[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