[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)
Jeremy Miller
jmlizard1 at attbi.com
Fri Jun 21 05:55:26 UTC 2002
> (In other words, who determines the need... the taker or the holder?
> I say the holder, or we end up with way too much taking.)
>It's not a one-sided exchange. It is surely possible for a person to
>withhold a scarce good (or item) from those who truly need it, so to
>say that the determination of need (and therefore right of possession)
>lies entirely on the needy is unworkable.
OK, yes.
> However, it is also true that there
>are people who do and will continue to refuse to admit that there is a
>difference between their desires and needs.
And this as well.
>This is the fundamental problem of sharing and it's something that we
>all need to address every day in our lives. Like the freedom/security
>question, the want/need question requires eternal vigilance... often of
>ourselves.
You've got it.
>So, to sum up, it is the responsibility of those who have unmet needs
>to express and attempt to meet those needs.
Yes.
> It is also the responsibility of
>those who have an excess to consider whether their excess can be put to
>use meeting the needs of others.
And yes again.
>This excess could be time, food, money, shelter, or anything else at
>all.
Whoo-hah, we're on a roll. :)
I'm in complete agreement with this post.
The only thing I might be uncomfortable with is if you went further and
stated that the responsibility of actually meeting those needs was
mandatory and codified into law. But you didn't say that.
I think people should do it because it is the Right Thing. I worry that
if we tried to codify every Right Thing people should do into mandatory
law, we'd have a real mess. And how can anyone show generosity or
caring, if they have no choice about whether they do it or not? :)
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list