One dollar, one vote no doubt. The focus of money has broadly been into the creation of engines of death such as the old Royal Navy, to facilitate the stealing of more of it, even from places where there was none of it. What a fiction it is until one has to buy shelter and food. Then we are fixed into a 'motivation' argument at the root of 'morality'.
On 7 Feb, 09:05, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > But not to stop at that, Neil, at the risk of putting a bee in Don's > bonnet, the argument shifts to ' rich-ness,' money and its > concentration or distribution, how it is acquired, enterprise and > capability, value ?, money vs value as it is paid and spent, > government - which spends the most, money as purchasing power - does > ( rather, must ) a unit of money with the poor have the same > purchasing power as that with the already rich - especially since the > two do not hold it as having the same value ( law of marginal > returns !) ... > > Only if the value of money were linked to the wealth or income > slab ... ! ? > > On Feb 7, 1:02 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Pretty much the argument entirely Vam. > > > On 6 Feb, 23:24, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > " ... we allow the rich to get off with all sorts." > > > > Nobody allows them anything, Neil ! For one, they are more > > > resourceful, more driven, more smart than the bureaucrats, to be found > > > out or to be found guilty enough to be penalised ... remember, ' I am > > > with the law. It has nothing to do with justice.' Secondly, they are > > > quite liberal to those who'd look the other way or choose to be with > > > them. Why ? Because, they can. > > > > On Feb 4, 8:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Go all the way with you on the reasoning Francis and then some. > > > > Wouldn't stop me doing a deal (did one with a Shankhill butcher once - > > > > you know what I mean). For me the moral questions lie in why we allow > > > > the rich to get off with all sorts. I see this as an undecidable one > > > > can only do one's best with. We probably don't disagree much. In > > > > practice with informants you have to make sure you ain't being ripped > > > > off (the norm) and that you aren't just making space for them to take > > > > over. We might also wonder why we don't ever seem to get our law > > > > right. If we did we'd not fall into moral reasoning need so much. > > > > I've been looking a cop blogs of late. They are a surprising > > > > indication of how despicable our politics have become. I've started > > > > my own at wordpress (allcoppedout). A publisher is interested if I > > > > can write a book quickly enough - Monday books. Did wonder if you > > > > might want to tell your own tale 'from the dark side'. > > > > > On 3 Feb, 17:42, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 3 Feb., 03:10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > No morals involved Francis. We do people for pennies in benefit > > > > > > fraud > > > > > > on the basis of information from much slimier sources. > > > > > > This, of course, is the deeper point, Neil. I often think we want to > > > > > have it both ways in the western "democracies." (i) We want to > > > > > believe, at least at some level, that government is (however > > > > > imperfectly) the result of our collective approval, the implementation > > > > > of some kind of social contract renewed through regular exercise of > > > > > the electoral franchise - "in the name of the people." (ii) We also > > > > > generally agree that morality is important and even - in certain areas > > > > > at any rate - demand morality from our elected representatives. (iii) > > > > > At higher collective levels, however, we seem to have no problem in > > > > > accepting a totally pragmatic, realpolitikal view of communal > > > > > activity, which, ultimately, reaches its peak in the Clausewitzian > > > > > definition of war as a continuation of politics by other means > > > > > [actually a misinterpretation of Clausewitz's thinking, but that's > > > > > beside the point]. This is a kind of schizophrenia, or at least deep > > > > > inconsistency, in our attitude towards the "res publica". > > > > > > I'm not in the least suggesting that I myself am free of this > > > > > attitude! Personally, as a salaried, PAYE employee, whose tax is > > > > > deducted at source from his wage packet, I have absolutely no sympathy > > > > > for fat-cats, who get caught trying to cheat the system. I'm not sure, > > > > > however, that I'm comfortable about the idea of rewarding criminals to > > > > > shop other criminals. It implies a sort of double-standard which can > > > > > often be the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. Maybe the best we can > > > > > hope for is that, having weighed-up costs and benefits, we do approve > > > > > of this kind of action by our elected governments but continue to have > > > > > a collective bad conscience about it, that we do not simply regard it > > > > > as ok and go on with business-as-usual, even using such arguments to > > > > > justify persecution of the weak little guys, often hounded in our > > > > > welfare systems (because, basically, they're much easier to blame and > > > > > nail than the powerful, well-regarded, big-bucks, white-collar > > > > > criminals). > > > > > > In this sense, perhaps we DO get the governments we deserve. > > > > > > Francis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
