[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

[Jeme A Brelin]

On 20 Jun 2002, Jeremy Miller wrote:
> >So, to sum up, it is the responsibility of those who have unmet needs
> >to express and attempt to meet those needs.
[snip]
> >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 wouldn't EVER say that.  (Wow, you really DON'T know anything about
anarchism, do you?)

I would say, however, that a person who is hoarding might well be held
accountable for his greed by the teeming masses that go without.  This
would be the physical manifestation of "eternal vigilance".

> I think people should do it because it is the Right Thing.

I believe that law exists to catch the folks that truly cannot determine
right from wrong.  It is coercion and a last resort.

It's no coincidence that the municipal police, U.S. military and Justice
Department all meet the USA Patriot Act's definition of "terrorist
organization" without the special exception for ILLEGAL coercive tactics.  
You see, the police have the legal authority to use those tactics, so
they're somehow not terrorists.

I think the more appropriate way of interpreting that same data is that
the police and prisons are merely LEGAL terrorist organizations.

> I worry that if we tried to codify every Right Thing people should do
> into mandatory law, we'd have a real mess.

The Right Thing is soft, not hard.  Real life is too complex to codify.  
(One could even argue that this is a justification for Jeff's statement
"All law is null and void for vagueness".)

However, if you don't do the Right Thing, I think your neighbors should
have some way of showing you.

Jeremy, I highly recommend you read a book that I think I've already
recommended in this thread.  It's called The Dispossessed.  I was about in
your position (knowing that right and wrong cannot be put into law, but
not willing to accept lawlessness) when I read it and it allowed me to
understand what life could be like, given a society that allowed for the
true equal treatment of all people.  No police, no locks.  And if we do
our best to keep our eyes on the prize (the betterment of all mankind), we
don't fall into barbarism.

People who do damage to others always justify it through the good they
believe they're doing for themselves or some third set.  If you stop
making the distinction between this group and that group; yours, theirs,
and others, you come to a condition where you can see the big picture:  
Help yourself only as much as you help others.  Help others only as much
as you help yourself.  This is truly the method for maximizing the benefit
to all.

People who do damage to themselves are sick.  When you share the belief
that all people are truly created equal, then damage to one is damage to
all.  Hate, greed, and violence become self-damage and can be recognized
as sickness.

There is a small set of people who are insane or sociopathic.  Their needs
simply cannot be met with caring and understanding.  I think it's better
to build a world where the exceptions are dealt with case-by-case than a
world that structures the entire social order around minimizing their
impact.  This is essentially what a law-based society does.  It allows the
loonies to restrict the behavior of the loving.

> And how can anyone show generosity or caring, if they have no choice
> about whether they do it or not? :)

I'm with you, sir.  Right beside you.

At the same time, how can you be generous when your society views giving
as a sucker's game?

Here's a little exercise, keep an ear out for the following phrase (and
phrases equivalent):
You can't blame him for wanting a little more for himself.

I hear this all the time and I make it a point of asking, "Why not?"

Oftentimes, I hear the phrase on the radio or television and I don't get a
response (for obvious reasons).  But I'm sensitive to the phrase, so I've
come to realize how often this kind of statement is reiterated in our
society.  It's laid out without reason or rationale.  It's just pasted on
as if it's a totally normal, good thing to want more more more.  I never
let it slide without asking for a good reason why not.

People look at me funny, at first.  Then I ask again, "Why can't you blame
them for their avarice and greed?  Did they not already have a pretty good
life?"

That's usually enough to get people thinking.  Sometimes a conversation
ensues and the person almost always comes to this little justification for
greed, "Well, you make more than you need now so you can stop working
later."

So greed is, apparently, justified by sloth.  Nice one.

I believe in honoring those who came before us and those who will come
after us.  We do the latter by caring for our young before they can
contribute to meeting the world's needs on their own.  We should do the
former in the exact same way.  There's no reason for a person to have to
save up for their own retirement just as there is no reason you should
have to save up to pay back your parents for your rearing.  It's a
cycle.  Forget them and us and the young and the old, care for all people
all the time.

Is this person too sick to take care of themself?  I submit that it
doesn't matter, you should help make sure their needs are met regardless
of their health, age, race, virtue, or enthusiasm.  Stop drawing lines
between people and just pitch in and make things better.

The effort you spend determining who deserves help is effort you could
have spent helping.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org