-Caveat Lector-
Bob, Mike, Mulva, Nessie, and others interested in this discussion.
First, let me wish all a Happy and Healthy Solstice.
I consider myself to be a conservative. That does not mean a
Republican. Rather, my conservatism runs to the Libertarian/Anarchist
side. Only the minimum of government necessary for trade between and
among localities, regions, and countries, and that government kept in
close check by the people. Trade does not mean capitalism or even a set
monetary system. Think more of the systems set up by indiginous
societies such as the Iroquois League, Cherokee, and Northwest Coast
Tribes which provided for exchanges of foods in good times and sharing of
foods in tough times, mutual protection, and leaving each group to run
itself otherwise. While this is not attainable in the forseeable future
(barring a massive natural or manmade disaster), the Libertarian concept
is probably the best known example that comes close my ideal.
In the real world my conservatism means that any extra money
should pay off debts first, repair/improve infrastructure second, with
the remainder being set aside for future use. Striving for
sustainability should be the "Prime Directive". It also means that no
one should be homeless, without medical care, starving or without a job
of some sort. As you have heard me say before, from each according to
his ability, to each according to his need. This sentiment has been
given a bad rap, but think about it; doesn't it make fundamental sense?
Not everyone is born with equal skills, intelligence, talents, etc. This
is not only true, but we are lucky this is so. Otherwise we would not
have the depth and breadth of talent needed.
Some are good at growing things. Some are good at inventing.
Some are good at repairing things. Some are artists, musicians, writers,
speakers, etc. You get the idea. How many people are working at jobs
they hate, while their real talents are wasted because there is no
"Market" for them? So, from each according to their ability is not just
a monetary concept. It is a human concept where we are allowed to use
our natural or acquired talents for the betterment of all. Do you think
that every indigineous person made their own pots, knapped their own
projectile points, hunted, harvested, etc? I can assure you that they
did not. The archaeological record shows that there were specialists in
each of these. Yes, most knew how to do each of these things, but the
community of people were best served by each doing what they did best.
This was not static either. A hunter who grew too old, or was
injured, would shift to doing other things that they were good at and
could do well. Those who were good at something taught others who wanted
to learn that skill. Older skilled people taught younger people their
skills. This worked well for 100,000 years.
Now we come to the less intelligent, the physically or mentally
problematic, the injured, etc. Were they left to their own devices?
Again the archaeological record shows that they were incorporated into
the society by doing what they could. Were the old left to die when they
were too old to be usefull? Again the record shows that they were not,
they were valued. So we have giving to each according to their needs.
Then there is the trait of altruism that runs through humanity,
but is repressed in our current culture. Today, altruism is so rare
that it is notable when it occurs. I remember what little press the
owner of that high quality shirt manufacturer got when he continued to
pay his employees after the building burned down. It took about 4 months
to rebuild, but the employees continued to get paid. There are other
rare instances of altruism on this large a scale, and more on a personal
scale, but they are the exception today.
Bob, I understand your frustration. I used to think the same
thing. However, over the past ten years I have come to think
differently. There is no excuse for denigrating the poor in this
country. They are not poor by choice. In one way or another they are
the victims of our success. Even taking the extreme view and saying that
this person is too lazy to work, should not mean that they should starve,
live on the streets, have no medical care. What about the old who are
poor? They have little ability to work in todays marketplace. Should
they be left to their own devices?
I wonder how anyone can, in good conscience, justify the earnings
of the top 1%, while at the same time denigrate those who earn less. Our
culture has taken capitalism and competition to a very dark and dangerous
place. Look at the qualities that are most financially rewarded, and
those that are least financially rewarded. Who would you rather do
business with? Have as a neighbor? Why? I would propose that almost all
of the poor share with each other the little they do get, and at the
least offer a shoulder when that is all there is.
In a country as rich as this one, with the GDP we have, with the
amount we pay in taxes, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ONE PERSON WITHOUT A PLACE TO
LIVE, WITHOUT ENOUGH FOOD, WITHOUT GOOD MEDICAL CARE!!!! Many of the
poor do have jobs. Minimum wage jobs. Many of the poor are over 40
years old. Many once had good jobs. The working poor, many working 2 or
3 jobs such as yourself, are particularly bitter. In the past 20 years
the average blue collar pay has went up about 60% while the average
executive pay has went up between 360% and 1400% depending on whose
figures you use and who is considered an executive. In those same 20
years the percentage of jobs that are minimum wage has grown steadily.
I do not begrudge the taxes I pay. What I do get irate about is
how that money is used and the comparison between what I make and pay in
taxes and what the top 1% make and pay in taxes. We are told that the
top 1% pay more than we do on a percentage basis. That is a flat out
lie. Yes, they pay a higher percentage on their "Taxable Income" but
that is only a small fraction of what they really earn. Then there are
the corporations who pay next to nothing, or even get rebated money from
the government.
Look at the major contributers to political campaigns. Who are
they? Are they the same people who seem to benefit/profit from the
government regulations? Now does it seem in any way reasonable that the
beneficiaries of government should be those who are able to finance the
candidates? Who just got picked as head of the Commerce Commission? A
top businessman. Is that putting the fox in charge of security at the
hen house, the wolf as protector of the sheep?
I would ask you to think about who is the real problem, the poor
or the rich? Who is causing you more grief and aggrevation? Who is
making life harder for you? Who has more control over every aspect of
your life? When you answer those questions you will have a direction for
your anger. It is easy to blame the poor, they can not directly affect
you, they have no power. In subtle ways we are taught that to be poor
means you are a loser, a drain on society. We are told that the poor are
a drain on our economy. The reality is that most of the money spent on
the poor is spent on ADMINISTRATION! In other words, it goes into the
pockets of well paid executives who administer the programs. Very little
trickles down to the poor themselves.
Direct your anger where it belongs. The rich run this country
through their paid-for representatives in government. Is it any wonder
that the number of poor are growing? Is it any wonder that the working
poor are so hard pressed to make ends meet? Where are the benefits of
our booming economy going? Who will be harmed when the economy turns
downward? Who will be left holding the bag when layoffs come? Why?
Jayson R. Jones
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
