Edgar and Hong, I want the society I live in to act more like a family than a business...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > 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, yonyonson@... 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 <edgarowen@...> 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/
