Dear Hong, First, thanks for joining the thread.
You ask a good question and the question you raise is complex. First, in traditional societies, truly disabled and needy family members were taken care of by their extended families, not the government. However one of the primary characteristics of modern Western societies is the breakdown of the extended family, and even the nuclear family to some degree, and the usurpation of many of its responsibilities by government. For that to work the government has to enforce some degree of taxation so it has the means to care for society's truly needy and disabled. One can argue the relative long term effects and benefits of more 'Darwinian' versus more 'fair and compassionate' social systems but that is currently the way things work... And you are correct to make the distinction between the truly disabled and needy, and those able to work, either by retraining or changing their life styles. And it's important to remember that all of us, if we are lucky, will eventually get old enough to join the ranks of the truly disabled and needy, so we should recognize the necessity of social compassion from one source or another.... Those who can work but aren't should be given aid only towards making them productive again. Those who aren't able to work will need some source of aid to survive. Another complexity is that modern industrial societies are able to produce everything populations actually need with much fewer than the number of workers available. This is an extremely important point that few yet recognize. What it means is that the work of only part of the population can produce enough for the whole population. The consequence of this is massive unemployment plus a huge number of unnecessary make work jobs to produce consumables no one actually needs just to keep everyone employed. Actually the best solution is to have everyone work fewer hours with more leisure so that everyone earns an income, and thus everyone can purchase what they need. However this would require a revolutionary restructuring of society and is not likely to happen any time soon. Sadly what is much more likely to happen is a huge increase in the unemployed poor who are unnecessary to maintain society. As these poor become more and more recognized as a non contributing drain on dwindling resources the reasons for keeping them alive diminish as well. Edgar On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:19 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Edgar, > > much of what you say about free market systems I used to agree with. > But, when you say "public support for those truly in need, but only in > a manner which does NOT perpetuate that need," how do you see this > system? Public support is not only for those who are laid off and are > capable of working and keeping a stable job. It is also for those > with disabilities (ie. mental health, old aged, etc.) along with other > factors which can include something like PTSD, addiction (which in my > experience is usually a result of PTSD), etc. > > You might say that it is up to the family to support this member of > society, but then where does your family stop and "society" begin? > > hong yeong soo > > On 12/12/12, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Bill, >> >> Not a good idea. The communist system in its ideal form perpetuates >> dependence and failure because it rewards incompetence and sloth. >> >> The ideal economic system is a free market system, but that being said there >> are no truly free market systems since they are all perverted by the super >> rich who impose rules through the public officials they buy for their >> benefit at the expense of lower level entrepreneurs. >> >> The only regulations constraining a free market system should be to ensure >> safety of products sold, and to minimize environmental effects towards >> sustainability. However many of the current regulations are designed to >> maintain the advantage of large corporations and banks. >> >> That being said there should be some public support for those truly in need, >> but only in a manner which does NOT perpetuate that need. >> >> The ideal political system is a meritocracy where officials gain >> appointments as the result of rising through an educational system designed >> to train them to solve actual real world problems they will encounter. That >> applies equally to the ranks of civil servants as well as the leaders >> themselves. >> >> Democracy is a huge failure, because it elects not the best qualified to >> solve real problems, but the best liars, bull shitters, and those most >> willing to prostitute themselves to their corporate and banker masters. >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2012, at 1:00 AM, Bill! wrote: >> >>> Edgar, >>> >>> Until we as a society can successfully establish a communistic economic >>> system socialism is the best system we can strive for. Right now the best >>> we can do is try to restrain and regulate our native capitalism with >>> wealth redistribution tactics as are employed by our current form of >>> Keynesian economics and continue to move it closer and closer to >>> socialism. >>> >>> But maybe someday we can actually aspire to communism...we can only hope. >>> >>> ...Bill! >>> >>> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: >>>> >>>> Joe, >>>> >>>> Perhaps, but the belief in taking other people's property and >>>> redistributing it without their consent is an even more egregious >>>> attachment... >>>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Joe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Chris, >>>>> >>>>> The question itself speaks volumes. >>>>> >>>>>> Can one's belief in personal ownership be an attachment, a hindrance >>>>>> to the mind's freedom? >>>>> >>>>> Well done! It is certainly on-topic, and is eloquent. >>>>> >>>>> I'm impressed by planning and decision-making that's guided by >>>>> consideration for and appreciation of others' future stewardship. I >>>>> think of the "Seven Generations" planning of actions taken by certain >>>>> Native American tribal councils, the making of decisions with a >>>>> concern and consideration for how planned actions, if executed, might >>>>> effect even the seventh following generation of people and culture >>>>> after the elders' actions. >>>>> >>>>> Such planning probably could not have taken into account the arrival >>>>> of Europeans in America, and I don't know if the "Seven Generations" >>>>> principle remains in play on Native Reservations to this day. >>>>> >>>>> --Joe >>>>> >>>>> -> Chris Austin-Lane <chris@> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Can one's belief in personal ownership be an attachment, a hindrance >>>>>> to the >>>>>> mind's freedom? >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks to me like it is, but perhaps we shouldn't argue politics >>>>>> and tax >>>>>> policy here? >>>>>> >>>>>> Rather than share my partisan arguments, let me simply state that >>>>>> reasonable people do disagree about these issues. Personally I am >>>>>> grateful >>>>>> to have been born into a society that believes in vaccination public >>>>>> schools voting research moon missions and the like. the society finds >>>>>> it >>>>>> sensible to pay me for tasks which are enjoyable and allow me to >>>>>> learn and >>>>>> to master myself, and that seems fine. I didn't create the society >>>>>> nor >>>>>> more than a bit of its wealth, so I don't feel like much more than a >>>>>> temporary steward of the assets I control. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do know not everyone shares such a perspective, and there's no >>>>>> profit in >>>>>> arguing. I speak to offer the lurkers the data that the idea of >>>>>> capitalism >>>>>> without a fixed idea of a personal self can take many forms. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yours in praeteritio, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
