[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

alex alexlinux at qwest.net
Thu Dec 25 10:02:34 UTC 2003


On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 22:52, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, alex wrote:

> > Maybe we should just embrace your utopian idea of the world and give
> > everyone everything they need for free. I think that would take care of
> > all the pain and suffering, don't you?
> 
> I think that if people were nice enough to not keep people from things
> they need, much of the world's pain and suffering would be alleviated.
> 
> See, it's not a lack of giving, it's keeping away that's the problem.

No-one is keeping anything away from anyone. It's a lack of preparation
through learning. Almost every child in this nation goes to publicly
funded schools, just like I did. Nothing is stopping any child from
taking full advantage of the education offered them.

> Hello?  I was commenting that restrictions cannot be devised that would
> only stop the abusers and not hurt poor, hungry, desperate people.
> 
> The abusers are a very small minority and cost very little when compared
> to the benefit of the programs generally.

True, but, those abusers need to be weeded out.
> 
> > What would be the harm of putting a time limit on how long one can
> > remain on public assistance? Make them better themselves and eliminate
> > their burden on the rest of us.
> 
> [As an important aside, you should note and recall that you spend your
> entire life on public assistance.  It's called "civilization" and it comes
> from thousands of years of human experience and cooperation developing a
> system that allows you to do very little work to survive and to be greatly
> enriched emotionally and intellectually without starting from square one
> with each birth.  The cost of civilization is more than just
> participation.  Mere participation doesn't counter-act the system's
> entropy.  To work against entropy, you must add order and generally
> increase the levels of success of all of civilization.]
> 
> It's putting an expiration date on human a life.  There is no time limit
> that can encompass every person's situation.  There are times and places
> when any finite period is short of what is needed for that person to get
> on their feet.

No, it's giving them a goal to work toward. A reason as to why they are
doing what it takes to get themselves off assistance.
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that you are totally different from
> everyone else in the world and you're the only one that wants to work and
> be a productive person.

Again, you think I'm special? Not hardly!
> 
> Do you really advocate letting people starve because they don't have what
> you'd call an acceptable work ethic?

Repeat, I don't want anyone to starve. As for a work ethic, mine has
been pretty lousy at times but I have always managed to get my behind
off the couch and get the job done with the skills and knowledge that I
have learned from others or taught myself.

> I'm concerned about those people, too.  I hope they can live the best
> lives possible in their desperate situation.
> 
> But mostly, I'm concerned about the society that creates those situations.

Whatever happened to self-determination? But I agree with you that it is
society that has created the welfare system that has created the class
that has become dependent on the gov't to survive. The more the gov't
hands out the more people there will be to take them up on it.
> 
> > I don't support the killing of the poor in any manner. I support giving
> > them the tools and the knowledge to improve themselves while they are on
> > assistance so they can then get off the dole. Supporting generation
> > after generation is not the answer.
> 
> Failing to support them is tatamount to killing them.

LOL!  The drama of it.  
> 
> Hundreds of people die of hunger in this country every day.

I would like to know where you get your figures.  There are programs
other than welfare, such as the food bank, in place to help feed the
hungry.  Welfare is not the answer in the long term.  It is true that a
mark of a civilized society is that they care for those who are less
fortunate than themselves; however, when you do everything for someone,
where is their motivation for doing anything for themselves?  There need
to be some strict guidelines and expectations set down for those on
gov't assistance.  More than handouts to get them from day to day,
people need the tools to take themselves beyond just day to day
survival. They need to learn how to take care of themselves and gain the
confidence to do just that.  It isn't just about my money going to
someone else who doesn't work.  It's about helping people to feel good
about themselves and their own accomplishments.  If you have ever seen
anyone learn a new skill or accomplish something that they never thought
they could, you should know what I mean.  This is not an easy problem to
solve, but I think we both know that the current system is not working. 
We just have different ideas about what to do about it and different
ideas about what is important.  I don't believe we will ever agree.  

By the way...that last foo-foo bit was from my wife
> 
> What happens to those who can't or won't come around to your way of
> thinking?  Shall we just let them suffer and die?

You keep wanting to let people die! Listen to what I'm saying! Teach
them so they can improve their lot in life!

> 
> I've never said I am flawless.  I don't know where you got that
> assumption.  I just don't go around flaunting my sins and talking about
> how other people should partake in them.

Pride is also self-respect and satisfaction in ones accomplishments. I
don't think that is sinful or vain. But I could be wrong.

> 
> Then that's great... and you should recognize that nearly everybody on
> public assistance is in that same boat.  The possible edge cases are not
> important here.  We're trying to provide the greatest good, here.

So provide what is needed to get them off the system!!!
> 
> No matter what rules you adopt, people will find ways to expoit them.  If
> your rules are just more restrictions, you're hurting the people that
> follow the rules.  The ones that would be likely to abuse the system
> are going to find a way regardless.

True, but if you limit the time spent on assistance then those people
who are abusing will be forced to get a job regardless of their
situation. Those who are working to get themselves off assistance will
not be harmed.

I can see by reading back that we are going around in circles here.
Neither one of us is going to give on our position nor change the others
mind. As my wife wrote, I don't believe we will ever agree. However, it
has been quite a blast to discuss this issue with you. 

Merry Christmas and safe holidays to all.
-- 
alex <alexlinux at qwest.net>





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list