Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 02:25:49 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.STOPSPAMcom
|
Viewed:
|
1307 times
|
| |
|
|
Ed Jones wrote:
> > No idea what that meant at the time and still don't. What rights do
> > students have, exactly, that every other consumer doesn't? If they don't
> > like the curriculum or university policy, stop going there... Anything
> > else smacks of the inmates running the asylum.
>
> See my reply to Weeks.
Saw it.
> Major changes in universities - adding programs, becoming involved in curriculum
> development, establishing student councils/advisory boards.
Please explain why this is a good thing and not the inmates running the
asylum. Please justify how burning down the administration building is a
good way to send the message that the school is not delivering
appropriate classes, contrasted with attending (or forming) one that is.
Face it, people attend big name universities because employers believe
that they will get a good education there. Changing the curriculum to
include womens studies is NOT helping anyone do anything productive.
> Major changes in public schools - does segregation ring any bells or didn't they teach that in CA.
With you there on segregation. No government has the right to
discriminate against its citizens. However most of the rest of the
public school changes are for the worse. The NEA leadership are a bunch
of slackers, and in some cases Marxists.In 50 years we've went from the
biggest school problem being gum chewing, to the biggest school problem
being assault with a deadly weapon. Bazillions of factors contribute to
that one, but please prove to me that values free education, moral
relativism, mainstreaming, and social promotion aren't contributing
factors. Thank the NEA for all those "innovations" which came about
thanks to your precious revolution.
> > > fought against
> > > oppression of the poor by the rich, fought to get assistance to those who • were
> > > in need.
> >
> > Pretty clear on what those meant. The first sounds good but in practice
> > turned out to be a code phrase for something entirely different, and the
> > second, well, why did you have to fight? Wasn't the American Red Cross
> > doing their job? Perhaps the War On Poverty that the Great Society
> > initiated scared all the effective charities out of business?
>
> Again read my reply to Weeks.
Saw it. You dodged. The homeless are due to Reagan? What a crock.
> Construction workers are employed by construction companies. Those companies
> have winter layoffs. Those employees, having worked 6 months or more, are
> entitled to unemployment. It works the same for auto workers. They get layed
> off and collect unemployment.
Not the same at all, we can build autos in the winter.
> If you are saying that they shouldn't be eligble for unemployment, then why do
> they pay unemployment insurance.
Excellent question. Why does anyone pay it? Try not paying it, if you
can. I've paid it for 20 years and never collected a penny in
unemployment. We're mixing current system thinking with future system
thinking. To be clear... yes, under today's system, the law says you can
collect unemployment, and we have told everyone that they're entitled to
it. Not everyone thinks about morals very clearly so we can't well
expect them to connect the dots and take the moral stand of not
collecting it.
In the future system I'm advocating, one would have the choice whether
to pay or not. Those like me who are very confident of their ability to
stay employed would not pay at all. Those who had the discipline to
manage their spending around seasonal lumpiness in income but still
wanted to defend against large unexpectedness could buy insurance with a
3 month deferred start or similar, and finally, those who KNEW they had
no willpower could buy insurance with a 2 week deferred start. Surprise,
the premiums would differ, but that's as it should be.
> They are not receiving free goods. Did they pay taxes towards those goods -
> yes. So they have paid for those goods. Anyone who pays taxes can become
> elible for food stamps during unemployment if their unemployment check does not
> meet a certain set level.
I paid taxes. Therefore I am entitled to take title of Discovery, as
I've always wanted a real space shuttle and my need, according to my
psychiatrist, is very very strong. Stronger than anyone else's in the
US. Wanna see the certification of need?
Difference in degree, yes. Difference in kind, no.
> Yes I believe in property rights - everyone on the planet has a right to
> posessions. Everyone has a right to personal posessions.
How many? What kind? Can I own 5% of Microsoft as a personal possession?
This is wishy washy thinking.
> Society created
> those that cannot obtain their own posessions.
What? Please point me to such a person. Society did no such thing.
> Society has an obligation to right that wrong.
A society has no concrete existence therefore is not eligible to enter
into contracts, therefore cannot have obligations. People can have
individual obligations. Corporations can. But not societies. Societies
can only be obligated to enforce rights, which are restrictions on
behaviours, not grants of property.
> And who has to pay for it - everyone. Prepare to be looted.
Come and get it, if you think you can. I pay my taxes, as few as I
safely can get away with. But you don't have my sanction. The government
takes them by force and I go along. For now.
>
> The difference is, Lar, that your definition of property is "posessions". My
> definition of property is "the right of ownership". Until everyone on the
> planet has the ability to obtain their own posessions, IMO, noone has a right
> of ownership.
What? Because someone somewhere is living in a country like North Korea
and has his property rights violated on a daily basis, nobody gets to
own property? What on earth are you talking about?
PS, Possessions and Right of Ownership are one and the same thing.
Either that or that isn't my definition.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
