One of the commonly disputed topics in society and politics is whether a nation should seek to...
"level the playing field"
"redistribute resources"
"mandate equality"
There are compelling reasons for and against both sides of this argument.
I think that the search for equality is diametrically opposed to the search for excellence. We just marvelled at the performance of the world's olympians. They are anything BUT examples of a society that promotes equality... they are examples of kids who were singled out at an early age as being DIFFERENT, and then those differences were cultivated into STRENGTHS.
On the other hand, the best example of achieving equality is mowing the lawn. THe only way to get all your grass at the same height is to penalize the fast growers. THat doesn't make the short grass higher, except by comparison.
What are your thoughts about the wisdom of a national policy of EQUALITY? Does it undermine excellence? When all kids get an A on their reports at school so nobody is discouraged, what is the net result of that? (I am sure they olympians are not treated that way as part of their rigorous training)
Thoughts?
1. People are not born with the same 'qualities.'
2. People are not all driven the same way.
3. People do not have cookie cutter motivations.
4. Some people care what others think of them, others do not.
5. Some people have a different view of ethics.
The is no equality, except in the opportunity afforded each person in the same social economic scale in a given community where equal opportunity exists. Then given the environment the person develops in, affected by upbringing, you start changing what happens and how.
My son is his last months of a Phd in social anthropology. Don't talk to him about this, he's sort of Jesuit in his argumentation, and it would take about 40 hours just to touch on getting him to lead you in circles and make you dizzy. I've learned when to shut up. Marvelous education, so far it's cost 170,000 and here you earn your grants and bursaries, and so far he's spent about 18,000 of his own money, the rest was for always being around 98 percent. His prof. nominated him for a research grant last fall from the American Philosophical Society, and they sent him a cheque for 15,000 CDN out of the blue.
He grew up in Northern Canada, my ex wife went nuts and ran away with the boys, he's the oldest. They found me when he turned 13, and moved in with me. He quit high school to be a cowboy, move west and was allergic to everything. Moved back worked in a store, then a gas station. After 4 years he tells me his starting his 2nd year at University, got his Honours degree, then his Masters. He's 35 now, married and has a kid, a house and a new Hyundai van.
His brother on the other hand....quit grade 12, and..has no clue what to do, though he's had a few really good jobs, I just don't get it at all, I don't really know if he's working, and what he tells me I just try and pretend I think he's not lying.
So same start point, 1 year and a half apart. The older is quiet, introspective, and respectful. The younger is boastful, argumentative, and treats me like a moron.
You are going to see some crazy stuff. Some countries let you go to school and pay for it, and you can just keep plugging and everything they have you would consider extreme socialism.
And I think there is only 1 developed nation that believes basic health care is not a right. You might believe you have better rights, but to many of us, that's the most basic right.
If you examine Maslow's hierarchy of needs maybe you can sort out how a person can have any level of equality if a series of minor illnesses, that any of us are a slip or germ away from having, can take away your security, what you worked for, and your very existence.
Pat,
If you think the gun issue was a minefield, then depending on whether or not people want to weigh in, you could have just opened a can of worms!
LOL! We'll see. For now, I'll just sit back and see what happens. You asked 3 things. If you want to generate responses, it's better to ask just one thing. It will end up being 3 or 4 before it's over.
If you decide to ask just one thing, I would start a new thread, but that's just me. I've "stirred the pot" more than once on here. Usually by accident, but you start to see a trend.
Bob
Hold on there, the mandate that all men are created equal is derived from The Creator and therefore cannot be mandated by humans for it is already in existence. See "Second Amendment to the US Constitution" for details on the enforcement of said policy.
--Mac
OK... as Pat said ... "a can of worms", but here I foolishly go.
I don't think "the mandate that all men are created equal is derived from The Creator". Instead it is an ever-evolving mandate made by man to guarantee civil liberties and equal opportunities for all the citizens of those countries which have a common history of liberty and equality.
One needs to deeply understand the era of 1700 to 1800.
Not US history, European. That was the beginnings of equality.
Here I urge the study of the lives and works of 2 musicians, W. Mozart, and Robert Burns.
From a society where privilege and class ensured that even a musician was not allowed to sit at the table with society, to one where they became the equal of others, the beginnings of the movement towards equality were so ingrained in one organization that many countries banned the assembly of men of all classes, who met behind closed door, and who's purpose it to ensure the equality of all men, all religions, and all people.
Many men who made up part of this group were founders of the USA, and much of the wording was borrowed from that group.
The age of enlightenment. Where the church started to lose it's hold on education, and could no longer keep the populace from learning the liberal arts and sciences.
All men are created equal.
Where it goes from there, is on the individual.
Health care is a commodity.
It is bought & sold.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be bought & sold.
Some may argue differently, but the way it is meant in our constitution, for our country, they cannot be bought or sold. (some) Americans believe that we are endowed by our creator with these rights.
If men or governments are giving these rights...they can also take them away.
My rights come from God. And you cannot take them. Not as long as I have a second amendment.
The Bill of Rights did not create rights. It acknowledged them.
The document that codifies the US Citizen's rights as mentioned above is the Declaration of Independence, which includes the following wonderful lines:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I'm with Mick on this one.
Oh, and I might add,
You want my guns?
Come and get them.
--Mac
Quote:
And I think there is only 1 developed nation that believes basic health care is not a right. You might believe you have better rights, but to many of us, that's the most basic right.
If you examine Maslow's hierarchy of needs maybe you can sort out how a person can have any level of equality if a series of minor illnesses, that any of us are a slip or germ away from having, can take away your security, what you worked for, and your very existence.
I actually agree with this John, the problem is how do we pay for it? After following the health care debate pretty closely here, I can see that you guys up there are to a certain extent getting a free ride from us similar to your national defense. You don't have to spend a good percentage of your GDP on defense because you know if push comes to shove we will protect you and you're right, we would. I'm a financial type and while I'm not a Phd in Economics I have quite a bit of education in financial things.
Drugs are expensive to develop. Very expensive. The drug companies have to make a certain return on equity or investment or it's not worth it just like you do if you put a grand in a savings account. In spite of what you read about record profits and all that, the ROE for the drug companies is pretty low overall. Canadians are justifiably proud of your government for negotiating very tough drug pricing to the extent that we now are aware of big differences in costs. The reason for that is volume production. The companies are willing to eat that reduced profit to keep the production at a high level because they know that what they lose by selling to you they can make up with higher prices here so they went along. But, with the spotlight on that right now, if a health care bill finally makes it way through congress it will include reduced drug costs because how can it be that the prices are so much lower in Canada for the same American developed drug? That will mean higher costs for you guys up there because if the companies are not making it up by higher prices here, why should they continue to sell to you at a reduced price? The answer is they won't. What will happen is the prices will be the same on both sides of the border. Our drug costs will come down somewhat and yours will go up somewhat until they find equilibrium. Basic economics. Oh, the same goes for all the medical devices and high tech equipment that is developed here and sold there. In order for us to have what you consider the same basic rights you have, you will wind up paying for some of it. Thanks.
Bob
OK, two questions whose answers may change my point of view.
Can someone show me a scripture which says "God created all men equal?" I'm not trying to be rude, but I can neither remember reading such a scripture nor can I see the evidential results of such a statement in the real world surrounding me and that is why I made the comment I did earlier in this thread.
Secondly, how and why does the concept of equality or inequality evoke immediate references to the 2nd Amendment and guns. I must admit I gave up reading the "Lock and Load" thread back before page 3 was generated, so if this is a carry-over from that discussion, I guess I missed it.
Quote:
only 1 developed nation that believes basic health care is not a right. You might believe you have better rights, but to many of us, that's the most basic right.
True rights exist simultaneously among people; hence, exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by others. My free-speech rights, for example, or my right to travel wherever I wish impose no obligations whatsoever on anyone else -- no obligation except not to interfere.
If we extrapolate the conceit in the quote above to my right of free speech, government would then be obligated to provide me with an auditorium or perhaps even television and radio air time. My right to travel freely would require government-subsidized airfare and hotel accommodations.
For the government to guarantee a right to health care -- or any other good or service -- whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely the rights to the fruits of their labors.
And when the founding fathers of America penned whatever words, slavery still existed. That's equality? I'm not saying our record is a whole lot better, but we were smaller.
They did not put equality of people of colour in your beloved constitution.
As to health care, despite all the numbers, we pay less per capita for health care. If you think we are ripping of big pharma sorry. It's not happening. You can keep your patent for 6 years, after that, it's fair game.
You really believe health care is a commodity like a bushel of corn? We have set prices for doctor's visits, free flu shots because it's cheaper than putting people in hospitals, and free pneumonia shots. I had the latter every fall for decades.
I'm going to a rhumeatoligist, (however you spell that..) on Tuesday. Got a CD with all my Xrays, bone scans, cat scans etc. Got copies of all my relevant medical records from my doc. They phoned me and said the appointment will be 1.5 hours. How much is that chez vous??? The records and the visit for me costs someone, but not me. I pay taxes.
I bet I couldn't afford it in the US.
I never heard the Hippocratic oath said I'll treat only people with the cash to pay me.
I'm sure no one who lost their house, their savings, and everything they own will say, I'm glad I spent my last dollar trying to live. That's wrong.
You have been fed BS by the lobbies, the insurance companies, and the politicians who take millions from all the companies who give millions or maybe billions to brain wash you.
The biggest laugh is watching a commercial for something on our Tv, then yours.
Ours says, got pain try this.
Your commercial for the same thing says "may cause deafness, exploding head syndrome, you legs to fall off..." reminds of the old Ktel commercials..50 bad things in 20 seconds. We don't have that, because we don't let lawyers run our country.
I'm not saying we are right, but think outside the box, or the lower 48.
If you get sick, remember, it's probably cheaper to come here. We don't count qtips, band aids, or stitches. You have to pay, but about 1/2. And yes our rich people run down there and find some hot shot doc so like one of our politicians who has a condo in Miami, said he could only get the heart surgery in the US, the liar was exposed, most major hospitals here do it for free, but he didn't have the Miami condo in Toronto and it was snowing, and he's called Danny Millions so guess what, he's a moron.
The health care argument boils down to one thing. The USA is the only developing nation thinks so ill of the people that if you don't have the cash, go ahead and become bankrupt trying to live.
The whole American military taking care of Canada is BS. We've been in Afghanistan for years. We've been in wars years before the US. We had the 3rd largest navy in the world. When the call comes, we go.
Who took care of your people on planes after 9 11? Mexico? Right.
Anyone wants to critisise our military can head to Kandahar and stand in front of them.
Over 150 Canadians have been killed there. And if I remember right 900 Americans. With 10 times the population, you are about 600 behind.
Oh, and we have marines here guarding defense plants. We make some nice military gear up the road.
I do not understand how a discussion on equality leads to attacks on Canada and the fact we are some 90 pound weakling, with bad military, bad health care, and again some inferior nation.
That won't wash with me. Nor any of my fellow Canadians. We have done our jobs, fought valiantly, and won our wars. We'd be American, but if you know the history, you made too many mistakes in 1812, and, well, ran home. Sorry. That's reality.
Bring it on. Next whoever it was wrote those words that we are commies can come back out of the woodwork, because if that's true, go ahead. I'm too proud of my country, it's contribution, and it's history to let someone trash it. And no one is taking my guns either. Who suggested that? We never had to give them up.
I'm proud of what and who we are. And the diversity.
I live in the best country in the world and if I didn't think that you don't think I'd have taken my cash, invested it south of the border and got citizenship. Easy to do. It wouldn't take more than a few months. I know for a fact if I put 500k into the Michigan economy I'd be courted, kissed, blessed and taken in. Not happening.
Oh Canada eh? Home of Pgmusic.
@ JBlatz:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
@ John, there was this small matter of the American Civil War...
It was indeed the practitioners of that faith who were at the forefront of the abolitionist and civil rights movements.
Gee, such a sin, I love Jesus and I also love "my" constitution.
And with damn good reason.
--Mac
I have recently gotten to know a “cyber friend” better lately through a series of fairly in depth phone conversations, and we were having a discussion that kind of touched on this subject in a general way.
I stated that “there are only two kinds of people in this world, regardless of nationality, color, race, creed or religion………………. 1: Pretty decent people……... 2: A**holes.”
I went on to explain that the beauty of my system was that each person got to choose which category they would be in, simply by their actions, words and deeds.
My friend told me I needed to add one more category. I, of course, asked what that new category was. My friend said, “Pretty decent a**holes”.
I have a wise friend!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob
I love my country and still say it's the best country, warts and all.
And many americans. But you have the right to differ. I will give that quarter.
One needs to examine their opinions, their ideals, and how their system works. And then work to improve it.
I know a lot of you pray a lot. Jesus will fix it. As I said before, show me a church that prays and people live longer than the national average and I'm joining the next day. But we all know that won't happen. Sorry.
I believe in God. Very strongly.
I lost my 'evangelical bapitst church' because I let a deacon smoke and wear sinful wire rim glasses.' I was the pastor. I was one of the biggest greek experts on Hebrews. Wrote a thesis.
Now I am a deist. God is in the forest, the sunrise, the mountains.
And equality is a principal that says if I'm equal to YOU, we deserve the same health care, the same affordability to live despite illness. If you don't agree, fine by me. The greatest gift I have is music and the ability to fix things others cannot. I'm retiring from the latter. And working hard at the former.
When can some admit that there are differences? Even those of you who were oppressed, seem to think that those who sanctioned that, or ignored it, think those people are some kinds of heroes. Well......
Good will to all.
And may the Great Architect of the Universe give you wisdom, even if he does not come down and cure your baldness, or liver disease, or diabetes. Do your best, treat all men equal, and obey the laws of the country that afford you its protection.
I think equality should be mandated by law. All of you turkeys that play and sing that much better than me will have to decrease the quality of your performances until you reach the gutter that is roost of my sounds.
Kevin
John,
Don't you think you're taking this a little farther than intended?
Pat,
I warned you about opening a can of worms! Of course some folks can find "worms" in a plate of pasta. Even with meatballs, parmesan and extra marinara suace. John is always one of those people.
I guess it depends on what you're lookin' for.
Bob
i normally dont comment on political aspects.
cos often there arent perfect solutions..
and the arguments just go round n round.
particularly related to social services//welfare support
and health care.
all i can relate is when i was young growing up in england what my gran
once told me.
viz..before social services and health care was implemented
in the uk..the poor lived in terrible circumstances often.
often in poorhouses or workhouses as they were called.
really times were appalling for lots of people in
the victorian era for example.
britain realised a long time ago for example..
if govt cuts income support for people on welfare with kids
often the crime rate goes up cos desperate people do desperate things.
in the past the poor just often died either thru malnutrition or
thru no access to good health care cos no money.
thus britain implemented various income support n health care programs.
and also various programs for the elderly.
is it perfect ?? nope.
never will be...but at least the dreadfull conditions for the poor
of the victorian era dont exist.
(for example ponder this...in the victorian era many women
had to go "on the game" to feed themselves. cos no money.
happens today too. very sad imho.)
ive had many americans as friends and have always respected
the usa..particularly as they helped england so much in ww2.
(and canada also helped of course.)..but it has concerned me in the
past as an inhabitant of this crazy planet how one finds in some places
huge mansions then a few miles away social problems n poverty.
a social diachotemy.
pertaining to this thread only the other day i was talking to
a wealthy person i met by chance.
a strident capitalist. who believed in...
"the market..may the best man/woman win and tough luck on the losers".
till i politely pointed out ...
"what if it was your great grand child in the future that needed
a leg up or help or whatever ??". this made him think.
he had no answer. particularly at the prospect that in
the future a member of a future generation in his family might have to go
"on the game" cos they were in dire straits.
often wealthy people can only relate in this fashion.
no matter how many posts in this thread n differing opinions ,
strong or otherwise //pro's n cons etc...
there are many problems in this world with no perfect solutions.
cos its like sealing a balloon at one point to solve a problem only
to have a leak occur in another part of the social balloon.
some of the best minds in england have attempted to solve these deep societal problems..
so i will be interested if this thread can.
all i pray for , is, somehow.. everyone one day in the world will be happy.
but then i'm a romantic..lol.
Quote:
And equality is a principal that says if I'm equal to YOU, we deserve the same health care, the same affordability to live despite illness.
It does not say that you are equal to any one else. It says we were created equal. There's no mention of "deserving". If you can afford health care...you deserve it. If I can't, I don't want a government to force you to pay for it. If you choose to do so...God bless you.
Manning,
Quote:
the other day i was talking to
a wealthy person i met by chance.
a strident capitalist. who believed in...
"the market..may the best man/woman win and tough luck on the losers".
till i politely pointed out ...
"what if it was your great grand child in the future that needed
a leg up or help or whatever ??". this made him think.
he had no answer. particularly at the prospect that in
the future a member of a future generation in his family might have to go
"on the game" cos they were in dire straits.
often wealthy people can only relate in this fashion.
Do you give us your word of honor that this is a true story? It sounds like something out of Oliver Twist!
"May I have some more please?"
LOL. I'm not a "wealthy" person. I'm unemployed. I don't have any health insurance. I do need it. But do I expect the government to step up and take care of it? No.
I expect, and hope, to find a job so I can provide for my family. I really hope I don't find myself "on the game", because if I do, I'll probably starve to death! LOL.
Bob
Citaat:
If you can afford health care...you deserve it. If I can't, I don't want a government to force you to pay for it. If you choose to do so...God bless you.
OK. That;s all fine when you're able to earn your living yourself. But what happens when someone (perhaps a drunk driver) runs you over with his car causing you to loose both arms. The driver got killed and has no family and no insurance. Your financial buffer allows you to get well again, but you can't find a new employment. Your financial position is critical and you can no longer pay for health care. You develop a pneumonia and need hospital care but cannot afford it. Do you deserve to die?
Background info: My wife and I both have a business. A day not worked is a day not payed.
Has anyone read Pat's original question?
Quote:
One of the commonly disputed topics in society and politics is whether a nation should seek to...
"level the playing field"
"redistribute resources"
"mandate equality"
There are compelling reasons for and against both sides of this argument.
I'll go ahead and "weigh in".
The answer is NO! To all three questions.
May we please address Pat's topic?
He is, after all, the one who started this thread.
Bob
JBlatz,
You said,
Quote:
Can someone show me a scripture which says "God created all men equal?" I'm not trying to be rude, but I can neither remember reading such a scripture nor can I see the evidential results of such a statement in the real world surrounding me and that is why I made the comment I did earlier in this thread.
Since you aren't trying to be "rude", could you please expound upon this statement so the rest of us will understand what you actually meant?
The statement definitely came across as rude and ill conceived. We don't want to take you wrong, so what did you actually mean?
Thanks,
Bob
Quote:
John said..."I do not understand how a discussion on equality leads to attacks on Canada and the fact we are some 90 pound weakling, with bad military, bad health care, and again some inferior nation."
John, I hope you know that I think very highly of you. I have said so openly on many occasions, spontaneously when nobody was asking for such a statement. With that thought in mind, please do not hear what I am about to say as an attack, for I have absolutely no desire to attack you. I like you and and therefore I want you to be happy, not attacked.
But if you read back through the thread you will see that you were the one who introduced a comparison of Canada to the USA, and THAT is the reason why a discussion on equality led to comments about Canada. Moreover, you hit the ground running with multiple statements that really looked like you were baiting, itching for a fight. As a general rule, if you walk up to a dog and kick it, it will probably bite you. And if you enter a conversation with flaming rhetoric, you can pretty much expect people to throw it right back.
Conversely, I recall a thread recently when everybody was saying good things about Canada. In the absence of jabs, people say what they really think. And when there was nobody throwing gasoline on the fire, people said good things.
I think that is significant.
OK, if we accept the idea that all men are created equal... what does that mean? Mac, I bet you have yet to meet your equal. I've never met anybody as well-versed in multiple topics and just plain naturally intelligent as you.
THe olympians are superior to all of us in their own little areas of expertise, so maybe we could say that equality means that we each have our area of excellence, and in a roundabout way that make us equal, but not identical
But, I have a niece who has down's syndrome. Intellectually, financially, physically etc she will never be anyone's equal. So there goes our "relative equality"
What functional definition can we agree on when we say that all men are created equal? Because clearly there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
Quote:
Hold on there, the mandate that all men are created equal is derived from The Creator and therefore cannot be mandated by humans for it is already in existence. See "Second Amendment to the US Constitution" for details on the enforcement of said policy.
--Mac
But what does that mean?
'
Does it mean that all the kids get "As" on their reports so nobody gets their feelings hurt? I ask because there ARE people who see that very thing as an exercise in equality.
But Let's make it closer to home: here on the forum... when people post songs, is it better to tell them their song is great? Or is it better to tear it apart so the person does not become complacent?
There is a wide degree of musical inequality here on the list. Some are professionals while others are semi-pro, others are hobbyists. How does the idea of all men being equal shake down here?
Let's keep it on track.
"One of the commonly disputed topics in society and politics is whether a nation should seek to..."
Do you mean the government or the populace? In countries where the government is elected by a minority there is likely to be huge differences in opinion.
"level the playing field" - definitely! You can't have one rule for the privileged and another for the not so privileged. That includes mandating equality - Martin Luther King, among many martyrs was all for that.
If the UK law on accounting had been level with US laws, the Lehmann Brothers debacle would not have been as wide spread, they would have had to file for bankruptcy earlier with less repercussions on the market.
"redistribute resources" - In a healthy society this would normally be achieved by trade. Unfortunately there are no healthy societies these days so the government (at whatever level is seen to be best) must be prepared and qualified to assist in this.
"mandate equality" - definitely!
The first and foremost duty of any nation is to look after its citizens. Either through defense, education, resource management (energy, water and air) and health care. If it does not fulfill this then why do we need nations, why not let the utility sharks and the bankers get on with it?
In non democratic countries you don't expect any of the above, but most eastern European countries had most of that before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Democracy won't guarantee that the will of the people is carried out as we can see in most democratic counties these days.
I am not knocking America in this so no-one needs to get insulted, this is the sad reality of most of today's greed orientated societies.
Whoever said all men were created equal was talking through his naval. This has never been the case, and never will be. For a start, almost half the "men" are born as women, where is the equality there? I won't even start on the not so able bodied, or the different ethic and religious origins, or whatever.
To sum it up, it would be nice to say YES to all three, and then have it work!
Let's put the 'created equal' in context.
God said we were created equal. In his eyes, we are created equal (without sin) and you had no better chance of reaching heaven than I had on the day we were born. The example of a Down's syndrome child also has the exact same chance of accomplishing that.
You may be a better guitar player than me, but I may be better at building a house. Does this make one of us better than the other? No, just different. We all have gifts.
Level the playing field - We can all work on that at an individual level. If we do not judge on anything other than character (for lack of better word) then the field is level. If you want to judge by possessions you are doing it wrong. True joy rarely depends on possessions.
Redistribute Resources - are you talking about 'resources' or wealth? Resources are something that you can make something out of. They are pretty well available to all. It takes some creativity to see and develop the resources to have value.
Redistributing wealth is a whole different topic and defines capitalism versus socialism. We are learning that capitalism has a tendency to create 'entitlement' which is wrong. We are not 'entitled' to anything until it is agreed upon. This includes healthcare. If we in the US agree (in a majority at least) that we are entitled to it we will arrange for that. It is a discussion going on in millions of homes right now. The problem we have is one of numbers. We curently have a lot of older seniors who are leaving the work force and are 'entitled' to more than the system can currently provide, so adding more entitlements is a tough choice right now.
Another 'entitlement' we are battling is the false entitlement of greed. Large corporations are failing because of the greed of the corporate leaders. Yet our monetary system feels we need to bail out these failures in order to avoid the disasterous consequences of their failures. In a capitalistic society someone should step up to cover the needs of these failures. We the people did not cause the banks to fail, or GM for that matter. We enabled it but did not cause it, and yet we are paying for these failures. Yet another drain that is causing us to have to look very hard at the entitlements of others.
Again, in my eyes, if we do not accomplish these things (your three questions) individually we cannot expect the government to mandate it. It is obviously not the 'will of the people' if it is not practiced by them.
Also, I still think you are looking at equality as possessions and not the ultimate goal of how you live your life..
there *should* be compassion in doctors, there *should* be honesty in business, there *should* be a level field for all regardless of any defining physical characteristics. When we put those goals first, the rest will follow.
As it is, greed and 'me first' is the norm around the world. It makes progress that more difficult.
I have no problem with an individual wanting to earn millions, if done honestly. If I have to pay for your lifestyle it is not even. This leads to abuse. See welfare abuse for explanations.. it was created for the good of the people and has led to a stagnant existence for many. I am not trying to say welfare is bad, I have needed it a point in my life, and have no issue with supporting it, helping those with less. My issue is that I should not have to bail out those with more.
We all need to try harder, not to be rich, but to be better.
bobcflatpicker
re true story.
on scouts honor mate. I DO NOT LIE.
in fact ive met in my travels over the years several wealthy people
who think like that. viz "let the market reign supreme etc".
(sorry if i got off topic. the discussion had mentioned health care..
and my dear wife who is canadian has been thru a medical
situation this past year, all looking good now,n thank goodness
for the cdn health care system.)
re the original topic ..levelling the playing field.
this thread could go on forever, and at uni decades ago
some of the best minds debated this aspect without resolution.
i liked the lawn analogy pat. but the problem remains...
how does a modern society deal with those that have met unfortunate
circumstances ?? for example Mike sings fine example.
well put mike.
Quote:
how does a modern society deal with those that have met unfortunate
circumstances ?? for example Mike sings fine example.
well put mike.
It used to be that the family, church and community pulled together for it. It still happens believe it or not.
There are many many fundraisers going on for people in circumstances such as this.
Should the government be involved? That is a tough question believe it or not.
It just might have been one of the things the writers of the constitution were considering when they decided on the separation of church and state. At that time charity was handled by the church and the community. Maybe they thought it best to keep it that way.
It would work, if , as I mentioned above, people focused on being better people instead of focusing on themselves. A lot of people think we have to mandate healthcare and charity. That is sad because charity should be inside every one of us. To he who much is given, much is required. There are plenty of people who could afford to step in and help those in need. Do we have to force them to with law?
Just points to ponder..
Manning,
I really wasn't trying to insinuate that you were lying. The story just struck me as funny. My apologies.
Bob
Quote:
The statement definitely came across as rude and ill conceived. We don't want to take you wrong, so what did you actually mean?
Bob,
I apologize to you and others for my "rude and ill conceived statement" and will withdraw from this discussion. I simply meant that I know of no scripture that says "God created all men equal" and when I see two children born on the same day, one strong and healthy, the other disabled and needing help to survive, I don't see the evidence that "God created all men equal". My final statement on the subject is this, I thank God I live in a country that has laws and mandates for those who are less fortunate and need help so that their relative equality can be established.
Quote:
OK, if we accept the idea that all men are created equal... what does that mean? Mac, I bet you have yet to meet your equal. I've never met anybody as well-versed in multiple topics and just plain naturally intelligent as you. ...
You don't get out much? <g>
Seriously, this statement shows a failure to understand the basic premise that "equality" has nothing to do with a man's abilities, rather it is a recognition of our INabilities.
The actual founding document gets taken out of context in order to make such a statement.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."
Now we must identify the actual and real salient points upon which that equality is based, we cannot arbitrarily decide for ourselves that a certain aspect of someone's personality makes them "more equal" or "less equal" than someone else.
Humility.
There is quite the difference between knowledge and wisdom.
I am absolutely convinced that the full sum of human knowledge is but a miniscule -- and fractional -- part of the knowledge that our Creator possesses.
The premise you offer begs to create an aristocracy of the so-called learned class.
No thanks.
--Mac
If being created equal means "without sin", then I agree with you, but what about the "Original Sin" that some churches preach. Is that a gimmick to make sure you join? All that aside, how I understand "mandate equality" has nothing to do with sins, but rather with racial and religious equality, equality between the sexes such as "same pay for the same job etc.". A lot has been accomplished world wide on these matters, but there is still a long way to go.
As far as leveling the playing field goes, this will never likely happen, anywhere. It is part of the human greed syndrome to hoard and stack the odds. This is most apparent in managers and politicians. Politicians make the rules, and given that politicians are known to bow to managers wishes (and handouts). Go figure.
Resources are only indirectly related to wealth. If you own them you are rich, but they belong to everybody. Resources are water, air, energy, and food. The water wars have not yet begun, but it is only a matter of time before nations start waging wars over water. It will probably start in the middle east as usual. Air is sill being polluted at an alarming level, although those lucky enough to be living in rural areas won't see it directly. You will notice however that some insects just disappear. When the bees are gone we better be up to speed on pollination or else we don't eat. Energy must be regulated in some form. Just take the Enron case. Greedy managers, corrupt politicians. The oil wars are in full swing, but that is a shortsighted approach, and not a win win situation. Case in point Irak. In 20 years time, if Israel hasn't nuked the Middle East in the meantime, Irak will be back where Iran (formally US ally Persia) is now.
Food is also becoming a problem. Most countries in Europe cannot support their citizens, and the food industry has the lowest markup of any modern industry. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that the Pharma Industry had a low ROE, the Return on Investment in the drugs industry is one of the highest, only beaten by the finance and energy industries. If there isn't a malady to be treated they will invent one. The food industry is at the bottom, propped up by useless subsidiaries and hamstrung by incompetent politicians. Monsanto is trying to patent the world's seedstock by promising better crops with their genetically manipulated seeds, and they are making good headway, even though they don't work.
There are a lot of questions which need to be asked, unfortunately an OT forum is nto going to change the world, mind you it is said that the flap of a butterfly's wing in Amazona could release a tornado in Missouri, who knows...
BTW - the banking industry bankrupted itself single handed with dud investments and who knows what else. Governments of the G8 have poured hundreds of billions of dollars and euros into them without blinking an eye to support them. These banks are now making billions profit again, and are handing out billions in bonuses for the time they lost billions. And you are heartrending as to whether to increase the entitlements of people who have worked all their lives. There is something seriously wrong with our system don't you think.
Quote:
If being created equal means "without sin", then I agree with you, but what about the "Original Sin" that some churches preach. Is that a gimmick to make sure you join?
Absolutely not.
It is merely understanding what Jesus taught, that we are *all* born in sin.
Ever raise a two year old?
The loving and caring parents don't spend their time saying, "YES, Johnny, YES Johnny" when raising the two year old.
NO Johnny!
Quote:
All that aside, how I understand "mandate equality" has nothing to do with sins, but rather with racial and religious equality, equality between the sexes such as "same pay for the same job etc.". A lot has been accomplished world wide on these matters, but there is still a long way to go.
Such as in, "world wide domination"?
"Same pay for same job" is a negotiable and should not be a mandate for the simple reason that every historical example we have of such attempts have resulted in abject failure, not to mention death and suffering for millions.
The problems you wish to address are all caused by our sins and our sinning.
And that is because we are all born in sin.
Quote:
As far as leveling the playing field goes, this will never likely happen, anywhere. It is part of the human greed syndrome to hoard and stack the odds. This is most apparent in managers and politicians. Politicians make the rules, and given that politicians are known to bow to managers wishes (and handouts). Go figure.
Well, I see that you *do* understand the concept of original sin after all!
Quote:
Resources are only indirectly related to wealth. If you own them you are rich, but they belong to everybody.
Marxism. No thanks. Millions have been killed on the alter of Marxism in the last century. Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" among other things that show us that He was okay with the concept of rich vs poor. "The poor you shall have with you always..."
Quote:
Resources are water, air, energy, and food.
Well, you've progressed only slightly from when it was Earth, Wind and Fire...
I'm certainly thankful this morning that you do not define what the real resuources are around this planet.
Quote:
The water wars have not yet begun, but it is only a matter of time before nations start waging wars over water.
Ridiculous.
But even more preposterous is that hidden in that statement, as is always the case, is the assumption that war -- for whatever reason -- must be a bad thing. I'm not able to make such blanket decisions on the subject. But I am a thinking man, at least I try to be.
Quote:
It will probably start in the middle east as usual. Air is sill being polluted at an alarming level, although those lucky enough to be living in rural areas won't see it directly. You will notice however that some insects just disappear. When the bees are gone we better be up to speed on pollination or else we don't eat. Energy must be regulated in some form. Just take the Enron case. Greedy managers, corrupt politicians. The oil wars are in full swing, but that is a shortsighted approach, and not a win win situation. Case in point Irak. In 20 years time, if Israel hasn't nuked the Middle East in the meantime, Irak will be back where Iran (formally US ally Persia) is now.
Food is also becoming a problem. Most countries in Europe cannot support their citizens, and the food industry has the lowest markup of any modern industry. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that the Pharma Industry had a low ROE, the Return on Investment in the drugs industry is one of the highest, only beaten by the finance and energy industries. If there isn't a malady to be treated they will invent one. The food industry is at the bottom, propped up by useless subsidiaries and hamstrung by incompetent politicians. Monsanto is trying to patent the world's seedstock by promising better crops with their genetically manipulated seeds, and they are making good headway, even though they don't work.
Ah, the same old mantra again. "Its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it!™"
Fearmongering.
The mainstay of those who would try to become the ruling class remains constant.
This one goes hand in hand with the Marxist mantra that "everything belongs to everybody" -- which in reality actually means that the one saying that has not and intends to STEAL it from whoever does have it through the same old dark methodology of demonization, domination and hiding behind pie-in-the-sky utopian fantasies.
Quote:
There are a lot of questions which need to be asked, unfortunately an OT forum is nto going to change the world, mind you it is said that the flap of a butterfly's wing in Amazona could release a tornado in Missouri, who knows...
Holy crap you're getting worse by the second.
And ignorance is the one thing in this universe that may truly be infinite...
Quote:
BTW - the banking industry bankrupted itself single handed with dud investments and who knows what else. Governments of the G8 have poured hundreds of billions of dollars and euros into them without blinking an eye to support them. These banks are now making billions profit again, and are handing out billions in bonuses for the time they lost billions. And you are heartrending as to whether to increase the entitlements of people who have worked all their lives. There is something seriously wrong with our system don't you think.
Well then, a people without need for the concept that we are all born in sin and that we need a Saviour does indeed make for a sorry situation every time, doesn't it?
But that alone answers your first question.
Thanks for playing.
Don't get angry, instead take the time to THINK IT THROUGH.
--Mac
Being from Michigan, I welcome the water wars; it about all we have left to fight over! Lots of water and trees...
As a side note, last year I noticed an increase in bees here. The good bees, not the wasps, etc. Hopefully it is a good sign.
Going along my happy way now ..
Whatever happened to the Hole-in-the-Ozone-Layer-that-was-going-to-end-the-world™ ?
Hi
Does everybody come up to a higher level or do we all go down to a lower level,it does not work in the way we wish you would have to use drugs to control either the bright people or the dull people ending up in a totally boring world,God mades us all different, why should anybody want to change that to makes us all the same,still it would make me fill better if everybody spelt as bad as i do
regards Dave Hoskins
ponder this.
i went to a very fine grammar school in england.
it was a boarding school..(cos my parents worked overseas
at the time.)and a tad unique.
it was a mixture from the wealthy classes thru middle n working n very poor.
the boarding fees were based on parents income..
then if i remember there were also scholarships so that poor kids families
paid nothing. the wealthy paid the most.
i was from a typical middle income family.
so the fees were middling i guess.
now heres whats interesting from a social standpoint.
according to many social scientists ive had discussions with..
poverty breeds crime n anti social behaviour.
yet..interestingly enough at the school some of the most sadistic
and bullying types were from the wealthy end of the spectrum.
and some of the nicest from the poor end of the spectrum.
thus i often have pondered whether in fact ones "goodness"
or "evil" is based on ones genes rather than ones surroundings
one has been brought up in.
cos at uni a very good friend of mine
was from a very wealthy family but had a heart of gold.
many diachotemies.
(ps ..when in time my group became prefects//seniors at the school..
we banned all the old hazeing rituals , the bullying,
and daft stuff like seniors makeing juniors polish their shoes etc etc.)
rharv..
i take your point mate re church/family help..
but this was tried in the victorian era in england.
with many failures.
one being that family often didnt have the money/resources to help,
and the other being the church becoming overloaded.
the churches only have so much resources at their disposal.
it was the dirty thirties that bred many of the social initiatives
in england.
frankly the whole thing is a quagmire.
in england it was always said the wealthy have their tax havens to protect em,
and the middle clsses pay for everything.
right now in the uk newspapers are tons of articles on what is termed
"the beleagured middle classes" who cant save like the wealthy
due to a slanted tax system.
george orwells statement is rather interesting in animal farm.
"all men are created equal but some more so than others".
twas ever thus and ever will be.
Quote:
Quote:
If you can afford health care...you deserve it. If I can't, I don't want a government to force you to pay for it.
With or without a national health plan YOU, ME, and everyone else in the U.S. is paying for the ability to deliver health care to those who can afford to receive it. For example, as the recipient of a Medical Education at the University of South Alabama College of Medicine, I can tell you that only a small portion of the school's monetary resources to educate me came from the tuition that I paid to it. The rest came from Federal and State tax money because the government in its wisdom realizes that without a given ratio of physicians to population, the manpower necessary is not there to provide adequately for even those with the means to purchase health care. This means that if you yourself can not afford health care, you are funding the education of the providers to sell health care to those who can.
How about all of the state and federally funded research that is the basis for the technology to provide state of the art medical care to those with the ability to pay? How about we simpy say that if health care is a commodity that goes only to those with the ability to pay that we simply cut off ALL PUBLIC FUNDING of medical research, MEDICAL EDUCATION, etc and let those with the ability to pay fund it all? The reason is because it won't work. It requires a directed effort to coordinate such an important effort. But.....don't pretend that health care is just another simple commodity for sale in the market place because it is not and don't pretend that everyone then doesn't have a financial stake in it because everyone's tax money goes into it to make it work and if that tax money were pulled out the whole system would collapse.
To be equal one to another, one needs to earn the equality. What I mean by this is if I asked to join any of you here as a fellow musician and play with a group I must prove I am equal to the task. You may let me try out but it would quickly become apparent that my skills are lacking. If this were a paying gig and I caused us not to get paid because of my lack of ability, we would all be equally poor but that would not be fair.
Knowing that I have no musical talent, why would you allow me to both screw up your earning a living and inflict pain on the audience., what good purpose would that serve.
One should have the opportunity to learn the skills, but this does not mean I'm entitled to a college education. in many areas of interest, a person can learn from the knowledge around them. Many successful people learn from digging and doing, not sitting and being spoon feed drivel.
We have to discern the difference between fact and opinion and not confuse the two.
Fact:I can not play a musical instrument well enough to join anyone else in this endeavor Opinion: I think I do well for what I know.
Where have we gone to loose sight of earning our way and accomplishing great things is wrong.
John, don't be angry at Christ, He gave us all life and paid for all of our debts and did not give me the ability to play an instrument, be very thankful of that.
Folks if you want help, help someone, if love, love others; fairness, be fair. We are the other fellow we talk about.
Wyndham
I think the comments offered so far have been excellent and very well-considered... yet all different!
An emerging pattern is that the way we define equality has a lot to do with how we think it should be accommodated in society.
If you define it as spiritual equality, then you see the the implications as pertaining to equal access to God, and of being in the same spirit, and not about secular life at all.
If you see it as meaning equal in terms of opportunity, then you will tend to advocate social programs to make opportunity available for everybody
if you see it as meaning equal according to any concrete definition of equality, you will tend to dismiss the idea entirely based on visual evidence
Quote:
george orwells statement is rather interesting in animal farm.
"all men are created equal but some more so than others".
twas ever thus and ever will be.
Generally speaking:
People with education, money, influential families, good looks, nice physique etc have more opportunities in life than those without those things. None of that is distributed equally at birth. Yet many people without them manage to be successful anyway. And many people with them manage to be unsuccessful.
As is true in a game of cards, a lot is determined by how well you play the hand you've been dealt
But there are limits to how much you can overcome even with diligence and determination. It has been said that "The battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift... but that's generally the way to bet"
regarding the effects of how we interpret the idea of equality influencing how we expect it to be implemented:
A worst case would be to create a society that believes in a misplaced notion of equality. Such a society would produce people who believe they are entitled to the same standard of living as someone else who is willing to endure a great deal of work and inconvenience to arrive at that state of comfort.
Nature shows us that diligence generally leads to a life less filled with unsolvable problems, and lack of it generally leads to... problems
Yet , the whole time people are screaming that they are underprivileged, and the government needs to help them, there are immigrants coming to the same country who work 2 jobs, share their house with relatives, and manage to become relatively affluent in a single generation.
If you look at the cause and effect, I have to wonder if government is reinforcing the wrong things. Here is the golden rule of human behavior:"Behavior that is rewarded gets repeated. Behavior that is not rewarded tends to stop being repeated as people continue to look for something that works"
If we enact a policy of rewarding a lack of diligence, and punishing those who are truly generating revenue (I'm not talking about wall street weasels who don't generate anything except profits for themselves.. I'm talking about people who inconvenience themselves to add value) then it won't be long before the diligent stop doing what they do, and eveyone is standing in the "take care of me" line
Quote:
I know a lot of you pray a lot. Jesus will fix it. As I said before, show me a church that prays and people live longer than the national average and I'm joining the next day. But we all know that won't happen. Sorry.
John,
there are a lot of different CHristian denominations, and not all of them believe in divine intervention /healing in this life. I'm kind of like you.. show me the church full of old people who never died, and then I'll believe that way. But there remains a 100% mortality rate. Based on that, my conclusion is that God makes no PROMISE to intervene in the way we would like to see intervention. But the bible DOES say to pray :
"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." Phillippians 4: 6
I see prayer not as being a vehicle for me to boss God around, but rather as a vehicle for surrendering my will to His. The rest of the passage I quoted above continues as follows:
Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
The function of prayer is peace and surrender. I would bet that not everybody here sees it that way, but I lay that on the table because it isn't that much different from what you already believe. I dare say, it is downright compatible.
Quote:
Seriously, this statement shows a failure to understand the basic premise that "equality" has nothing to do with a man's abilities, rather it is a recognition of our INabilities. <snip>
The premise you offer begs to create an aristocracy of the so-called learned class.
No thanks.
--Mac
Mac,
Much of what I'm saying here is for the sake of portraying the various points of view on the subject. I have yet to state my own. I agree with what you say here. Thanks for your input. I wanted somebody to say out loud that EQUALITY is not equality of human ability, as some would suggest.
However, the fact remains that lots of people DO interpret it in the very way you just rejected it. Part of what I hope this discussion accomplishes is to really examine the reasoning behind our opinions so we can see why intelligent people can come to such varied conclusions given the same set of information.
Quote:
now heres whats interesting from a social standpoint. according to many social scientists ive had discussions with..poverty breeds crime n anti social behaviour. yet..interestingly enough at the school some of the most sadistic and bullying types were from the wealthy end of the spectrum. and some of the nicest from the poor end of the spectrum. thus i often have pondered whether in fact ones "goodness"
or "evil" is based on ones genes rather than ones surroundings one has been brought up in.
I don't think this is a rich/poor thing.. I see it as an entitlement thing. When people start to feel a sense of entitlement, then problems begin.. whether it is rich punks who think they are entitled to be seen as better than others, or poor punks who think they're entitled to your wallet.
Which is why a policy of encouraging entitlement is the wrong way to go IMHO
I agree with the entitlement issue, I'll leave it at that.
If we are to decipher how equal we are (or how we are equal), we must decide how we will measure.
I guess how you measure it says a lot..in and of itself.
Never make the mistake of assuming that a certain level of intelligence equates to a certain level of humanitarianism.
History has proven time and again that it does not.
--Mac
Historically, when diligence is encouraged, more people become diligent, and everyone benefits from the resulting boom.
When you have enough, because you took action and earned it, nobody has to give you anything. Better to be a fox who can always catch his next meal than a dog who has to wait to be fed at somebody else's discretion..
When you have enough, you are free to decide how to distribute your largesse. You can decide to spend it all on necessities or on luxuries or on insurance, or not
One difference between the poor and the rich is that the rich tend to spend money on things that generate more income, whereas the poor tend to spend money on consumables. Which is why yard sales are so common in suburbia. People need to sell what they couldn't live without last year so they can afford to buy what they can't live without this year.
On the issue of 'family' helping, Quebec has a fairly new unique way of doing that. If the family is functional, and an adult child has no job, that person, be they 18 to 50, must return and live with the family. Here, they just get welfare and health care. The same goes for their seniors, if they can be cared for at home, one of the children must take them, and the others pay some of the cost.
If there are issues with needing a home nurse or whatever, the province provides that assistance in the home.
They look at each situation. If you don't want the kid back, you pay within your means and the government then tops that up. But you have to have a really good reason.
In my family, I am really only 1 generation from the farm. And all the seniors stayed at the farm until they passed away. I can see my Great Aunts sitting in a rocker, covered with a blanket, knarled hands holding a paring knife, working on vegetables. The 3 of them, all on 100 acre farms about 2 miles apart, all of them kin of their father who came with his father from Scotland, McDonalds of the Isles. All that generation lived to be over 95.
As for myself, I have just finished the 'apartment' for my parents. They are both 83. The have a nice condo. Paid for by my father's surrogate mother. But my mother is having trouble walking, and my Dad can no longer cope well. I was there all afternoon, helping clean, do laundry and my wife dusted.
We don't see eye to eye on religion, my eye is more cast on your dollar bill, and theirs on an altar.
For me family comes first. My mother remembered that when I was 17 we had a group, my girlfriend on a 12 string, me on the piano, and an elderly concert violinist from Switzerland who's husband was a swiss watchmaker. Julie and I sang Old Rugged Cross at a 'fireside', and my Mom wants me to remake it into a video for her funeral. You don't say no to my Mom. I've almost got it down, but I end up emotional, not over the words or the religious part, but because she wants to hear it, and she says then she will just go to heaven...
On the other hand she's losing it and you have to be careful not to take her where people don't understand, because she can come out with ANYTHING. I mean ANYTHING. It just comes out and she grins and says, I'm a bad woman!
Et alors.
Quote:
Never make the mistake of assuming that a certain level of intelligence equates to a certain level of humanitarianism.
History has proven time and again that it does not.
--Mac
Ain't that the truth..
Quote:
On the issue of 'family' helping, Quebec has a fairly new unique way of doing that. If the family is functional, and an adult child has no job, that person, be they 18 to 50, must return and live with the family. Here, they just get welfare and health care. The same goes for their seniors, if they can be cared for at home, one of the children must take them, and the others pay some of the cost.
If there are issues with needing a home nurse or whatever, the province provides that assistance in the home.
Ideologically I like the approach of families dealing with their children and older parents instead of turning them over to institutions.
I figure that by the time I am that age, and theres no pension money left, some slick poilitician will make a very eloquent law stating that old people have the right to die, and they'll gather us all up and make sure we do. The movement will probably be funded by Soylent GreenPeace.
;-)
The equality talked about in the Declaration of Independence is meant to be equality under the law. It does not make any statement about financial equality, or social equality, etc. The term 'men' means males who are not slaves, as slaves were considered property, and women certainly had to fight to eventually get the rights that the original 'men' had from the get-go. The Declaration goes on the say these rights include 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happeness' but it's obvious that those are not all-inclusive.
We consider slavery to be horrendous nowadays, but in 1775 it was common and accepted by virually all societies everywhere with few exceptions. We have come a long way on that.
Nothing in the universe is really equal, unless it's atomic particles. Humans are obviously not equal, and are simply not born equal, unless it's under the law in civilized countries. Even that concept is not practiced in reality--just look at the celebities who go to 'rehab' instead of jail like the rest of us, etc.
To narrow the topic a bit: Canadians are pretty happy with their form of national health care--surveys all attest to that. About 85% of American are also pretty content with the system here -- again surveys back this up. Note that in either system the users must pay one way or the other, by taxes or by insurance premiums, so there isn't a free lunch in any system.
Now note this: "The first and foremost duty of any nation is to look after its citizens." I read that with some trepidation. I don't believe that 'look after' means the same thing as 'protect'.
Personally, I do not want the Government to look after me, as I prefer to do that for myself. However, I do want the government to protect me from all enemies, foreign and domestic. For that I will willingly pay my taxes. The US military is consistently the most respected and admired government enity in America by the citizens. The US Congess ranks a bit above child-molesting murderers, and is still sinking.
National philosophies change over time. America has about 30 million uninsured folks who would like coverage. Of course, they get treatment if they need it -- that's a simple fact. Thet can go into any ER and get attention. How they are treated there varies, but the uninsured are not without medical help and treatment, albeit rather expensive treatment, as ERs are high-bucks operations.
Full circle -- is health care a new right? Not yet in the USA, but it's getting there. My feeling is that aside from the military, the US Government is bloated and wasteful and generally incompetent. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are all going broke in the not-too-distant future, just as examples. I feel a great unease with these same incompetent people getting their paws into the health care system.
I may be wrong about this, and if so, I will stand corrected, but it seems to me that Canadians generally have a higher regard and more faith in their national Government than most Americans do. This may well be because they have a more efficient and responsive national Government, or it may be because they are [it seems to me anyway] a more respectful and polite people.
In any event, I don't trust the US Government to oversee any part of the national health care system. I believe that may be the real crux of the argument. Until the US Government can prove to the citizens of the US that it's smart and competent enough to oversee the health system in America, I want them to stay away from it. Expensive and complex as it is, it isn't broken yet, and I for one would like to keep it that way.
Quote:
Your commercial for the same thing says "may cause deafness, exploding head syndrome, you legs to fall off..." reminds of the old Ktel commercials..50 bad things in 20 seconds. We don't have that, because we don't let lawyers run our country.
This is so true, John. I did a search a few months ago and found a Canadian Supreme Court case that came down I believe within the last 10 years but I'm not sure, that caps malpractice awards at $300,000 with certain exceptions depending on the exact circumstances. Is that true? This alone is a big reason why so many of us don't want the current health care bill to pass, not because the system doesn't need reforming but because of no caps on the lawyers who happen to be the single largest contributors to the Democratic party.
My comment about you getting a free ride on our defense spending is true without it being any kind of attack on the tremendous contributions you guys have made over the years and are making now. It's simply a fact that if you don't have to really, seriously look after your own defense because we're here backing you up is one of the things that allows you to afford a lot of the social programs you currently enjoy. The figures are here defense spending by country Canada is 14th by gdp sandwiched between Brazil and Spain. Brazil ahead of Canada? Who's threatening them? Chavez in Venezuela, I guess. Nothing against your heroism, sacrifice and all that but man, you don't think that has an impact on your ability to afford all this other stuff? Where would your health care be if you had a neighbor who posed a serious threat and your defense spending doubled to 2 or even 3%? Still, you don't have any threats, the Cold War is over, ICBM's are not coming over the North Pole so you don't have anything to worry about and you're taking advantage of it and good for you. I'm not complaining and I don't resent it, don't get me wrong here. When I lived in Calgary, I played a bunch of Canadian Legions and since I'm a US Air Force vet, I got along with the Canadian Forces guys very well. In those days CFB Calgary was still open so Calgary was a military town and I would see them in various venues. I usually went out of my way to say hello.
My point is pure economics, nothing against Canada and I'm still a landed immigrant, I've got family there and could go back any time. If I ever make it out East I may even look your cranky ass up 
Bob
jazzmammal
just a comical aside to a serious thread..
(every thread needs some levity.)
as your an air force vet..my dad once told me
in ww2 the english air force blokes got cheesed off
always loosing women in england to american forces personnel
(many of whom were good drinkin buddies/mates of my dad)
cos you blokes could afford the silk stockings for the english women
n the english blokes couldnt..lol.
theres a song there somewhere.
please be aware in kent uk where my family is from..
there is tremendous respect for the americans that came across
the pond in that conflict.
and mebe ..to keep on topic with this thread...
many of your countrymen showed amazeing bravery n excellence above and beyond
by a wide margin in that conflict.
my dad had nothing but praise for you folks.
It's very noticeable from the way the question was posed that the 'excellence' side of the coin is uppermost in the questioners mind. But what if we posed the question the other way round?; does the promotion of difference and excellence and the whole emphasis on individual achievement in the west create a problem for notions of equality? ....or to put it differently notions of a less punitive attitude to 'not having' or 'not having enough to get by'.?
To see the problem from that direction would assume that one might believe there is :
a) a limit to the benefits of individual achievement if that doesnt take place in a context where the other less well endowed members of society share in that benefit in one sense or another.
B) a clear sense that in our advanced capitalist economy we have reached a point where its all too likely that the egoism that comes with personal achievement has all but obliterated any sense of proportion in terms of rewards and also any sense of humility or responsibility to those who don't possess the necessary qualities of drive ambition talent etc to get ahead.
c) a clear sense that we may have created a self-righteous self-serving religious culture that blames those who can't achieve or adapt to society's demands for personal achievement on account of their supposed spiritual or moral shortcomings rather than do something to addresss the conditions of hopelessless fear and failure that come down heavily on anyone who falls behind. Does anyone think that some people aren't cut out for individualism and their 'inabilties' may only be apparent under conditions that compel them to think purely in those terms.?
d) that perhaps the reason we blame the non-achievers is to justify the excessive rewards that accrue to the successful and to make sure that wealth isn't more equally spread than it is now. The justification being that there must be no limit set on individual wealth in case the would-be achiever decides it isn't worth getting up in the morning to try in the first place. Why? is there no other motivation than personal advancement and making yourself as noticeably distinct and superior to others as you possibly can? is there no other motivation than wealth to the point of total invulnerability and total control over the political process in your own favour?
e) that there may be something wrong with the idea that you must motivate the poor with threats of having what little they have taken away on the grounds that it's good for their character and , while you must motivate the rich and the talented by heaping more and more adulation and rewards on to them, even if their success wasn't so much earned as merely the result of chance: of being in the right place at the right time. Or even built on the labour of others who were underpaid or unrecognized for their part in the achievement. The oppsoite is true in our culture; we dont recognize the true meaning of dependence and interdependence as a given.
I don't think there is anything like the kind of popular support for any redistribution of wealth and resources in the west even in the face of atrocious and unwarranted monopolies of same in the hands of the very few. it seems aas long as the dream of untold riches is alive any privation and degradation is seen as worth enduring for that to be made possible for just a few. Especially if you have a head start, help write the rule book and make sure other people do the suffering.
The idea that prevails in capitalism it seems is one that takes it as read that the best motivator of people is not that of a secure and nurturing social environment that one is grateful for having the basics of life guaranteed and where that gratitude inspires a desire to give back. Instead it's a sense that dependency and interdependency is to be feared and denied. That the constant fear of failure and the consequent abandonment and isolation and desperation that will bring is the best guarantor of ensuring that the individual contributes.
Regards
Alan
Quote:
It's very noticeable from the way the question was posed that the 'excellence' side of the coin is uppermost in the questioners mind. But what if we posed the question the other way round?; does the promotion of difference and excellence and the whole emphasis on individual achievement in the west create a problem for notions of equality? ....or to put it differently notions of a less punitive attitude to 'not having' or 'not having enough to get by'.?
Alan
Alan,
you make quite a few very good points. Regarding this first one, I'd have to agree that the western world's infatuation with excellence leads to disdain for anything less.
In times past, cultures reinforced the value of "making do", and of learning contentment.
It is interesting to compare CONTENTMENT to SATISFACTION. Some see them as being the same, but they aren't at all.
Contentment means that your needs aren't fulfilled, but you are OK with that. It is the companion of patience.
Satisfaction means that your needs ARE met.
Both contentment and satisfaction squelch motivation. (if your hunger is satisfied you don't keep looking for food). But the difference is that satisfaction is temporary. You will be hungry again later, or sleepy again later or horny again later.
Contentment, on the other hand, is a decision. It doesn't have to go away, ever. But the world generally considers contentment to be a trait of unmotivated losers. Which raises the bar considerably for anyone who is trying to be "equal enough" to fit in.
Quote:
d) that perhaps the reason we blame the non-achievers is to justify the excessive rewards that accrue to the successful and to make sure that wealth isn't more equally spread than it is now. The justification being that there must be no limit set on individual wealth in case the would-be achiever decides it isn't worth getting up in the morning to try in the first place. Why? is there no other motivation than personal advancement and making yourself as noticeably distinct and superior to others as you possibly can? is there no other motivation than wealth to the point of total invulnerability and total control over the political process in your own favour?
There are many different reasons why some people do not prosper. And I have rarely seen any criticism made toward people who are clearly at a disadvantage for reasons of health, age, intellect or othjer similar reason that cannot be easily changed.
When I see blame placed, it is nearly always on the able-bodied people who have everything they need to succeed, except they are not willing to work that hard. My son has several friends like that. They are young, strong, smart as a whip, persuasive... everything you could hope for to help you through life.. but they can collect enough money on welfare to "get by", and so they do.
If they had learned to be content with a bad situation, I would admire them. But they are learning to be incompetent, which is different. Why? Because their incompetence forces others who are also struggling, to pay for their lifestyle, however small it may be.
And there's more: They're also learning NOT TO BE CONTENT with the free money they already collect. So its the worst of both worlds. Lack of contentment and lack of productivity.
Perhaps I have taken your observation in a direction you did not intend.. but if you have a defense for people like I just described, I would be interested in hearing it.
Quote:
c) a clear sense that we may have created a self-righteous self-serving religious culture that blames those who can't achieve or adapt to society's demands for personal achievement on account of their supposed spiritual or moral shortcomings rather than do something to addresss the conditions of hopelessless fear and failure that come down heavily on anyone who falls behind. Does anyone think that some people aren't cut out for individualism and their 'inabilties' may only be apparent under conditions that compel them to think purely in those terms.?
Please cite some actual examples of this, Alan.
--Mac
Quote:
Quote:
c) a clear sense that we may have created a self-righteous self-serving religious culture that blames those who can't achieve or adapt to society's demands for personal achievement on account of their supposed spiritual or moral shortcomings rather than do something to addresss the conditions of hopelessless fear and failure that come down heavily on anyone who falls behind. Does anyone think that some people aren't cut out for individualism and their 'inabilties' may only be apparent under conditions that compel them to think purely in those terms.?
Please cite some actual examples of this, Alan.
--Mac
I can't speak for religious INSTITUTIONS, but the mind of Christ will never influence anyone to accumulate money and leave others destitute. many scriptures come to mind instantly:
Mark 8:36
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Ephesians 4:28
Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
but even in the spirit-filled time after pentecost, there were those who had a sense of entitlement, and Paul wrote this as his judgment:
2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
The number of people as a percentage of all welfare claimants who choose to get by on meagre benefits in the UK is relatively small as the money isn't nearly enough to live on. Besides that there are strict rules about using the money to look for work which are enforced by successive cuts in money for non-compliance. The hardened 'can -work -wont- work ' cases are used to tar everyone else with the same brush no matter how different their situation/attitude is. The public perception of benefit cheats sponging off the working tax payer becomes a rallying cry of the right wing media here looking to stir up a scapegoat mentality for larger problems of structural unemployment and looking also to influence goverment cut backs in expenditure in favour of tax cuts.
What's missing is an honest appraisal of the totally depersonalising effects of long term unemployment on the majority of people who's self perception is such that they come to feel unworthy of even being considered for recruitment. They are not strong savvy and cynical, endlessly playing the system. They are scared depressed and pushed around by beaurocrats who treat them as scum, who fob them off with totally inadequate training courses and 'self-assertiveness ' programs that lead nowhere.
A recent TV documantary here put four big media personalities from rich backgrounds through a month long exposure to life on welfare and jobseeking in four differnt unemployment blackspots. Before embarking on their ordeal their attitude was one of haughty disapproval of the 'work shy' and people living it large on benefits. By the end of their four week trial they were reduced to quivering nervous wrecks even when they knew they could return to their old lives soon. They emerged with not just a greater respect for the unemployed but a heightened sense of their own dependence on their perosnal social networks for giving them strength and motivation, something the unemployed often lack.
There's always an agenda at work to produce a downward pressure on benefit claimants. The fear that dependency culture will take hold deflects from any meaningful discussion about the role of government in mitigating the brutal effects of capricious free markets, corporations looking to cut and run to the cheapest labour force in China.
No mention is made of the free hand-outs given to these corporations when they first located here. the rent- free premesis , the grants, the tax exemptions, the promises to get tough on worker rights and unions, the ability of companies to reneague on pension obligations by 'restructuring'. The entire edifice of company law is nothing short of a massive freeloading scam at the expense of the taxpayer and no one thinks to chide or rebuke this state of affairs.
Regards
Alan
That's not what I was after, Pat. Although, of course, I agree.
Alan S. is making the case that "we may have created a self-righteous self-serving religious culture that blames those who can't achieve or adapt to society's demands for personal achievement on account of their supposed spiritual or moral shortcomings" -- and I would like him to state some actual realworld examples of where he has witnessed such occurring.
--Mac
How do you handle the following situation?
You are standing behind a person [note no description of said person] in line at the grocery store. "Person" is a dollar or so short of meeting the tab for their items. The items appear to be of subsistence nature (is that important? Yes, for the sake of this argument). You have a couple extra bucks or coins in your wallet.
Do you
(1) Avoid any involvement in the situation.
(2) Say, "Buddy, I got it." and fork over what s/he owes.
(3) Roll your eyes, consult your watch, and huff while the cashier backs out a couple items so that Person can afford the tab.
(4) Try to engage others in a political conversation about immigrants, socialism, deviants or wastrels of any ilk?
I bring up this situation in an attempt to humanize "excellence", "equality" and all that jazz.
In our day-to-day lives, we happen upon others who may have needs, temporary or otherwise. Sometimes we're in a position to help, because we have a few extra coins, and we know they are in need.
Can't we look at these bigger questions with a more local focus?
And by the way, I think this forum has handled this initial post beautifully, all in all.
Alan, I can relate to your example of the TV hosts going on welfare. It did affect my outlook and personal self-worth while I collected unemployment.
However it had the extreme effect of making me want to change it.
That is a point of character. There ARE a certain amount of people who are are complacent (not so much content) and will ride a free handout for the duration. This is also blatant not only in welfare, but also in disablility. We have all seen the guys who are collecting disability from a company where they can no longer perform their job function they had previously performed, but ARE capable of performing work. However the free money has turned into an entitlement.
Also, there is a disporportionate amount of wealth going to the upper levels of most large corporations. I DO think they intend to make workers dependant in certain instances (see WalMart).
Also remember, while a doctor's job is to save your life, which is an important job, the guy that is doing your brake job also has your life in his hands.
Quote:
That's not what I was after, Pat. Although, of course, I agree.
Alan S. is making the case that "we may have created a self-righteous self-serving religious culture that blames those who can't achieve or adapt to society's demands for personal achievement on account of their supposed spiritual or moral shortcomings" -- and I would like him to state some actual realworld examples of where he has witnessed such occurring.
--Mac
Gotcha. I'd like to see that too.
I realize that what I posted wasn't an answer to the question you had asked , but there was a corollary there that I wanted to capture because the theme of Christianity-as-villain seems to recur in all kinds of discussions. And the answer to that allegation is to show what Christianity DOES teach. If we make a distinction between what religious organizations do and what the bible teaches, the bible never ends up in the wrong.
Are we lumping welfare benefits and unemployment benefits into the same group? Because here in the USA they are not the same. Welfare has become a lifestyle for some. And even in some cases, unemployment benefits are abused.
I work in power generation. After the Enron scandal in 2002, the industry went belly up and I lost my job. A lot of my friends whose wives work made no effort to find a job until their benefits ran out. They could have worked, but they didn't want to. I remember hearing some of my friends' job search stories.. in which they sneered at the offer the employer made, and turned it down. THen they complaied about "oh how cruel this life is to me, that I can't find a job that pays what I'm worth "
The day after I was laid off, I had two jobs (granted, they were both really crummy jobs... jobs nobody else wanted.) I have often wondered whether it was stupid to do that.. to work to earn barely more money than I could have collected for nothing. But at least I got to keep my dignity. What price tag goes with dignity? Also in subsequent job interviews, that portion of my work history has always raised eyebrows. Employers say they don't see that very often. Hmmmm
My point is that desperation is relative. We are not usually talking about TOTAL lack of opportunity... we are talking about people who have options, but despise them. In so doing, they have chosen to be helpless rather than choosing to help themselves.
And THAT is where I divide the line between misfortune and missed opportunity
Quote:
Can't we look at these bigger questions with a more local focus?
And by the way, I think this forum has handled this initial post beautifully, all in all.
Hopefully that's exactly what the discussion will do. But the scenic route is always interesting...
;-)
Regarding forum participation: I agree. As internet forums go, this one is uncommonly civil, well-spoken, respectful, and full of well-considered discussion points. I haven't heard ANY points made yet that haven't crossed my own mind at one time or another.
Regarding your supermarket checkout line scenarion: I've acted out most of the options you mention at one time or another in my life, except for the one about starting a stage-whispered conversation about immigrants. Doing that seems like a bad idea to me on many levels.
Quote:
The equality talked about in the Declaration of Independence is meant to be equality under the law. It does not make any statement about financial equality, or social equality, etc.
(posted by AxeGrinder01)
Very clarifying statement! Thanks for the participation!
Would you say that our system of government successfully provides equality under the law?
How do the various observations about welfare and unemployment benefit indiscretions fit what you're saying? Or do they?
interesting link, regarding employment and the shape of things to come
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayolRcUXC8o&feature=related
I read somewhere the brain is wired for symbolic recognition, such as the brain does not need to read "STOP" on a stop sign to instantly know to stop when in a vehicle.
Stereotypical responses may allow us to deal with a complex daily life that otherwise we could not cope with.
This also has a downside. Certain images evoke a automatic response that may condemn other, in our eyes that don't deserve the stigma we label them with.
Welfare, deadbeat, drug pusher, religion, rich, poor, and many more ; all evoke images of symbolic response but does the person symbolized deserve the label.
If we take the time to "see" the person or the institution , is the threat symbol real or imagined?
Do we turn away from need because of the fear we too, may touch "Failure" and contract the condition and use harsh criticisms to hide our fear of that contagion. Fear is real, the threat is either real or imagined.
No answers, just another POV.
Wyndham
Quote:
Very clarifying statement! Thanks for the participation!
Would you say that our system of government successfully provides equality under the law?
Read up on 'profiling'. Is it right or wrong?
Are they using statistics to be more efficient, or abusing it as an excuse?
Much discussion on this topic alone. Belonging to a 'profiled' group will definately affect your opinion, so try to look at it from outside, considering both sides. I happen to look a little darker than most in my area (probably due to some Native American in me) and have had situations I noticed. Example - I pumped gas at a station, then got into my Jeep and drove across the street to a big box store parking lot with lots of cars in it. An officer sitting in the gas station lot followed me over, and followed me down a few parling aisles until I parked, at which point I got out with my daughter (who is very white) and the officer then proceeded along and waved as he passed me, then took off toward the highway.
This officer was a state police and really didn't belong in the neighborhood (patrolled by city police) but he felt compelled to follow me.
Was I profiled?
Was it wrong?
This was at 10AM, so I doubt there was much suspicion of anything else! No 'suspected intoxication' or anything would make reasonable sense to me.
On the other hand I live in a very small city and the locals know every car and who it belongs too (pretty much). I have seen them drive past local people speeding to pull over a non-citizen of the city. This is obviously not 'equal', but nobody in town is complaining!
Just another couple points to ponder.
As human beings, we are all born pretty much equal barring a rare anomaly either to the good or bad. There's plenty of cases of infants being placed with foster families with all sorts of different cultural and economic backgrounds and the kids wind up being integrated with that group. If the parents are Phd's so are the kids regardless of the fact they happened to be born in some third world hell hole. I believe the so called "nature vs nurture" argument is over. Nurture all the way. This is why virtually every political group in the world wants to control their education system. Equality under the law is the best we can hope for and our President is a good example of this. I don't agree with him politically but his is a very inspiring story personally.
Bob
Couldn't agree more with that Bob, nurture over nature any time. When we're young we absorb so much from those around us without really trying as it were and it makes you think what would be possible if there wasn't such inequality in education and families ability to be supportive and enabling.
Which gets back to the original point made that somehow 'excellence' would somehow be diminished by greater equality brought about by redistribution of wealth. The theory being that the more you give people the less they want to achieve. I think it's far more complex than that. 'Excellence ' can come from almost anywhere at any time as raw talent often has a way of overcoming any adverse circumstances and there are many 'rags to riches' stories to prove that. What we should be thinking about is how to encourage not just excellence but a more dignified productive life for all where work is seen as a right, and promoted as rewarding in and of itself rather than tied to only to individual gain, the profit motive or otherwise seen as just a means to a wholly 'individual' end. It's this kind of instrumental rationality thats the problem where people know 'the price of everything but the value of nothing'.
Firstly inequality of wealth is so great now that any move towards some targeted redistribution would only benefit society as a whole. Giving people back greater local control over their own environments and communites, encouraging collaborative projects that involve everyone in the effort to rebuild the infrastructure of run down areas inspires a sense of pride and purpose in those that take part. As an example look at the efforts to rehabilitate drug criminals in Detroit by rebuilding the inner city areas left destitute by big corporations. It's a long term project and not enough of this happens when left to the 'free market'. That requires government programs based on higher taxes from those further up the social ladder. There is no other way to get it started. If you give money to private agencies to get things going they end up eating up the funds in profits and management fees.
Maybe then you will see the kind of self reliance and pride you hope for. Its not goiug to happen if you simply coerce people with therats of total annihilation financially; a 'stick' rather than ;'carrott' approach. That just breeds anxiety acts of desperation, crime, resentment towards authority and completely disregards human nature. It's the reason why USA society is unsafe and guns are 'needed'.
If that were the case then all those who inherit wealth from rich and privileged backgrounds would have equally no incentive to achieve and yet we know that people from such origins do achieve much more than they strictly 'need' to probably on account from being born in to families that not only have a greater aspirational ethic but also the ability to be truly encouraging rather than just demanding. We've all seen examples of well off families with overly high expectations of their children who go on to underachieve because of the harsh and judgemental attitude with which this ethic was imparted.
Which also takes me back to the point that Mac and Pat wanted me to expand on about how religion can often inadvertently be judgemental depending on the personal nature(s) of those who impart the message.
Coming from Scotland and dealing as a Psychologist with the fall out from the cultural warping caused by the residue of our Calvinst past I see many lives more blighted than they otherwise might be because the individual has thought that they are 'getting what they deserve' for being a 'bad' or 'undeserving' person. Rather than a spur to action these 'black and white' self-definitions perpetuate the problem of their lack of self worth. It works both ways. The individual tries to project that lack of worth on to the 'bad' environment/parent/society in an attempt to rid themselves of the feeling of worthlessness, to pass the buck as it were. They end up alternating between over-assertiveness and extreme crushing guilt and remorse that far outweighs any redemptive quality that may have otherwise possessed. In short the very picture of manic-depression. This is clearly the down side of such a pressured upbringing that emphasised the pitfalls as a way of getting pepole to achieve or conform.
Attending one of the many Pentesostal churches here I see the kind of appeals to guilt and the need for redemption couched in terms of Pauline theology. I see the 'prosperity gospel' being used to coerce people into believing that the corollary must be that our lack of prosperity must be down to our unfaithful unbelieving selves. I see pastor harping on about self-made wealthy Christian men being an example of spiritual superiority, partaking of God's 'richest blessings'. I see sermons that preach the idea that if you're not with God then you must be against Him. I see in short people being punched in the eye with one hand and offered a band aid with the other.
This of course stands in contrast to a more moderate form of Christianity which whilst i do not take literally in any sense, nevertheless have much sympathy with. It's good to see that many churches in the states have gone about their role as providers of welfare in a non-coercive way with due regard for separation of church and state. Many churches here are now adopting a similar role and as long as the focus is humanitarian rther than theological it can only be for the good.
Regards
Alan
Alan,
much as I would love to reply, this thread apparently does not conform to forum rules. Thanks to all who participated ! I enjoyed hearing everyone's keen personal insights and well-considered thoughts. It was fun while it lasted.
Hi Pat,
I like your analogy of grass. I like to think that I set my mower to 3 inches. There may be some that gets cut and others that may not. My thought is I set the standard as to what height my mower will start to cut. My thought is these two words are not mutually exclusive terms. Excellence has no fear of equality. Instead, it is determined by who establishes the standard. With our children we have the authority to set the standard where we believe challenges them. Taking your point on the olympians. Their parents put a determination in them, whether positive or negative, that motivated that athlete to excellence. I am sure as they worked their way to the olympics they passed a lot of people that were content with the manadated standards of equality. Yet, it did not hinder their growth; only gave rise to it by making the playing field all the more advantageous for them to make it.
The end point of my logic is every generation in every society there has and will continue to be those who exceed and those who do not. You cannot mandate the human spirit. Even if government tries to suppress it by engineering mandated equality, it still cannot stop those who have greatness in them. It still is up to the individual to pursue it.
Thanks,
RickeG
rharv,
you are right. It is the church, and families that God continues to use to sustain the society. Both may have been bludgeoned by media and the like. A brief departure from Pat's subject. I am in awe over just how my family in Christ where I attend have responded to crises. I started attending there back in 2005 just before Hurricane Katrina and have seen several like catastrophes since. Yet, this prayerfilled body gets up, many them of worldly wealth that are either retired or have more free time, put themselves in harms way to offer aid at the center of the ground zero point of the location. Everything from passing food and water to reconstruction projects building back the homes and businesses shattered by the event. Plus there were even a few doctors that shut down their practices for a couple of weeks to give of their talents.
God is at work. If it were not so, church and families would have ceased to exist.
i feel compelled as a human being to comment bout certain topics in this thread.
(post is not addressed to anyone in particular.)
1. here in canada several hundred thousand manufacturing jobs have
been lost. ive talked to some of these people.
theyve worked hard all their lives and been "excellent"
and committed in their jobs. but thru no fault of their own they
have lost their jobs. and many are probably looking at welfare.
dont you think they deserve help when they need it ??
and have paid and paid all their lives ??
with their sweat and their taxes ??
why did canada loose so many manufacturing jobs ??
answer, cos our daft government has never implemented
a proper industrial strategy.
as i told my mp recently...
"no wonder you have a jobs problem..
everything is imported".
i perceive the USA and britain have the same problem.
2. lets talk about welfare for a moment.
the way some people talk , its like welfare folks receive a fortune.
it could be argued that certain european countries are quite generous.
but here in canada rates are paltry and hardly cover rent for example.
thus here in canada are lots of examples of homeless people.
a sorry state of affairs if you ask me in a supposedly advanced
country like canada. in the uk where i was born ..
there is a basic rule "everyone gets housing".
thus as i said in some ways europe is more generous in its social programs.
ive heard switzerland for example.
in summary nobody gets rich off welfare.
3. think on this...have you ever thought that some governments
purposely like high unemployment rates ??.
economists ive talked to have told me its to keep the
masses "malleable" and "undemanding".
govts are quite capable of creating low unemployment
rates ..IF THEY WISH TO. but some dont.
all i'm saying is..step back a bit before ragging on people
on welfare or the poor. cos there are many reasons why it might not be their fault.
(eg the manufacturing losses mentioned in point 1.)
the USA i'm reading about has had loads of job losses too.
(and britain also.)
ask any tecchie...and the answers as to why are simple...
britain, canada, and the USA have lots of what i would term
"old victorian style industry" plus currencies held too high
vis a vis some other currencies. all 3 countries need nothing less
than a top to bottom implementation strategically of what i might term
"future world beating industries". untill that happens the current
deplorable situation will continue.
for example the only jobs our crazy federal govt here in
canada can seem to create is low wage coffee shop jobs..
dotted across the country at 8 buks an hour.
none of the three countries mentioned seems to have a
strategy for building decent wage paying jobs.
frankly i'm just glad my wife n i are retired..
even tho the pensions arent rich.
just adequate.
The defining narrative of the last 30 years is the way the world has been dominated by the free market ideology of of Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago School' of economics.
The loss of manufacturing and the move to financial and service 'industries' (for want of a better term) is the result and it reveals the hollow way of trying to generate wealth without adding very much to the real economy of a country. It's a rapacious and short sighted model with the idea of generating quick profits for shareholders or to fund mergers and empire building; hence the inexorable rise of the corporation.
To all the Americans here who deplore 'big government' I say this: your corporations are your government, pure and simple, as they are in all the supposed 'free' world. You do not have a democracy, you have a plutocracy as we do in the UK and most of the capitalist world. Accept that as the problem and you can begin to deal with it.
But lets address for one last time the idea first put forward, that redistribution of wealth harms or penalizes the strong, the different, the talented and the achievers and favours only the weak, the dependent and those who willfully do not contribute. (with the emphasis on the wilful non-contributors as if they defined the classification a whole and as if the deserving poor should have to lose out because of them).
I cant but see this idea as anything other than the social/philosophcal equivalent of the very sort of Darwinist 'survival of the fittest' imperative you as a Christian country would surely deny even exists let alone encourage. But there you are, perhaps in denying its existence in the natural order you inadvertently allow it greater hold over your subconcious than if you were to acknowledge that without due diligence it can account for much selfish human behaviour. I would say the proper place of religion is to act as such a tempering force with the full knowledge of our tendencies towards partisan 'group selection'.
The biologist Richard Dawkins , who is Darwins self-appointed 'enforcer' of course, has stated that ...'There is nothing in natural selection and Darwinism for any of us, only pain and suffering. We should not seek to build our socities on those principles'
If he can state that then think about what you're saying here in the context of your avowed Christian ethic. If Jesus were here now what would he say to the original hypothesis posed here? I think that just as he surprised the self-appointed guardians of the faith in his time, so he would rebuke those who thought this way in the strongest possible terms.
To which you'd perhaps reply ... 'but Jesus they are the lowest of the low, the least amongst us, the sinners, ..why do you bother with them......' or words to that effect.
And you know of course, or should do, what his next line would be.
Regards
Alan
Funny thing, all of that -- and more -- is prophesied in the Gospel.
Alan, there certainly are those who stand in pulpits and pervert the Gospel of Christ. Thanks for clarifying how you were meaning what you said.
I do invite you to take the time to do some actual study of what is said in the bible itself, though, for I fear that you, like many others, make assumptions about that based on certain actions and statements by others.
Discover the true meaning behind the *grace* of Christ.
I know it was an unknown to myself at one time, for the church I grew up in did not preach the Gospel in entirety. So many fall victim to this. As it is written, and as it has come to pass.
--Mac
alan S.
re milton friedman//free markets.
exactly mate.
you might be interested to know i had an exchange in the past year with
a govt mandarin about the free trade topic.
he trotted out all the normal stuff n homolies bout free trade.
to which i replied...and you might like this cos uk has the same
problem..(notice the rise of pound stores selling imported stuff
and employing people on the cheap ??)...
i said.."when your retired in the future and your grankids come to you and
say they cant find a decent paying job and are stuck on welfare
cos there is no manufacturing left in canada;
you can always sit him/her on your imported sofa, watching the imported
tv, and sleep on the imported bed...etc etc"..
answer..there was no response. point made.
lets not forget central banks in all of this mess.
typically staffed by economists n theoreticians whove never
ever built a product in their lives. and who dont seem
to understand the importance of industrial strategy in building
strong job/wage growth.
the bank of england is a joke imho. as an example.
because of their policies the major employers in uk are
financial institutions. (being bailed out.).
my major tenet is you cant run a country on just financial institution jobs.
you need a strong manufacturing base..but the good ole B of E ,
(and the bank of canada) have failed to grasp this important fact imho.
but hey..lol...i can still buy marmite here in canada..
frankly alan..
one has to step back cos i think its all geopolitics
the poor are being caught in.
viz big games tween govts.
my theory is manufacturing moved to the far east
due to big picture western govt geopolitics.
ie..western govts were concerned bout millions of people needing jobs
in the far east. irrespective of lots of
people in western countries ending up on welfare.
gotta see the big picture in all of this.
I don't think US or Canada gave a hoot about the unemployed in the far east.
It was cheap goods and cheap labor. Not sympathy.
Anyone know what our largest export is? It is more of a necessity than oil, yet we literally give a lot of it away.
The US *could* turn the deficit around, but at the cost of many lives in other countries. When you see 'the big picture' we are not the bad guys many make us out to be.
rharv.
i have never thought you were the bad guys.
gotta ton of respect for your country.
your last para is very telling imho.
which seems to imply, and ive wondered the same as to whether
the usa in certain industrial areas is sacrificing itself
to help lives in other countries.
I know your opinion of the US is good, manning, we have talked enough privately to see that.
The question is more are we 'knowingly' doing it.. or are we using it wisely?
Serious problem that we can't make it up with paper companies.
We need to adjust the money coming in vs going out somehow. It would be sad if it came to using that commodity to balance a budget.
There is lots of talk about the world's oil supply falling short of demand in the not too distant future. It appears to me the world's food supply has already fallen short of the demand. Which is more important? In a global economy, that one commodity IMO is what keeps the US secure.
BTW, thanks to Canada for being the largest importer of US goods.
Citaat:
my theory is manufacturing moved to the far east
due to big picture western govt geopolitics.
ie..western govts were concerned bout millions of people needing jobs
in the far east.
Nah, that's not it.
One year, in order to get my bonus, I had to reduce the costs of our organization. So I fired a couple of people and had the remaining workers work harder. Cost reduced and I got my well earned bonus.
The next year I had to further reduce costs. So I decided to buy the resources we need to produce not from our local dealer, but import it from a far east country. Cost reduced and I got my well earned bonus.
The year after that, yet further cost reduction was needed to max our profit. So I fired all production-workers and replaced al production to far east countries. Cost reduced, profit went up and so did my bonus.
Another year has come, yet profits needed to go up again, so I fired all IT-staff and the tele-marketeers and had that work also outsourced to far east countries. Profit went up as did my well earned bonus.
Need I continue?
No, of-course I am not that manager: I couldn't face myself anymore if I would have fired people in order to secure my own bonus. But this is exactly the way things go. All too often you read that a company "had to" fire a lot of people and, in the same book-year, announce the highest profit to date!
And now look at yourself! How many of you people buy from online stores instead of your local store in order to save a few bucks? Do you realize that the shop-owner may have to let people go in order to survive due to the decreasing number of people that but their stuff? Do you realize that internet stores are able to keep prices lower than regular stores because of they have no need for skilled sales personnel and no need for an expensive store in a commercial area? Do you realize that a lot of people ask for advice at their local store and test equipment at the local store and then go order it at an online store? Placing the cost with the local store and the profit with the online store.
And what do you think buying your groceries as cheap as possible will do to your local economy? Will the farmer that provides the milk be able to keep his pants up when he has to sell his milk under cost-price? Do you think your meat will be from your local farmers if that meat has to be sold way under cost-price?
Greed is the main reason why we have economically harder times right now. Greed by the top managers, greed by the middle managers and greed by consumers. Go figure
* end of rant *
That first one is a good point and accurate example in many cases, Mike.
In my eyes it falls into the 'entitlement' frame of mind mentioned earlier. It occurs at both ends of the system.
Around 1776 Adam Smith published his book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (generally referred to by the short title The Wealth of Nations) in which he declared that manufacturing is what leads to the wealth of a nation. During the time when this book served as the model for most developed counties' economic policy, the living standard of those countries increased dramatically.
Many people today seem to believe that wealth is a bad thing; but it can be used to purchase the things any society needs to benefit its citizens.
What disturbs me is that we are going in two directions that fly in the face of what has worked in the past:
1) the west has decided to abandon manufacturing in favor of service industies
2) During the time of manufacturing "plenty", social programs were enacted because in times of plenty there is money to do that.
3) but now that manufacturing is going away, we continue spending deficit dollars to increase and expand such programs even though it seems obvious to everyone with any sense that the ability to pay for them is declining while the cost for them is increasing.
The left likes to point the finger at the right and presume that we don't care about the needy, which is bull. We care about managing the needs of society in a way that is finacially maintainable. And what we are doing now (and getting ready to do on a much larger scale) is simply NOT sustainable.
It doesn't do anybody any permanent good to get people addicted to services that you cannot guarantee. What will happen to the people who are not self-supporting (for a number of reasons ) when the bottom drops out and there is no more money? You can't tax income that went overseas.
Quote:
That first one is a good point and accurate example in many cases, Mike.
In my eyes it falls into the 'entitlement' frame of mind mentioned earlier. It occurs at both ends of the system.
Speaking of which...
is anyone gutsy enough to say that people are ENTITLED to national health care?
Quote:
Anyone know what our largest export is? It is more of a necessity than oil, yet we literally give a lot of it away.
apparently it's jobs
:-(
Quote:
Quote:
That first one is a good point and accurate example in many cases, Mike.
In my eyes it falls into the 'entitlement' frame of mind mentioned earlier. It occurs at both ends of the system.
Speaking of which...
is anyone gutsy enough to say that people are ENTITLED to national health care?
Almost every citizen in a country that offers it ..
to Alan and manning,
I agree with much of what you both said about what happens during the unemployment process, and the dehumanization of it. We could pursue this discussion asking what's the best way to alleviate symptoms as they currently exist... but I would rather pursue the discussion by asking how to change the symptoms altogether.
My point from the beginning has been that all policy has the effect of reinforcing certain behaviors. People tend to redirect their behavior to wherever the advantage lies. When the advantages shifts position, behavior follows.
All I'm saying is that if the system rewards abuse, you will get more abuse. Obviously, it is necessary to have some recourse for people who have no options. Nobody argues that point. But here is an example of how to change the incentive inherent in the system:
For example:
when a person becomes unemployed, there is a certain amount of money set aside to pay his unemployment benefits. If he gets a job before he uses all those benefits, then benefits stop being paid and he feels cheated... so there is an incentive to remain unemployed until the benefits are gone. This exacerbates the problem, because people should be using that money as a buffer while they look for work, but they don't look for work because they want to get the full benefits. The incentive is in the wrong place, because the need is to encourage activity, but instead inactivity is encouraged.
But, since a set amount of cash is already earmarked for each unemployed individual (and most of them will use it all up, and more) .. what if the government offered to pay the remaining sum directly to the person as soon as he got a job? In that case, people would have an incentive to accept work quickly because they would get a nice lump sum of cash. We're not talking small change. If I were unemployed and could get a check for well over $10,000 USD by accepting a job, I would do it. Even if they withheld the check for a year to make sure I kept the job.
At the LEAST, they shouldn't discourage taking a lower paying job by reducing benefits. I fpeople could get a short-term raise by taking a lower paying job, and continue collecting benefits, they would haver an incentive to find jobs.
All I'm saying is that policy should encourage the better option, not the most debilitating option.
your thoughts?
Quote:
All I'm saying is that policy should encourage the better option, not the most debilitating option.
getting back to my original metaphor:
if you penalize people for diligence, you will get less diligence.
if you reward diligence, you'll get more of it.
Whether we see the wealth of a nation coming from manufacturing or service industries or whatever, I think the true wealth of a nation is the diligence of its population. Where diligence is encouraged, people step up and solve problems at every level in the system.
Where diligence is not encouraged, people step back and do not perform, placing responsibility on bureaucrats.. which is exactly where you DON'T want responsibility to rest, because they don't care.
Just remember, we pay for that health care. The money doesn't grow on trees. We have a fee schedule. You go to the doc and get a flu shot. He does not see you. The vaccine is paid for, it's cheaper than treating sick people. The doc bills $10. to the gov't for the service. (I think that's right). It's a computerized system. But there are clinics all over with signs, docs that do it for a pharmacy on Sundays, the Health Unit runs drive in clinics in flu season. We used to have the city doctor come to the Fire Station and give us our shots when I worked.
But we pay for it. Lots. Taxes. Yet our per capita health care costs are less than in other countries. ie. USA.
That's an old debate, but..I spent 4 hours with a team of Doctors yesterday. I bet that would cost thousands if I didn't have health care. They had copies of every xray, scan and blood test for the past 8 years. I wrote 'tests', questionaires, had 3 exams by different specialists. All the routine stuff too, but bp in both arms a legs, an ultrasound of my neck for plaque, eyes, ears, throat.
The meeting at the end..osteoporosis, getting worse.
Rheumatoid arthritis, not under control.
Blood pressure, all over the map, based on adrenalin amount at the time it's taken.
Macular Degeneration of the right eye, stable.
Blood Sugar..mostly ok, NO raw sugar and 1/2 glass of juice is ok.
Fibromyalgia. This is the newest thing.
3 medications changed.
1 added.
Now I waited 5 weeks for that appointment.
There is a private clinic downtown you can go to. That same workup, was available in 10 days for $1700. (They bill the gov't for what they can).
They offer next day doctor, a once a year exam for 4 hours, and access to cat and pet scans in Michigan at a discount over what you'd have to pay if you just showed up at the US hospital. You cannot get those scans here unless you have a reason for them. But employers are paying a bonus to executives to have every test run, trips to the US for stuff they don't do to a healthy 30 year old, like PSA tests etc. You get a nice leather bound report on your health and a plan to keep you that way.
BTW, they found a lump in my neck and I was given a doctors appt. for noon today.
I am very unhappy with the fibromyalgia thing, but it at least explains why I thought I only needed 4 hours sleep a night and my hips hurt if I lay on my side.
John
Very sorry to hear about the various health issues. Fibromyalgia is certainly no walk in the park. Neither is the osteoporosis, arthritis, macular degeneration and high blood pressure. And lumps on the neck are not normally something to rejoice about. I'm glad that you are in a position to receive the care you need. That is indeed a completely separate issue from whether or not health care is an entitlement. I'm glad that health care exists in various forms in every country.
The purpose of this thread is not to advocate screwing people out of a good thing, but rather to emphasize that the method of providing a good thing can influence the sustainability of providing it. We are in danger of being unable to sustain existing programs. The system as it exists is in danger of insolvency. The million dollar question is this: given the system we already have, what is the best way to improve it?
I noticed an interesting phenomenon a long time ago as a young man. It has remained true in all of my observations so far in my life. The observation is this:
When I first meet someone (whether in person or online, the same thing appears to be true) within a few minutes he/she will try to establish common ground. Some people do it by talking about what they hate, hoping I hate the same things.
Others reveal themselves by talking about the things they love. Often, these people don't care if I love the same things, they are just so full of their own passion that they can't NOT talk about it!
I have found that the second situation inspires me, and the first situation discourages me. That's the main distinction. Both types may or may not make equally good friends
I don't know if this is a corollary or not to the topic of excellence vs equality, but at this point in the conversation I feel compelled to mention this observation and ask for other peoples comments along those lines.
If nothing else, this observation has led me to identify myself by what I love rather than by what I hate. I don't care what you hate... but I am very very interested in knowing what you love, and why you love it.
That's why this is such a great forum. People here all love music! Me too!
And not just music, but also they love home recording! Me too!
And not just that, they also love evluating and buying gear! ME TOO!
And they all love BIAB and/or RB! Me Too!
In the final analysis, we have far more in common than we have as differences. If we steadfastly communicate around our common love, then we will never have to censor the topics of disagreement. A healthy system allows for difference, it doesn't suppress it.
Thoughts?
John Conley
so sorry to hear of your health situation mate..sincerely.
i pray for your good health to return.
to all....
frankly i can only speak of the uk and canada that i know very well.
haveing lived in each for many years.
and frankly i feel for obama in the usa..cos i was hoping
with his background social aspects would be addressed.
i said to my wife when he was elected that i really hoped he could address important
strategic issuess, but i also said if he didnt his rateings would drop.
which i understand from media reports here,sadly this has occurred.
generally i feel these poor economic times for many people
are not going to end soon. and thus interest rates will stay low.
cos too many people are scared to spend lest they too loose their jobs.
pat marr asked..what is the solution ??
the answer to my mind is western govts have got to get off
their backsides and implement a top to bottom re industrialisation
strategy.
lets look at two cases.
england and canada.
in englands case the manufacturing rot set in decades back.
i can remember for example when i was a young physics student in uk...
brilliant minds spending too much time analyseing the internals of the atom ,
rather than researching new advanced products to sell to the world
and manufacture.
how england soaks up unemployment is to create more govt
pencil pusher jobs.
same here in canada. we have a big network of universities and research
places , but they are often focussed on "pure research"
rather than building for example the next great computer tech to export
to the rest of the world and manufacture.
so in summary both england and canada produce thousands of well
educated grads, but many waste their education working in low level jobs
cos the advanced manufacturing industry dont exist to employ them.
its been in all the papers here...many phd's driving taxis for example.
let me make an analogy n see if it makes sense.
if i keep on coming to your house and selling you "stuff"..
n "gadgets" pretty soon your gonna be bankrupt arent you ??
in essence this is what the govts of canada and uk have
allowed to occur (and i suspect usa too.) for years and years
thanks to the free world trade policies, which have flooded
uk and canada and usa markets with imports.
as a result i'm reading in the papers today that the province of ontario
is gonna be in the red for many years to come.
no wonder..govt is a big buyer of imported computers n hi tech gear.
if you ever go into govt offices in ottawa , the capital, youll see all
imported puter gear.
same in uk. all govt offices are useing imported puter gear in london.
and i suspect the same in washington.
(remember when i said up post if i keep on coming to your house
and selling "stuff" to you..??)
in canadas' case we have i believe an accumulated deficit of 600 billion.
in the early 70's canada had no deficit i understand, or a small one.
what event caused such a build up of deficits ??
yup..the house example. in the intervening decades since the early 70's
canada (and uk) imported oodles of puter gear. oodles of cash were sent abroad..
now the bills are coming due.
if , instead , the uk and canada had have developed its own
advanced puter industry billions would not have left both countries,
and jobs would have created at home.
it all comes back to lack of manufacturing strategy imho.
and letting the world free traders have their way policy wise.
the sad fact is both the uk and canada have been led for years by
people with no vision when it comes to manufacturing and job creation.
aided by myopic central bankers who were too focused on price controls etc etc.
i raised sternly all these issues with a senior mandarin at the bank of canada
years n years ago, because i felt at the time some of the problems we are
seeing today would occur. being an economist , he failed to grasp
the various nuances. as i said..people in charge with no vision imho.
so whats the solution ??
answer...rapid strategic new manufacturing advanced industries imho.
but it aint gonna happen cos the people in charge dont se it as important.
i hope i make some sense.
as i once said to a senior mandarin...
"where the heck are future generations of young canadians gonna work
if all manufacturing has been off shored".
regarding the incentive to avoid looking for work:
Years ago I owned a small business. People would routinely stop by and enquire about employment, then ask me to sign something saying they were here and had looked for work. Some of them told me directly that they did not want a job, they just needed my signature so they could comply with the rule that would enable them to continue collecting benefits. Interesting.
On a similar note, I once approached a guy who was holding a "will work for food" sign. I offered him money in exchange for helping me to move a big stack of wood from where I had cut down a tree that was threatening to fall on my house.
He quite honestly told me that he didn't want to work, but that people wouldn't give him money if he didn't portray himself as being down and out. I still don't understand why he came clean to me, except that I called him on his offer to work, and he was more willing to be embarrassed than he was to work.
true stories.
Your thoughts?
manning,
regarding manufacturing, we are on the same page I think. Same goes for the USA. Our local community colleges don't even offer manufacturing curricula anymore. It's all medical, IT and arts & crafts
However, I have been to German and Swiss factories, and they are serious about preserving manufacturing in those countries. THey are very good at it, with state of the art equipment and a skilled work force. Technical education is part of a well-conceived goal of positioning their children for the future.
ps..heres what i love.
as you asked pat.
1. my dear wife. who has put up with my creative music madness.
god bless her. plus my dear mum of 92 yrs of age.
and whats left of my family in the uk.
2. makeing songs and singing. either on my own or with other nice folks via collabs.
3. aston martin and porsche cars..
tho i'll never be able to afford either. lol.
4. happiness and peace.
The problem of looking at the issue of unemployment purely in terms of personal financial inducements and penalties fails to see the holistic issue of people caught in a trap of unmarketable skills, low self esteem and depression to the point that they generally don't come accross well in interview. Just how do you deal with that?
Stressing that seeking and doing work is only a question of individual responsibility and personal morality is in my view a pious myth that fails to see the problem in the context of:
A) isolation: the loss of local social networks and the complete erosion of communities that used to support and motivate each other in the pursuit of the kind of values of diligence thrift work and community mindedness. People learn and grow in mutually supportive environments. Once you suggest as free market economics does, that people are just self-seeking monadic entities; individuals with only their own set of personal goals unrelated to anyone else is not only a misreading of human nature but an inducement to the very kind of debased and selfish behaviour you're talking about.
B) an economic system that looks at employment as a cost to be minimized as much as possible. Capitalists and companies are not social workers. They will with complete impunity, brutally outsource to other countries with zero worker human rights if necessary and claim that it's not their problem. We are facing a complete breakdown of a social contract here between the owners of companies and the social environment in which they began. Under capitalism work has become mererly a means to an end and not an end in itself. Its no use expecting people in without work to be high minded about the value of work if the very companies that offer it are doing their best to either debase it and render it expendable as they are now.
The other side of the issue is of course the abuse of the system at the upper echelons where jobs become temporary and subject to companies receiving tax and breaks, grants and other handouts from government. This isnt diligence or social responsibility by any stretch of the imaginaton and they care even less than beaurocracies. The entire system has become an outsourcing of what were once core government responsibilities to greedy and exploitative companies at massive expense to the public purse and with zero accountability. Thats what happened in New Orleans and its whats happening at every level of government now. So what price now of encouraging diligence? whay do you only focus on those most badly let down by the system and not those with the power to do something about it?
This is where I depart from a philosophical system based only on the privitisation of morality and moral absolutes. This comes squarely out of a historical tradition of the individualisation of religion, the puritan notion of the personal relationship with God and personal redemption theology. It would be better to look at positive ideas in religion as addressing us all collectively as its too easy and convenient to see successful self-centred individualism as a spiritual reward of good faith rather than something that has both good and bad sides. And of course the obverse is true of those who don't fare well in an individualistic society. Is it always the case that it is down to a failure to uphold moral standards, or is it an all too understandable failure of nerve in the face of overwhelming odds?. Its no use using the example of the few that transcend this fate as a stick to beat the many that don't. if we really want a return to better values it's time now to look at the current social/economic structure and the questionable and dubious values on which its based.
Regards
Alan
Quote:
ps..heres what i love.
as you asked pat.
1. my dear wife. who has put up with my creative music madness.
god bless her. plus my dear mum of 92 yrs of age.
and whats left of my family in the uk.
2. makeing songs and singing. either on my own or with other nice folks via collabs.
3. aston martin and porsche cars..
tho i'll never be able to afford either. lol.
4. happiness and peace.
Manning,
thanks for your wonderful response! It made my day!
There is so much in this world to love, and it can easily fill the same internal void that might otherwise be filled with other, less productive emotions
What seems to be an empty glass is actually full of air. But if you fill it with beverage, the air is forced out of the glass. So it is with the heart.
Federal Debt Population Debt load per capita
USA $ 12,434,500,000,000 308,605,000 $ 40,300
Canada $ 463,710,000,000 33,988,000 $ 13,643
I listen to the business news and check my Retirement Savings Plans once a week.
(So as not to be obsessed by it all...LOL)
I'm almost back with my investments to the place where I was before the 'crash'.
The Toronto Star says I can sell my house here ($250,000) and buy 3 of the same size and age in Florida or AridZona.
They also say you can find good renters easily to pay off the mortgages. I'm just neither that entrepreneurial nor daring to take the plunge.
All indications here are that we are really 'going' again. When unemployment hits 6 percent or less I'll believe that.
And I've no debts, just the health issues.
As far as the US recovery goes, their dollar keeps going down so in essence that's very good for manufacturing, and the money the other countries hold is worth less so in effect they owe less. That's good for them. The Canadian and American dollar are headed for par sometime next week, it opened this morning at 99 cents can equals $1.00 us.
A large call centre downtown with 400 employess was doing work for an American Bank. The United Steelworkers ran an organizing drive and before they were done all 400 had lay off slips. They were paying $13.50 an hour plus benefits.
My son works in a centre 2 stories up from there. He does calls for cars that break down, BMW, Mini, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini's... but they need people who speak french. He gets 15.50 an hour, extra for being bi-lingual. He also takes on line loan apps for CitiBank in the US. I warned him about the union thing though, the other company just switched the business to India instead of Canada.
Like how Wall Mart closed a Quebec store after the union got voted in.
Quote:
The problem of looking at the issue of unemployment purely in terms of personal financial inducements and penalties fails to see the holistic issue of people caught in a trap of unmarketable skills, low self esteem and depression to the point that they generally don't come accross well in interview. Just how do you deal with that? Quote:
Alan,
thanks for the quick response.
Your question appears to be requesting perfect answers; but rationals don't believe in perfect answers. They believe in imperfect solutions that provide the best cost/benefit ratio
Having been unemployed many times, and having experienced exactly the things you mention, my experience suggests the following:
The worst thing you can do when you're unemployed is nothing. Stalled activity leads to feelings of hopelessness, largely because hopelessness is the natural result of no effort.
Providing incentive to get people into a job, any job, is better than the current alternatives. Once people are productive, their attitude changes and they naturally become more hopeful.
True story:
several years ago I moved to a different state looking for work. It was a traumatic time, and I experienced a great problem with depression. I spent much of my time bemoaning the fact that I couldn't earn enough to pay the bills, and the negative thinking took a huge toll on my mental health.
Finally, I just went out and got a second job. I remember thinking to myself that it was less stressful to work two jobs than it was to worry continuously. That revelation set the stage for my thinking in other areas of my life. By assuming responsibility for my own finances and taking action in ways that were in my power, I was emotionally benefitted. DRAMATICALLY! I was back in control of my life!
These weren't good jobs, by the way. But, they provided me with skills, experience and confidence which enabled me to present myself advantageously to a similar employer that paid better wages, and eventually I got hired. Later my positive attitude got me promoted.
That's only one man's way of overcoming the specific doldrum you mentioned. I'm sure there are more. I defintely do not think that government programs would have lifted me out of the murk. In one of your own posts, you described the ineffectiveness of self-help classes typical of a bureaucratic solution. I agree .
Quote:
The other side of the issue is of course the abuse of the system at the upper echelons where jobs become temporary and subject to companies receiving tax and breaks, grants and other handouts from government. This isnt diligence or social responsibility by any stretch of the imaginaton and they care even less than beaurocracies. The entire system has become an outsourcing of what were once core government responsibilities to greedy and exploitative companies at massive expense to the public purse and with zero accountability. Thats what happened in New Orleans and its whats happening at every level of government now. So what price now of encouraging diligence? whay do you only focus on those most badly let down by the system and not those with the power to do something about it?
I agree with most of your description of reality as it currently exists. I do not agree so much with your root cause analysis. And if you have understood my words to mean that I ONLY think the downtrodden need to be more diligent, then we have yet to communicate effectively.
I think diligence and accountability are desirable for ALL people, at EVERY level in a society. I think cultures are defined by the traits they reinforce in their people. I think western civilization has stopped reinforcing morality, which is a key element in responsibility to others, and therefore we are rapidly becoming a culture that is defined by the common thread of social irresponsibility at every level
Alan and manning and John
I just want to say that I really like you guys! You are each so full of good sense and analytical thinking... I rejoice in hearing what you have to say. Sometimes I don't have time to address everything you write, but that doesn't mean I haven't read it. I typically spend all day thinking about the points people make in these threads.
Discussion is a bit like dropping a pebble in a pond. The ripples go out, and every leaf on the surface of the pond is lifted by the ripple. Likewise, the ripples of an idea can extend long past our lifetimes, well into subsequent generations. Which is why we do well to communicate. Especially now that the world is so small that we can have an international chat every day.
Alan,
In reading your responses, I get the impression that you don't think bureaucratic solutions are useful, and you don't think social networks like church have been particularly beneficial either. What DO you advocate? Tell me what you would love to see
regarding "identifying ourselves by what we love"
I think it's significant that the bible says
"GOD IS LOVE"
regardless of what that means to you, that is a significant statement, worthy of anyone's consideration. Lots of people have a problem with God, but I have yet to meet the person who thinks there's enough love on the planet.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That first one is a good point and accurate example in many cases, Mike.
In my eyes it falls into the 'entitlement' frame of mind mentioned earlier. It occurs at both ends of the system.
Speaking of which...
is anyone gutsy enough to say that people are ENTITLED to national health care?
Almost every citizen in a country that offers it ..
That's fairly accurate.
I have a question - why can't (or won't) the richest nation on earth (that leads the world in medical research and development) afford universal health care for its citizens? Countries like the UK, Denmark, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada do (these are the ones I know of).
Incidentally, the "father" of health care in Canada was born in Scotland, emigrated to Manitoba with his parents when he was six, later studied theology, and became a Baptist minister at Calvary Baptist Church in Weyburn. While serving as a minister in the town of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, he championed the rights of the common man/labourer (he had a good role model to follow). In order to further his work, entered politics. As the premier of Saskatchewan, he started the wheels in motion for universal health care. He left for federal politics, and the then premier Woodrow Lloyd enacted legislation creating universal health care in July of 1962. Some other provinces followed, then the federal government, then some other countries - but not all.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002374
Glenn
Quote:
I have a question - why can't (or won't) the richest nation on earth (that leads the world in medical research and development) afford universal health care for its citizens? Countries like the UK, Denmark, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada do (these are the ones I know of).
Glenn
One of the reasons for this is our legal system. I touched on this earlier. I know for sure that France, UK and Canada all have caps on malpractice awards and I would bet the rest do too. Here, the skys the limit. Of course if a doctor/hospital cuts off the wrong leg or causes someone's death of disability, they deserve to be compensated for that but where do you draw the line? Is a million enough, 5 million, how about 20 million? Doctors here are paying something like $100-200,000 per year in malpractice insurance premiums. They don't have to do that in other countries. The other big deal is there's something like 2000 health insurance companies here in the US and they all have their own unique billing and paperwork. They don't all work in every state but still doctors have to have 3 or 4 staff just to handle all the different kinds of paperwork. I've read if someway or some how all that could be standardized that would save a bundle too. Neither of these problems are addressed in the current health care bill now before Congress, that's why so many people are against it. We need some reform in this country for sure but it has to be the right kind of reform.
Bob
Bob:
I'm aware of the malpractice suits - I shudder at how much the lawyers make from this.
But I suspect the largest lobby against UHC in the US is from the insurance companies. They stand to lose far more than the lawyers.
Interesting fact: In Saskatchewan (I lived there for fifty years) and here in BC, when you license a vehicle, there is the licensing fee, plus mandatory insurance. But the insurance company is the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Company (SGI as they call it) or ICBC, and they are crown corporations. One can get additional insurance for more liability or coverage on glass, etc. but this isn't nearly as expensive as the basic policy. Another point is that the insurance is so-called "no-fault" insurance - if you are responsible for the accident, your vehicle etc is still covered - automatically. No fighting with an insurance company, and no lawyers involved. Yes, it costs a bit more than private insurance, but I've never had to retain a lawyer to get coverage even when it was my fault when I rear-ended a couple of cars. The lawyers would have cost way more.
Fortunately when UHC was started, we had very few small health insurance companies, so they couldn't put up much of a fight. I strongly suspect that you are victims of the insurance companies. It's really too bad, because although our system is a tax burden, you'd have to look very long and hard to find anyone that would do away with it (and most of the ones you would find don't live here).
Glenn
That's a bad example Glenn, because car insurance works the same way here. If you have full coverage on your car, that is it incudes comp and collision, then your car is covered regardless of whose fault it is.
The whole point of our health system is choices, not being locked into one government system. Americans don't trust the government to do anything cheaper or more efficiently than the private sector can. Our talk shows are full of people from the same countries you mentioned including Canada who will testify that they needed some vital procedure and wound up waiting way too long for it, over a year in many cases. We call that rationing care. The other thing is it's a well known fact that 80% of a persons lifetime health care costs occur in the last year of life so an argument can be made that while grandma needs that hip replacement, if she's most likely going to die within a year anyway it should be denied. Economically that makes sense but no way will any individual go along with that if it's their mother. There's several stories out of the UK about that. Americans simply don't agree with that sort of thinking but of course it all has to be paid for somehow. I used to live in Calgary, I have family all over western Canada including on the island and I know for a fact that lots of Canadians with money will cross the border to have procedures done here. Why is that?
Bob
jazzmammal
re canadas health care system.
all i can say is my wife n i are mighty thankfull for the above
after the year of treatments my wife has been through.
twas a very rough year.
the care was exemplary. the specialists exemplary etc etc.
iwont bore you with all the details..suffice it to say it could have been very serious.
my wife n i often say to each other if we had to have paid for the last year,
we would have not only been bankrupt probably...but owing for the rest of our lives
or whatever. thus i have to be fair to canada in this regard.
(my wifey is canadian..i'm a brit.)
mebe others have had bad experiences..but my wifes was a very good one.
also when my dear dad was dying in the uk...i have to say he was looked after
well there also..notwithstanding the bad stories one hears bout the uk system.
What would it cost to have cataract surgery (both eyes)?
What would it cost for a colonoscopy every five years for the past twenty years?
What would it cost to have surgery on your nose to correct blocked tear ducts (both sides)?
What would it cost to have an MRI done because you had dizzy spells?
What would it cost for an appointment with an oncologist/hematologist (every six months for ten years)?
What would it cost for blood tests done every three months for the past ten years to track the progress of CLL? (you can google it).
The colonoscopies, hematologist visits, and blood tests are ongoing.
Each of the above required/requires a specialist.
I had to buy new eyeglasses (once), pay the flat $20.00 fee for medications following surgery (twice), and pay for parking at the hospital parking lot about ten times. Damn near bankrupt me. Forget about the list above.
The US will have to do what's best for the country as a whole. It's not our choice, we've already made it, and it seems we're sticking with it in spite of what the talk shows say. Does anyone actually watch talk snows? Oops, typo - actually it applies - I'll leave it.
Have a good one mates. No more replies from me.
Glenn
Ditto. Thanks Glen, my experience in spades. I'd be so poor if not for the system.
What the others do not get, is I have freedom of choice. Any Doc, any hospital, any clinic. The get what the Government pays. No more, nor less. I can change anytime I want.
Not the best system, but I'm never going to be broke over it. I like the French system, but of course a whack of people believe they are a bunch of chickens who threw down their arms and waited for the US to liberate them, twice.
Learn some history.
The only thing I regret is that they are changing my meds, and for 6 weeks I cannot leave the country.....bit of a bummer that.
I have visited 6 doctors and had 22 blood tests in the last 2 days. An ultrasound tomorrow, and 4 more appointments booked in the next 2 weeks. I don't have to pay for it, except in taxes on gas etc. Oh well.
folks just a general comment.
you know what is so sad in todays society ??.
not just the greed in some quarters, but people have become disconnected.
heres what i mean.
i remember when i was a kidlet growing up in cockney london uk
in the 50's. my granparents lived on an interesting street
which had its own ethos of folks helping each other.
heres how it worked.
if a family was down for the count via job loss or whatever ,
the hat would be passed around up n down the street to help em
get back on their feet.
neighbors would help each other etc etc.
the understanding implicit, being, once the family got back on its feet
then they would help others if the need arose.
it was sorta everyone on the street pulling together to help each other.
it was the "cockney way".
tears come to my eyes thinking of the generosity of the cockney spirit
in those years. and how people helped each other.
looking back i remembe sooo darn many fine people with great hearts.
as i became older in my teens i had two choices,
either become a "spiv", or get educated.
the spivs were very interesting people.
altho' they often operated in shady areas of business..
"psst mate want a watch cheap"..lol
once again many had golden hearts.
one always knew when a spiv had "made it".
viz they got a jaguar car. or a "roller".
(cokney for rolls royce..often a used vehicle.).
whats interesting is the spivs would often help the very poor and
the poor elderly. as i said golden hearts often.
i decided not to become a spiv. but went off to uni.
and received a top notch education.
but there is a problem with the education i received.
i went from being a somewhat "naive innocent" teen sheltered
by my family from the crazy world to being extremely
knowledgeable about the world (includeing the internals of the atom )
courtesy of brillant profs.
within the space of 3 yrs at uni i basically grew up.
it was a sea change for me. vaulted from cockneyland in
london to study with all these brilliant minds.
but there is a downside to such education.
in later years i came to realise in many respects i was over educated.
what i found in the real world of work was a zoo.
employers wanted one to often "dumb down" and be acquiescent.
many employers often wanted also the brains/training but didnt want to pay for it.
just life experiences i'm relating.
for example my first job after uni, a team of us were picked
to work on a complex technical project.
our small team was told
we had been chosen from a cull of a large number of grads.
we were told we were englands "finest technical minds".
and the best england had to offer.
well heres the joke of what we were paid after all the uni n studying n degrees
n education etc etc. in dollar terms about 3k a year.
i remember thinking at the time..
"i shoulda become a spiv..would have made more". lol.
in summary uk employers never wanted to pay.
i mention the above to possibly explain why todays young
(many i talk to tell me this..) arent too keen on
the daily grind. in summary, they have seen what their parents went thru ,
and are leery whether all the education n training pays off.
certain disciplines yes. eg every doctor ive known is well off.
but typically in todays large corporation, heres how it works.
the CEO's raking in millions want tek people on the cheap
to maximise profits and their own stock options the best they can.
ie..greed. to further maximise themselves they off shore engineering to
cheap labour countries where highly educated engineers and teks are cheap.
so lets take the usa as an example, and correct me if i'm wrong..
i perceive that lots of usa corps have offshored the tek jobs.
but this comes back to bite the american economy.
cos laid off brains in the usa arent buying stuff in the usa economy.
this is what the foolish CEO's dont realise.
they are impacting negatively their own economy.
looking back frankly many times in my life i wonder
if i shouldnt have remained in cockneyland.
some of the best kindest people i ever knew compared to the dog eat dog arena
of working for corporations and their lust for the bottom line.
yes folks my heart still belongs to cockney land.
You guys are acting like nobody has health insurance here. 85% of Americans have insurance and are happy with it including me so the costs are the usual copays. This figure of 40 million uninsured is a completely bogus, political number. Look it up if you're so inclined. That number includes wealthy people who elect to have no insurance at all and become self insured but they're counted as "uninsured". It counts the approximately 12 million or so illegal immigrants but even they have "insurance" because by federal law that's been on the books forever, no ER can turn down anyone so you can be homeless, have a problem, go to the ER and get treated. That's very expensive to the system so needs to be changed but people do not go without here. That figure also counts people who quit one job, get another say in 6 weeks but if for any part of the year they were "uninsured" that counts too. Don't believe everything you read. The things that need fixing should get fixed like help when you get laid off and lose your insurance.
Bob
Hi Manning...
thanks for the thoughts. It is a very compelling recollection you have made here.
There are many "near matches" of ideology... two things that provide similar results in one way but completely different results in another way. From my point of view, the story you just described contrasts the "near match" of COMPETITION vs. COOPERATION.
Both of those things help a group to better itself, but one of them does so in a way that is "win-win" while the other is always "win-lose"
Business, sports and war are complex examples of both competition AND cooperation. In those endeavors, people on one team cooperate to defeat the members of the other team. But my personal preference is in favor of pure cooperation. I don't like winning if it means somebody else has to lose. I prefer a negotiation of consensus, in which both sides are happy with the agreement.
Sports and business and war rarely work out that way.
regarding the direction of American health care:
The discussion here so far about American vs Canadian health care misses the point that I am trying to make, so let me go in a different direction.
We both have systems that work, but they're different. Any system can be improved.
The question is whether to scrap a system that already has a well-established infrastructure and start over from scratch at a time when money is an issue.
That's the functional equivalent of having a house that doesn't meet your needs in some way (living room is the wrong color, for example). Does it make more sense to paint the living room? or to tear down the house and build a new one that has the right color in the living room? Add to the equation that the homeowner is out of work, and money is already his biggest problem.
This guys situation has nothing to do with the guy next door (Canada) who has his own house and is perfectly happy with it.
I understand that there is indeed a sense of entitlement among many boomers. We grew up during a time of plenty. Most of us have never really been desperately poor in comparison to real 3rd world poverty. Yeah, poor maybe by current standards of western civilization.. but from a global perspective our sense of entitlement does not resonate with the expectations of the world community.
One reason why immigrants come to the west and become rich in one generation is that they are not bound by the noose of entitlement. They understand exactly what they see in nature... that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. And what we sow by the handful, we reap by the bushel. Diligence leads to plenty, not as a guarantee, but on the average, it provides a better outcome than the expectation that it is somebody else's responsibility to enrich your life.
And that is what entitlement is in a nutshell: the expectation that somebody else has more responsibility to fix your life than you do.
Look at nature for a dose of reality. Animals do not find their food conveniently at the same location every day. Some days they don't find food at all. They are not entitled to find food. Oftentimes they are not even entitled to keep the food they find because a bigger animal comes and takes it.
But we are able to reason in ways that animals cannot. We can take the same unstructured and unregulated chaos that affects us all and cooperate to everyone's mutual benefit. No law can mandate this. It always boils down to personal choice. And to the extent that individuals make such choices, Manning's cockney world can continue to exist... wherever people make such choices.
Organizations will always seek to maximize profits by screwing the people, which is exactly why the answer is never to give the government MORE power. Cooperation is a person-to-person phenomenon. We all need to reinforce that in each other. When you see somebody help his neighbor, praise him for it. Behavior that is rewarded gets repeated. Individuals always see a need and respond to it better than the government. That may be why the guys in manning's story who sold hot watches also helped the poor... because they are individuals first.
pat.
all i want is a happy world.
a pipe dream mebe.
but mebe one day it will happen.
and there wont be many people living in the world in dire situations
without decent housing and nutrition etc etc.
talking of religion..where i have a problem..
(and i believe in the old brit adage...do unto others as you would want to be treated.)
if there truly is a god overseeing us all...why do many of his (or her)
children have such pain n suffering on this earth ??
ive talked with many great religious minds on this aspect without getting reconciliation.
my mother of 92 says we are here on this looney planet as a "test".
her theory is our path is chosen by us before we come here.
viz you can choose long life or wealth or love or whatever ,
but not everything.
Quote:
(and i believe in the old brit adage...do unto others as you would want to be treated.)
Brits did a lot but I don't think they can claim that one!
/kinda grumpy this morning
//get off my lawn!
rharv,
I must agree with you there.
By the way what is it that America exports most?
[quote
/kinda grumpy this morning
//get off my lawn!
funny you should say that, Bob..
I've been noticing something about discussion banter that I had never caught before.
In the morning when I am rested and having my coffee, I tend to post thoughts that are upbeat. But at night when I come home tired after getting beat up at work all day, I re-read what I wrote in the morning and it no longer resonates with me. AND I'M THE SAME PERSON WHO WROTE IT! I can't blame the changed perception on somebody else's different world view, because I have the same world view as myself.
So I have to allow that how we feel when we read posts in a forum has a lot to do with how we respond.
Bear in mind as you read this that I just got up and I'm having my morning coffee. Later tonight when I re-read this I'll be thinking "what a load of nonsense! Who thought up this junk anyway?"
;-)
Quote:
pat.
all i want is a happy world.
a pipe dream mebe.
interestingly, some people claim to be happy in spite of the fact that this life is not perfect. So, whereas it is a pipe dream to have a perfect world, it is totally attainable to have a reasonably happy and fulfilling life
Quote:
but mebe one day it will happen.
and there wont be many people living in the world in dire situations
without decent housing and nutrition etc etc.
talking of religion..where i have a problem..
I make a distinction between religion and faith. I am a big fan of faith, but I think religion is inherently false... by definition I see "religion" as man's made up way of being acceptable. Interesting to note that the word RELIGION is only mentioned a few times in the bible, and it is almost always in the context of a false belief system.
Quote:
(and i believe in the old brit adage...do unto others as you would want to be treated.)
You believe that? Well, I believe it too! (FWIW, that's a paraphrased quote from the bible.)
Maybe we aren't so different after all.
Quote:
if there truly is a god overseeing us all...why do many of his (or her)
children have such pain n suffering on this earth ??
ive talked with many great religious minds on this aspect without getting reconciliation.
my mother of 92 says we are here on this looney planet as a "test".
her theory is our path is chosen by us before we come here.
viz you can choose long life or wealth or love or whatever ,
but not everything.
I think the reason why this same question gets asked in virtually every forum discussion of faith is this:
mankind has made up a god who is apparently a nice old man wearing a housecoat and flip-flops who either does nice things for those who pray, or smites bad people. They hold this made-up god to an arbitrary set of standards, then get angry and disappointed when he fails to live up to the imagined expectations.
This idea of "putting God to the test" fails because it does not take into consideration who God really claims to be, or what He has really promised. It's like going to court to sue the manufacturer of some product because you didn't get rich from using the product.... but the manufacturer never claimed you would
Imagine somebody who steps off a cliff, then says "How could a loving gravity allow me to fall?"
That would be ridiculous. Anybody can look at the world and see what happens when you step off a cliff. It isn't gravity's fault the person who walked off the cliff fell down. Gravity is good. It keeps us grounded (pardon the pun)
A better question might be to ask why the guy's brother let him walk off the cliff.
Biggest export = food - grain mostly. A lot of it is given away and not figured into the financial repots as such.
Almost half of the world's grain export comes from the US.
Medical items are very high on the list also BTW.
Pat, at least we know when we are out of sorts.. that must count for something (I hope).
Quote:
Biggest export = food - grain mostly. A lot of it is given away and not figured into the financial repots as such.
Almost half of the world's grain export comes from the US.
Medical items are very high on the list also BTW.
Pat, at least we know when we are out of sorts.. that must count for something (I hope).
Bob,
if that's the way you respond when you're grouchy, you are a prince of kindness! Your responses on every thread I've seen have been gracious, long-suffering and helpful. In a forum, that's the best possible combination. So, if this is worst-case, Now I want to see how you respond when you're in a good mood!
Quote:
talking of religion..where i have a problem..
(and i believe in the old brit adage...do unto others as you would want to be treated.)
if there truly is a god overseeing us all...why do many of his (or her)
children have such pain n suffering on this earth ??
Manning, you answered the question yourself in your own post. There is suffering not because God is negligent, but because of man's inhumanity to man. The meanness comes from people, not from God.
If people did what the bible says (your own quote about doing unto others) there would be less of that. So if you want the effect that is derived from the practicing of faith, I don't understand why you would have a problem with the discussion of that mindset.
Interestingly, this is a variation on the same theme of entitlement we have been discussing. Remember, entitlement is the mindset of making somebody else responsible for what we should be doing for ourselves. It's easier to blame God for the condition of the world than it is to change our behavior and walk in love toward one another. (Or are we only concerned about what OTHER people aren't doing? Where does personal accountability fit into the equation?)
But I speak in concrete and limited analogies and terms. Let us move on to a larger possibility that the ultimate plan of an eternal God just might be a lot bigger than we can comprehend, and so it is somewhat pointless to try justifying an infinite truth with a finite mind.
Principles don't need for us to understand them, they stand on their own merit. Long before Newton understood gravity, gravity still worked. Even if you don't believe in gravity, if you step off a cliff, gravity will still do what gravity does. Disbelief in reality does not negate reality.
pat..
your right of course , meanness comes from people.
frankly ive given up reading the daily newspapers ,
cos every day they are full of news items where
someone has hurt someone else. or hurt even an animal.
and i find so much news upsetting.
rharv..re do unto others..my aplogies mate..
of course its a world saying.
i didnt mean to imply it wasnt.
it was drilled into me by my parents//school from a young age.