So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen?
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:09
VIEWED: 12173
PAGE 9 of 15
The paralysis sounds like the cokeheads I know. The erratic brain function sounds like the potheads I know. Drinks don't connect me to what you described.
Under Obamacare she will be warehoused and any financial reserves attached to her will be confiscated to redistribute to young perpetually unemployed voters. Not a perfect world, but Obamacare is what we are stuck with.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis
OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.
"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GEEZER
Well, Geezer, I noticed you've changed your ideals in response to my post. Specifically...
Quote:
Once of the questions you didn't answer was whether a person could "freely" sell themselves into slavery or as body parts. You didn't answer it before, either, and it gets to the heart of the failure in your system of ethics. -signy
Because it's one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. But do you think that people who were morally opposed to using violence or intimidation against others, or taking advantage of them....
Apparently your ethics include not "taking advantage" of people. That goes a lot farther than simply not threatening people with direct physical violence.... but it was a statement you never made before. Hmmm.... did you???
Quote:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.
NOPE! Nothing in there about not taking advantage of people! If you had simply mentioned that... oh, about 20 posts ago... this whole discussion could have gotten a lot farther.
So, how do YOU define "taking advantage" of people, because that opens up a whole new dimension in your ideal world.
Quote:Well, I didn't think YOU thought so, because you never said so before. I mentioned it quite a few times!
You don't think "I'll deny you water, and prevent anyone else from providing it to you, until you die, unless you do what I want." is violence?
And it's not like that aspect of violence wasn't brought up before either, especially in relation to the dangers that monopolies pose individuals. Your continuing answer to that conundrum was simply to keep insisting that monopolies don't exist, or aren't inevitable, or can be competed against by smaller companies like Ben&Jerry's and Burt's Bees (which were infamously bought up by monopolies). Do you remember those examples? I certainly do!
Quote:Nope. YOUR conception of violence is (was?) very one-dimensional. Because I've always known that siege is just another form of war. But, hey, glad you came around to seeing that POV!
Nope. Your conception of violence is just very one-dimensional.
In the past, you've always been against dishonesty. After all, how can you have an enforceable contract if one side is misrepresenting itself?
So ASIDE FROM dishonesty, what are the various ways of "taking advantage" of people that would be frowned on?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nope, it will be redistributed to the PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES which are so famously a part of Obamacare.
Under Obamacare she will be warehoused and any financial reserves attached to her will be confiscated to redistribute to young perpetually unemployed voters
------------
RAPPY: It's not ME! I didn't say it! It was that article! That no-account author of that ridiculous article (that I posted because I so clearly disagreed with!) Don't talk to ME! Talk to the AUTHOR!
...
OK, we WON'T talk to you!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GEEZER
Quote:Same way you deal with any company: fire the people who aren't doing their jobs. But, yanno, as a former government employee, I'm sure you've seen even government employees who were interested in doing a good job. I work with many of them myself... absolutely stellar self-starting professionals who've instituted many improvements in our processes. Possibly even yourself and madam belong in that category.
So how do you propose to deal with the inefficiency and downright incompetence that occurs in many current federal aid programs and that would pretty much inevitably occur in federally operated meals-on-wheels, transportation, etc.?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER
Well, Geezer, I noticed you've changed your ideals in response to my post. Specifically...Quote:
Once of the questions you didn't answer was whether a person could "freely" sell themselves into slavery or as body parts. You didn't answer it before, either, and it gets to the heart of the failure in your system of ethics. -signy
Because it's one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. But do you think that people who were morally opposed to using violence or intimidation against others, or taking advantage of them....
Apparently your ethics include not "taking advantage" of people. That goes a lot farther than simply not threatening people with direct physical violence.... but it was a statement you never made before. Hmmm.... did you???Quote:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.
NOPE! Nothing in there about not taking advantage of people! If you had simply mentioned that... oh, about 20 posts ago... this whole discussion could have gotten a lot farther.
So, how do YOU define "taking advantage" of people, because that opens up a whole new dimension in your ideal world.
First, that wasn't an all-inclusive list, just (as I noted) some things to give you the idea of rules that might derive from the ZAP.
Second, you don't consider taking peoples stuff (and "stuff" could cover more than physical possessions - reputation for example) by dishonesty to be "taking advantage"?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Same way you deal with any company: fire the people who aren't doing their jobs.
But when it's the entire system that's not doing its job? I can hear you say "Just replace the entire thing". And you say my solutions are impractical.
And what about that meals-on-wheels czar and his "one-meal-fits-all" idea?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Second, you don't consider taking peoples stuff (and "stuff" could cover more than physical possessions - reputation for example) by dishonesty to be "taking advantage"?
The word "stuff" usually means "things". The right to freedom or a good reputation doesn't automatically spring to mind.
Going to online dictionaries...
Stuff:
1.the material of which anything is made: a hard, crystalline stuff.
2.material to be worked upon or to be used in making something: wood, steel, and other stuff for building.
3.material of some unspecified kind: a cushion filled with some soft stuff.
4.Chiefly British . woven material or fabric, especially wool.
5.property, as personal belongings or equipment; things.
Several dictionaries say the same thing. I tried working that usage into a sentence... Life, liberty, privacy, and all that stuff. Not working, except ironically. Having beat the question to death, the answer is
"NO, I don't consider intangibles (more than physical possessions) to be 'stuff' and neither do most people"
Also, you're limiting this dispossession of .... whatever ... to loss by dishonesty.
But yanno, I can imagine killing someone without ever being dishonest or outwardly violent. It's the problem of the monopoly, again. I can takes someone's "stuff" ... his things, her freedom, their lives... very openly. Corporations are doing it today. They've been doing it for years. Every time you break the seal of a software package or get it pre-loaded on your PC, you've given up many rights per the EULA (end user license agreement, helpfully written our for you) and apparently given up your right to privacy. Every time you click on google, use Youtube, gmail, or any other of the google services, your information is harvested whether you want or not. It's all spelled out in that new "privacy" policy. Don't like it? Don't use the internet!
Download a Cheerios coupon? You've just given up your right to sue, even if an employee deliberately tampered with a product. See? It says... right here
New provisions about how you become bound by these legal terms and how you can opt out of them. Your use of any of our sites or services, or participation in any other General Mills offering, means that you are agreeing to these Legal Terms. You may terminate this agreement at time by notifying us by email of your intent to do so, but only if you also cease to participate in any of our offerings.
http://generalmills.com/Legal_Notice_Summary.aspx
In fact, MANY companies have these kinds of terms baked into their contracts... If you use our products in any way, you no longer have the right to sue, Oh, and BTW- you can't enter into a class-action lawsuit, either. (If you don't believe me, look it up.)
No dishonesty there! Perfectly up-front and inescapable.
So, what do you think of these examples of "taking advantage" which involve neither dishonesty nor violence? Do they belong in your ideal world? If not- what ethic would prohibit them?
I feel that your earlier emphasis on property rights and non-violence might have obscured the REAL ethics of your ideal world. That there may be underlying ethics which might be hard to describe but are more fundamental than what you've talked about so far.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy, you spell things out SO clearly- I don't know why Geezer can't 'get' it...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, AFA a government system not working...
We do analyses. We follow procedures, we check back to see if they're "working" on the micro scale: Did the instrument run consistently from beginning to end? Are the analyses repeatable and fully documented?
But we also check back to see if they're "working" on a macro scale... Are these analyses telling us what we need to know? Is pollution being reduced? Are people getting healthier? Is less property damage being done? Are we looking at the right things or is there a form of pollution that we haven't noticed, or a new form of pollution being created by new technology (eg nano particles) that's sneaking up on us?
I guess what I'm trying to say is... changing procedures, changing systems, changing metrics isn't new to us. If "the system" isn't working, you change it until it does.
My boss once told me.. and this has really stuck... that there is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right thing. I think every process needs feedback. The problem is engaging the feedback before interests become too entrenched. Now, we have corporate interests fully entrenched in government, and politicians mostly cozily snuggled in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME