that's it.) But I have a question for those of you to whom
egoism and rationalism are the alpha and omega: What's life about, anyway?
james
> "dirty"?) folks have a claim on your wealth. The question is whether
> you have obligations to people you don't even know. If you've got
> any semblance of ethics in your yuppie, designer brains you know that
> you *do* have such obligations. So spare me your lookin'-out-for-ol'-
> number-one pseudo-moral pseudo-outrage. If those unwashed low-lifes
> knew how lame you are they'd murder you in your sleep.
Turn the question around and look at it this way: The question is really do
shiftless and lazy (optionally "dirty" :-) ) people have a claim on my
wealth, such as it is? I think not. They have no right to presume that if
they chose not to work, someone will take away my money and give it to them.
Were these people to actually have to justify themselves to the individuals
they were asking for money, I expect we would have fewer people unemployed.
I currently have two friends who are unemployed. One dropped out of school a
year ago and has been without a job for two months (he quit his last job
because he didn't like working at a bank). The other has a BS in EE and was
laid off three months ago or so, and for whatever reason hasn't found an
acceptable job yet. Neither is on welfare yet, but it is difficult for me to
follow the discussions of welfare programs without thinking of the two cases
of unemployed people I am familiar with.
--
James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james "Live Free or Die"
dia...@ism780c.uucp
>egoism and rationalism are the alpha and omega: What's life about, anyway?
>
But, Ken, people who really do believe that "egoism and rationalism are the
alpha and omega", have already answered that question...
Diane Holt
Interactive Systems Corp.
Santa Monica, CA
{seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!dianeh
"Play it from the heart..."