Re: Workers Paradise. /Political rant.
At 11:43 PM 9/15/96, attila wrote:
NO, it does not need to be or do either, BUT, it means that everybody independently attempts to succeed and the 'community' takes care of itself --and in the standard sense, the ne'er do wells fall off the path of *their own free choice.* There will always be sickness and calamity, but that is what the community is for.
BTW, it still works today; I live in one of 'em.
And lest there be any doubt, I _do_ support certain kinds of charities, and will not of course stop anyone from practicing charity. While I have no religious beliefs to speak of, I strongly support the mechanisms some churches have for taking care of their own members, recruits from the street, etc. (Including Salvation Army and "mission" sorts of inner city things--note of course that most such entities also insist on prayer and/or Bible readings as part of the deal...I wonder how long it will be before a class action lawsuit is filed to stop the prayer part? This would effectively shut the missions down, of course.) The thing about _traditional_ charity, of the religious or community sort, was that it was not treated as an "entitlement," as something the resentful masses could "demand" as part of their "human rights." A parish priest, for example, might extend charity to a poor person, or a widow, or whatever, but not to an able-bodied person who simply decided to not work. Nor to an unmarried woman who kept getting pregnant and having more mouths to feed. (I surmise that most such women either died of diseases related to sexual promiscuity, died in childbirth, died of disease brought on by malnutrition, or ended up in convents (Catholic birth control).) The point is that even in an "age of charity," strings have to be attached by the givers of charity. People will simply not give 40-60% of what they earn to support a growing population of people who say it's their "right" to welfare, AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), food stamps (*), and suchlike. (At certain supermarkets I sometimes shop in on the way back to my town, people in front of me in line put their nice cuts of meat down, their fine loaves of bread, their frozen dinner entrees, their "Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream," and then pay for it with books of blue "Department of Agriculture" food stamps. They use their own cash (perhaps gotten by cashing their welfare and "disability" checks) to buy their smokes and booze, as food stamps are not allowed to be spent on this stuff. My impression is that they eat more expensive food than I do, perhaps because they're buying the food with "play money," whereas I'm buying my food with money that's what's left after I had to pay 40-50 taxes, so I seek to economize when I can!)
Now, I don't intend to be Scrooge, but I'll fight for my rights to cut off at the knees the knee-jerk liberals and government slavemeisters who want to tell me that I, and 2 others are required to support 100 freeloaders.
And speaking of Scrooge, I like "A Christmas Carol" about as much as anyone I know, and try to take the lesson of what Scrooge learned as a general lesson about life and living it. (As with "Robin Hood," the message is often confused. Robin Hood was not "stealing from the rich," he was taking back what was stolen from the peasants and farmers by the King and his tax collectors, notably the Sheriff of Notingham. At least this is how I read the myth.) --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim May wrote:
The thing about _traditional_ charity, of the religious or community sort, was that it was not treated as an "entitlement," as something the resentful masses could "demand" as part of their "human rights."
There's no substantial difference between their resentful whining about their rights and your resentful whining about your rights - except maybe that you whine more.
In <199609160537.HAA26159@basement.replay.com>, on 09/16/96 at 07:37 AM, nobody@replay.com (Anonymous) said: = .Tim May wrote: = .> The thing about _traditional_ charity, of the religious or community sort, = .> was that it was not treated as an "entitlement," as something the resentful = .> masses could "demand" as part of their "human rights." = . There's no substantial difference between their resentful whining about = .their rights and your resentful whining about your rights - except maybe = .that you whine more. that is worse than a cheap shot... like a man low enough to shoot another while he's taking a crap. I'm not whining about it my rights any more than Tim is whining about his. One of the principals of the American Revolution was NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. When our government takes my money and creates a new class which "votes" to require me to pay for them; they are a vested interest voting only for their own gain without my consent. human rights are supposedly universal. however, since when has an entitlement been considered a "human right?" are you playing the part of the bleeding knee-jerk welfare advocate? The type: "I'm willing to give mine, (but I cheat on my taxes) --just make sure you let the Feds extort their welfare system from _your_ profits. The welfare system is not only broken and bankrupt, it is a SELF EATING WATERMELON. charity is man's _benevolence_ and, there is nothing in the scriptures which says the lazy and resentful are _entitled_ to my support. I tithe, and tithe faithfully; and contribute a fast offering every month for the ward bishop's fund. as in says in the scriptures, he who faithfully tithes shall receive it tenfold. we take care of our own community, and we don't collect welfare. it works. and for the paid hypocritics who pass the basket every Sunday and scream about the poor --they dont give, they want you to give. --attila
attila:
= . There's no substantial difference between their resentful whining about = .their rights and your resentful whining about your rights - except maybe = .that you whine more.
[silly remarks about crapping, watermelons, and hypocrites deleted]
I'm not whining about it my rights any more than Tim is whining about his. One of the principals of the American Revolution was NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. When our government takes my money and creates a new class which "votes" to require me to pay for them; they are a vested interest voting only for their own gain without my consent.
My full remarks are above; I never defended the present system.
human rights are supposedly universal. however, since when has an entitlement been considered a "human right?"
Never, AFAIK.
are you playing the part of the bleeding knee-jerk welfare advocate? The type: "I'm willing to give mine, (but I cheat on my taxes) --just make sure you let the Feds extort their welfare system from _your_ profits.
No.
charity is man's _benevolence_ and, there is nothing in the scriptures which says the lazy and resentful are _entitled_ to my support.
Charity has many definitions; in the Judeo-Christian tradition, benevolence is not a prominent one. Nor are sawed off accusations of laziness and resentfulness very indicative of caritas, OTOH.
I tithe, and tithe faithfully; and contribute a fast offering every month for the ward bishop's fund. as in says in the scriptures, he who faithfully tithes shall receive it tenfold. we take care of our own community, and we don't collect welfare.
it works.
That is an excellent thing, and you should do it regardless of returns; we all should. I do.
attila wrote:
= . There's no substantial difference between their resentful whining about = .their rights and your resentful whining about your rights - except maybe = .that you whine more.
that is worse than a cheap shot... like a man low enough to shoot another while he's taking a crap.
Initially this struck me as an inane analogy, so I snipped it (with mention) from my response; in retrospect I see just how shrewdly you captured the scene. Pure poetry. I *was* aiming at a guy who was shitting. ;)
On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Anonymous wrote:
Tim May wrote:
The thing about _traditional_ charity, of the religious or community sort, was that it was not treated as an "entitlement," as something the resentful masses could "demand" as part of their "human rights."
There's no substantial difference between their resentful whining about their rights
Such as the "right" to health insurance, the "right" to free checks for sitting on one's chair, the "right" to be treated preferentially as equally qualified non-minorities applying to the same job, the "right" to housing, the "right" to free education, the "right" to be paid three times what your labor is worth in the lowest bracket jobs.
and your resentful whining about your rights
The right to personal property. Beginning to get the picture? All of the former were created in the last 60 years out of whole cloth more as "revolution insurance" than anything else. They are rights because someone said they were, not because they are well or logically grounded.
- except maybe that you whine more.
I should hope he does. -- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
Black Unicorn wrote:
The thing about _traditional_ charity, of the religious or community sort, was that it was not treated as an "entitlement," as something the resentful masses could "demand" as part of their "human rights."
There's no substantial difference between their resentful whining about their rights
Such as the "right" to health insurance, the "right" to free checks for sitting on one's chair, the "right" to be treated preferentially as equally qualified non-minorities applying to the same job, the "right" to housing, the "right" to free education, the "right" to be paid three times what your labor is worth in the lowest bracket jobs.
I wasn't surprised when Attilla flogged a cartoon liberal in responding to me, but I'm quite surprised you have. I didn't produce or defend a litany of "rights," I pointed out that Tim is resentful and whines.
and your resentful whining about your rights
The right to personal property.
Malapropos.
Beginning to get the picture?
I've had it all along.
All of the former were created in the last 60 years out of whole cloth more as "revolution insurance" than anything else. They are rights because someone said they were, not because they are well or logically grounded.
Absolutely.
- except maybe that you whine more.
I should hope he does.
Why?
In <ae61f6ec05021004f2e5@[207.167.93.63]>, on 09/15/96 at 11:17 AM, tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) said: = .At 11:43 PM 9/15/96, attila wrote: = .> NO, it does not need to be or do either, BUT, it means = .> that everybody independently attempts to succeed and = .> the 'community' takes care of itself --and in the = .> standardsense, the ne'er do wells fall off the path = .> of *their own free choice.* There will always be = .> sickness and calamity, but that is what the community = .> is for. = .> = .> BTW, it still works today; I live in one of 'em. = .And lest there be any doubt, I _do_ support certain kinds of = .charities, and will not of course stop anyone from practicing = .charity. While I have no religious beliefs to speak of, OK, Tim, we're patient... we do not convert, we accept among the Saints only those who have received their own testimony. each must be free to pray as they believe. = .I strongly = .support the mechanisms some churches have for taking care of their = .own members, recruits from the street, etc. our members are our community. we believe in self-determination and that each must achieve is own greatness. we also believe in the support of the community, one and all. we do not file for government welfare. = .(Including Salvation = .Army and "mission" sorts of inner city things--note of course that = .most such entities also insist on prayer and/or Bible readings as = .part of the deal... well, we pray before our meals; we just ask that you respect our preference to pray. we do not ask you to listen; if you listen, that is for your benefit; The Salvation Army does make the men/women suffer through a short lesson and prayer. maybe just one will listen one day; that is their reward. The Salvation Army is just that: a dedicated army for the fallen. Their "commanders" live in the same general quarters. = .I wonder how long it will be before a class = .action lawsuit is filed to stop the prayer part? This would = .effectively shut the missions down, of course.) I doubt it would shut the Salvation Army down; that is a life long commitment and saving souls may be a mission, but not the raison d'etre of their existence. The rest of them, I suspect the loss of 'mission' might be a death knell. = .The thing about _traditional_ charity, of the religious or = .community sort, was that it was not treated as an "entitlement," as = .something the resentful masses could "demand" as part of their = ."human rights." THAT is the difference. not until FDR was there an entitlement. = .A parish priest, for example, might extend charity = .to a poor person, or a widow, or whatever, but not to an = .able-bodied person who simply decided to not work. = . that was the 'poor box' at the front of the sanctuary; the stories of the widow's mite (that and the teachings of Christ receiving the widow's mite). = .Nor to an = .unmarried woman who kept getting pregnant and having more mouths to = .feed. well, stoning has not gone out of vogue in the muslim countries. = .(I surmise that most such women either died of diseases related to = .sexual promiscuity, died in childbirth, died of disease brought on = .by malnutrition, or ended up in convents (Catholic birth control).) slave labour comes to mind... = .The point is that even in an "age of charity," strings have to be = .attached by the givers of charity. People will simply not give = .40-60% of what they earn to support a growing population of people = .who say it's their "right" to welfare, AFDC (Aid to Families with = .Dependent Children), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), food = .stamps (*), and suchlike. = . well, so far we are, by extortion, in what is labeled as the "worlds largest voluntary tax system" the problem is that the "entitlemented" are allowed to vote, and they outnumber us. but heaven forbid that the liberal media should permit us to disenfranchise or decimate their cadres. = .(At certain supermarkets I sometimes shop in on the way back to my = .town, people in front of me in line put their nice cuts of meat = .down, their fine loaves of bread, their frozen dinner entrees, = .their "Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream," and then pay for it with books = .of blue "Department of Agriculture" food stamps. =. I made a sarcastic comment some month's ago to a companion as we viewed such a scene in a large supermarket (I sing bass or contrabass, and it carries). the ensuing ruckus degenerated to a small group of the incensed illegals warily looking at the man in black, black assassins lid, mirrored aviators.... intimidation is just another form of communication... = .They use their own = .cash (perhaps gotten by cashing their welfare and "disability" = .checks) to buy their smokes and booze, as food stamps are not = .allowed to be spent on this stuff. My impression is that they eat = .more expensive food than I do, they do, Tim, they do. --and more of it; the fruits of your labour! = .perhaps because they're buying the = .food with "play money," whereas I'm buying my food with money = .that's what's left after I had to pay 40-50 taxes, so I seek to = .economize when I can!) they can't add a checkbook or read to pass a driver's license, but they can count entitlement money. that's all right; after the Federal law killing the require- ment for alternative languages, you speak and write English to get a driver's license in Utah, or anything else. learn or burn. = .> Now, I don't intend to be Scrooge, but I'll fight for = .> my rights to cut off at the knees the knee-jerk = .> liberals and government slavemeisters who want to tell = .> me that I, and 2 others are required to support 100 = .> freeloaders. = .And speaking of Scrooge, I like "A Christmas Carol" about as much = .as anyone I know, and try to take the lesson of what Scrooge = .learned as a general lesson about life and living it. In Dickensonian (I guess it works) England, the employer was ethically charged with the care of his employees. Of course, this all fits into my concept: "in general, men are basically good --unless it involves money." Unfortunately, very few monied industrialists were charitable, and this fact gave FDR the opportunity to start the interminable dole, generation after generation of welfare _entitlements_. the lazy, the pregnant teenagers on their third child, &c. believe they are _entitled_ to pick my pocket, and your pocket. at this point < 20% of the population is supporting > 80% who are _entitled_ to my support because some bleeding heart knee jerk says so. the federal budget defines these programs as _entitlements_ --they have even dropped the pretense of calling it "aid" or "welfare." It is a separate budget class by itself and does not figure in the stated deficit. and the slimeball Clinton brought in for the Treasury, he already replaced the entitlement funds with a government IOU... Scrooge needed to receive the revelation of charity --and to accept the principle. He did. Charity is not a Christian concept; it is fundamental human characteristic present to some extent in most humans, and differentiates us from say the ants, who cannibalize their fallen comrads. I know many good, charitable individuals who are not religious, even agnostics. I've always discounted atheism as a conundrum; you can not deny before you first identify. = .(As with "Robin Hood," the message is often confused. Robin Hood = .was not "stealing from the rich," he was taking back what was = .stolen from the peasants and farmers by the King and his tax = .collectors, notably the Sheriff of Notingham. At least this is how = .I read the myth.) you bet! the Sheriff of Nottingham was _greedy_ and merciless. Robin Hood was only returning the property to the rightful owners --a lesson missed by most. the real question: just how much of a myth is it? the moral would not have been stated and the peasants would not have protected the "merry band" had they been plunderers of the land. = .--Tim May Oh, yes, I forgot to add a special message to "Dr. Dimitri" on his Piled higher [and] Deeper throne of cow feces, don't forget to address me as "Dr. Attila" 'cause I got a couple of them things, too. and if Tim is an old fart, what am I? I've got at least 5-10 years on Tim. --doesn't keep my hand off the cranked throttle of my 102 cu in outlaw chopper. --attila -- one of the few things we all share: the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials.
Anonymous wrote:
Tim May wrote:
The thing about _traditional_ charity, of the religious or community sort, was that it was not treated as an "entitlement," as something the resentful masses could "demand" as part of their "human rights."
There's no substantial difference between their resentful whining about their rights and your resentful whining about your rights - except maybe that you whine more.
Actually there is a fundemental difference: what Tim demands is the right to be left alone and to be free from exernal influence as long as what he is doing does not directly hurt another, what "they" demand is to be taken care of by others because they either cannot or choose not to take care of themselves. The latter requires that someone productive (like Tim) be forced to take care of them through taxation or otherwise at gunpoint. In most societies this is considered the difference between a child and an adult... jim
Jim McCoy wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Tim May wrote:
The thing about _traditional_ charity, of the religious or community sort, was that it was not treated as an "entitlement," as something the resentful masses could "demand" as part of their "human rights."
There's no substantial difference between their resentful whining about their rights and your resentful whining about your rights - except maybe that you whine more.
Actually there is a fundemental difference: what Tim demands is the right to be left alone and to be free from exernal influence as long as what he is doing does not directly hurt another, what "they" demand is to be taken care of by others because they either cannot or choose not to take care of themselves. The latter requires that someone productive (like Tim) be forced to take care of them through taxation or otherwise at gunpoint.
Tim is not productive. He *was* productive, but not anymore; his wealth might be productive in some indirect way, but it it certainly severable from him. He demands to be left alone by certain socio-economic apparatuses (socialized welfare) but is quite content to rely on the existence of other such apparatuses (investment entities, banks). Whether *that* is "hypocritical" doesn't interest me; I merely pointed out that he is constantly and resentfully whining about his own "rights" and about others' lack thereof--in that regard, he's of a kind with the people he is forever griping about.
In most societies this is considered the difference between a child and an adult...
This is a silly statement of the kind often made by people who have no solid grasp of history or social organization: most societies that radically differ from our own in their ways of maintaining/supervising their members (successful or not) have apparatuses so invasive and arbitrary that, in comparison, the IRS and assorted other bureaucracies look pretty benign.
nobody@replay.com (Anonymous) writes:
Tim is not productive. He *was* productive, but not anymore; his wealth Tim has no life. That's why he posts lies, personal attacks, and flame bait to this mailing list and drives away and and all crypto discussion.
In most societies this is considered the difference between a child and an adult...
This is a silly statement of the kind often made by people who have no solid grasp of history or social organization: most societies that radically differ from our own in their ways of maintaining/supervising their members (successful or not) have apparatuses so invasive and arbitrary that, in comparison, the IRS and assorted other bureaucracies look pretty benign. Yes - he's a typical mediocre product of the U.S. public education system.
--- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (6)
-
attila -
Black Unicorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Jim McCoy -
nobody＠replay.com -
tcmay＠got.net