To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 1438
1437  |  1439
Subject: 
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:01:03 GMT
Viewed: 
1236 times
  
Christopher L. Weeks wrote in message
<3784F884.EBFE1372@cclabs.missouri.edu>...
Larry Pieniazek wrote:

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.

It sounds as if you're saying that the morally 'best' course of action
would be to stand off and not take the unemployment.  I disagree
strongly.  I think that if you disagree with the system in the way that
you (and I) seem to, you owe it to America (The USA anyway) to belly up
to the trough and milk it for everything you can.  Only by breaking the
treasury's back can we bring reform.
Christopher L. Weeks


  Chris, I know we are on the same side and all, but following your moral
further, it is also right to break the laws, as you see fit, because it
hurts the system.  Frankly, I think most would rather obey them and carry
the weight the system puts on us, too, to avoid the misery caused by a
collapse of this system.  For now.  At some point, the weight will be too
much, and we will stop supporting it and those who can't support themselves
will perish, and a better system (perhaps) will emerge.  The sooner the
better, I guess.  Ultimately, using your moral, I think the best thing to do
is support every government handout (like health care, welfare,
unemployment) and belly up and accept it to speed up this system's
(treasury's) demise (all the while robbing those who produce).  Good plan?
--
   Have fun!
   John
AUCTION Page (Technic, and Town)
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/2-many-toys/
TRADE Page http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA[cl,bf,cr,fm,bk+++ wp,dm,rk,df++ fk-]++++(6035)
SW,TR,old(456)+++ TO++ PI,SP+ DU-- #+++++
ig88888888@stlnet.com & IG88888888 on AOL



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
 
(...) I don't see how my logic lead to this conclusion. But, I agree that breaking some laws is required to maintain moral purity. Since the US government uses my tax dollars to kill people with whom I have no beef, I do feel kind of sleazy allowing (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
 
(...) Saw it. (...) 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, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR