land of giants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guick Dotto

Their kids don't have a choice.
Capitalism may work in terms of the growth of wealth. But people want and need more from life than cash. Capitalism cannot thrive in countries where people generally can't be trusted. Corruption ruins the equilibrium that is supposed to come about naturally. The west is desirable and strong because it is organised and civilised. It has systems for the well running of society. It works, albeit imperfectly.
People; situations, are too complicated for simplistic, mechanistic philosophies to be given their head. They might work as statistical projections but life isn't lived in a glass jar. Grown ups know that in order to safeguard the common good they need to plan for eventualities and work cooperatively, pooling resources; sharing. It starts with not pushing other toddlers over and progresses through sharing your toys all the way to good government.
Greed isn't good, it's a sin.

---

If people can't be trusted, then why should we trust the people of government to rule our lives.This comes back to a point I made a long time ago.If a person believes Man is evil by nature, he won't hesitate to force it on everyone.

How can you ascribe your values to others?

No! sharing your kids toys leads to him pushing over other kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trimm Trab

Surely you can see that this isn't true? I have an acquaintance who was doing very well for himself as a result of his hard work and application of common sense, but due to no fault of his own (and due very much to a drunk driver), he is now incapable of carrying out his trade, is totally reliant on state aid, and is a shadow of the person he once was. By saying that you can't fail if you work hard and use common sense you imply that there's no such thing as bad luck. Are you therefore implying that this person's predicament is somehow his own fault?

As for your statement that 'the idea that all people not so well off have bad luck is nonsense'; I agree, and I'm sure Guick does too. You're misrepresenting Guick's position to make it seem weaker, and then refuting that misrepresented position. You haven't actually addressed his original argument at all. It's called a straw man argument and it's no way to win a debate!

I should make it clear that I'm not a rabid anti-capitalist; I believe Smith's invisible hand does have a role to play in the organisation of people and capital, but also that it should not operate unchecked by the state. Our positions on this aren't totally opposed, but I don't think we'll ever agree either!

---

Your friend shouldn't be able to claim off the state Trimm.Did I drive into your friend?Did Rodders drive into him?No,a drunk drove into him.Therefore the drunk is responsible.

This is all becoming clear.What all statists really hate is justice.They want to hold everyone else apart from the villain guilty.They want to burden some in society with the choices made by others.Punish the innocent ones eh.We're all in it together,some more than others!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Your friend shouldn't be able to claim off the state Trimm.Did I drive into your friend?Did Rodders drive into him?No,a drunk drove into him.Therefore the drunk is responsible.

This is all becoming clear.What all statists really hate is justice.They want to hold everyone else apart from the villain guilty.They want to burden some in society with the choices made by others.Punish the innocent ones eh.We're all in it together,some more than others!

---

Chris you've made your political views perfectly clear, and I think they can be summed up thus:

If your not an economically productive unit, then you better hope that someone takes pity on you, else you can p**s off and die in the gutter.

I can't see how anyone with a shred of the basic human quality of empathy could genuinely hold such a view. This, and the proliferation of contradictions and non-sequiturs in your argument, leads me to the conclusion that you are in fact winding us up. Well done Chris, you got me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Your friend shouldn't be able to claim off the state Trimm.Did I drive into your friend?Did Rodders drive into him?No,a drunk drove into him.Therefore the drunk is responsible.

---

Maybe the drunk who injured Trimm's mate is dead CL. Maybe he got killed in that accident. Life is full of maybes. You might be a fit fellrunner now with loads of vigour and pent up anger and energy but things can change and so quickly. Stop thinking so hard and use your imagination.
You sound like a fourth person passing by in the parable of the Good Samaritan only you're shouting "Loser!"
But maybe I'm making a cultural reference you don't understand.
I bet if you were running past me on a fell and I was lying in a pool of blood in a pile of boulders (a not uncommon occurence these days!) you'd help, even if it meant losing out in the race. You don't know me or why I got myself in that predicament. (I might have been trying to phone up for instructions on how to use my GPS! In which case I suppose you'd be ok to keep running!;) ) But you would help wouldn't you?
So if we're brothers on the fell what changes when we come out of the clouds and get back down to the real world. Yes we don't feel it if we can't see other people in need but the relationship's the same. Even people in other countries. We're all family and we SHOULD help one another. You want the freedom to choose whether to help or not. But in MORAL terms you DON'T have a choice. I say to the government take my money and use it wisely on my behalf. Don't waste it. That's the only issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trimm Trab

Chris you've made your political views perfectly clear, and I think they can be summed up thus:

If your not an economically productive unit, then you better hope that someone takes pity on you, else you can p**s off and die in the gutter.

I can't see how anyone with a shred of the basic human quality of empathy could genuinely hold such a view. This, and the proliferation of contradictions and non-sequiturs in your argument, leads me to the conclusion that you are in fact winding us up. Well done Chris, you got me.

---

Trimm I'm not winding you up.What contradictions and non-sequiturs?

Instead of dealing with the points I make, you're attacking me in the following way:If Chris really believes that, he MUST be immoral.What upsets you, is someone has pointed out a flaw in your moral code, and you can't accept that you're wrong.To accept those errors you'd have to change everything you believe.Like I had to when I was younger.

Now if a person is not an economically productive unit, he has no right(morally) to consume.Only producers have the right to consume.Sure we can delegate some of our consumption to loved ones etc, but without producers there can be no consumers.

Now why don't you answer the question I asked in the previous thread?
Am I responsible for your friends injuries, or is Rodders, or is the drunk?

I'd like to know because according to your moral code it should be everyone, apart from the drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guick Dotto

Maybe the drunk who injured Trimm's mate is dead CL. Maybe he got killed in that accident. Life is full of maybes. You might be a fit fellrunner now with loads of vigour and pent up anger and energy but things can change and so quickly. Stop thinking so hard and use your imagination.
You sound like a fourth person passing by in the parable of the Good Samaritan only you're shouting "Loser!"
But maybe I'm making a cultural reference you don't understand.
I bet if you were running past me on a fell and I was lying in a pool of blood in a pile of boulders (a not uncommon occurence these days!) you'd help, even if it meant losing out in the race. You don't know me or why I got myself in that predicament. (I might have been trying to phone up for instructions on how to use my GPS! In which case I suppose you'd be ok to keep running!;) ) But you would help wouldn't you?
So if we're brothers on the fell what changes when we come out of the clouds and get back down to the real world. Yes we don't feel it if we can't see other people in need but the relationship's the same. Even people in other countries. We're all family and we SHOULD help one another. You want the freedom to choose whether to help or not. But in MORAL terms you DON'T have a choice. I say to the government take my money and use it wisely on my behalf. Don't waste it. That's the only issue.

---

Guick of course I'd help you, I wouldn't leave a dog dying in the road!BUT lets keep the context in terms of the welfare state.If the other fell runners ganged up on me and told me, that unless I helped you, I'd have my property confiscated, or I'd be thrown in prison, would you then consider my action to help, moral?

Or lets say my wife or a very good friend had fallen at the same spot as yourself.Do you really think I'm going to tend to you first?You cannot say that 'in moral terms I'd have no choice.' just look at all the mountaineers who walk past dying people on Everest!

Your comments on the Samaritan, make me think you're a Christian.If that's true, it's hardly surprising that you ask me to 'stop thinking so hard and use my imagination.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Guick of course I'd help you, I wouldn't leave a dog dying in the road!BUT lets keep the context in terms of the welfare state.If the other fell runners ganged up on me and told me, that unless I helped you, I'd have my property confiscated, or I'd be thrown in prison, would you then consider my action to help, moral?

Or lets say my wife or a very good friend had fallen at the same spot as yourself.Do you really think I'm going to tend to you first?You cannot say that 'in moral terms i'd have no choice.' just look at all the mountaineers who walk past dying people on Everest!

Your comments on the Samaritan, make me think your a Christian.If thats true, it's hardly suprising that you ask me to 'stop thinking so hard and use my imagination.'

---

That's good CL because if you look at my avatar you'll notice that I am a dog.;)
As a first aider your duty would be to the person most in need not to the person you like the most.
Those people walking past the dying on the South Col they're not mountaineers mate.
The choice they make is between being human and being something less.
John Lennon said "Imagine" too. He didn't claim to be a Christian.

Quote:

---

Surely you can see that this isn't true? I have an acquaintance who was doing very well for himself as a result of his hard work and application of common sense, but due to no fault of his own (and due very much to a drunk driver), he is now incapable of carrying out his trade, is totally reliant on state aid, and is a shadow of the person he once was. By saying that you can't fail if you work hard and use common sense you imply that there's no such thing as bad luck. Are you therefore implying that this person's predicament is somehow his own fault?

---

This is a truly terrible story,and he is a person who deserves help.However this is a one in a million circumstance,your clutching at straws abit by using such extreme examples.This could be a perfect case for lottery funding or charity help,based on non forced taxes or donations.I would enter the lottery,firstly to win,and maybe more often if i knew it would help less fortunate people like him rather than funding a government quango or some church roof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guick Dotto

You want the freedom to choose whether to help or not. But in MORAL terms you DON'T have a choice. I say to the government take my money and use it wisely on my behalf. Don't waste it. That's the only issue.

---

Well done to the Doggy for pointing out that the love that binds our families together has to be extended to others by proxy so that we don't perish by descent into tribal warfare. The proxy-holders of this binding love (fashioned through the use of money) is the elected government. And because it is elected, we all have a say in changing it if we don't like the way they are using our love/money.

We have a need to modulate our tribal tendancies through a proxy-led Governing body. And if you don't believe how important that is, you only need to look at what happened in Yugoslavia when the common bond of governance was broken between several very large tribes.

So you can blither away all you like about paying taxes etc. Because anything has to be better than mourning the fact that a neighbouring tribe came in, raped and murdered your women-folk, slaughtered your men-folk and destroyed your property. This is why we have 'society' and 'government'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guick Dotto

That's good CL because if you look at my avatar you'll notice that I am a dog.;)
As a first aider your duty would be to the person most in need not to the person you like the most.
Those people walking past the dying on the South Col they're not mountaineers mate.
The choice they make is between being human and being something less.
John Lennon said "Imagine" too. He didn't claim to be a Christian.

---

So your motto is 'one Mans needs another Mans chains?'

DUTY: As an old negro women once said to a Man who was bossing her about "mister there aint nothing i've got to do except die."