Subject:
|
Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:18:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1044 times
|
| |
|
|
Simon Robinson wrote in message ...
> > > it took me so many years to slowly learn all the Windows programming
> > > knowledge I've got that gives me a good career. I didn't realise I was
> >
> > If you call programming windows a _good_ career.
>
> Ha ha! Good point. Actually these days I write about it rather than
> program it, which is a lot more fun :)
Its probably a better career than most, and its probably worth the
investment.
> > You probably have more than the basic set of skills one would need to
> > get started.
>
> true - I've got a lot more than that - but see my point below.
>
> > > wasting my time and I could get the skills instantly. What do you do?
> > > Do you just go into a shop and buy a box of C++ skills?
> > > And I assume they're offered
> > > at a price that you can still afford if you're on a part time or • temporary
> > > salary and struggling to pay your rent etc.? Cool!
> >
> > What is your goal with this smart-ass muleshit? Lots of people make
> > sacrifices in order to educate themselves. Lots of others don't.
> > People may do as they choose, but stop whining for the ones who choose
> > not to.
>
> The point about it was I felt that the way you simply implied that people
> could just go off and get IT skills was simplistic and ignored a lot
> of the complications. For example, as you point out I've got a lot more
> programming experience than I really need to get started. But the only • reason
> I was able to get that far was because I already had a good research • background
> - I'd already been working somewhere where I had access to computers. Not • only
> that, but it meant I could afford to buy my own pc to learn on when I • needed
> to make the transition to Windows. And I had friends around who could help • me.
> Not everyone has those advantages. You talk about people choosing not to
> educate themselves, but if the Government doesn't spend some money to
> make sure that people get the opportunity then a lot of people won't have
> that opportunity to get any skills.
That is not true. This country (and yours, too) has tons of businesses
which require people who are capable. If the government stopped "making"
opportunties business would take over that racket (which wouldn't be a
racket anymore, since they put a value on their money - as opposed to
government agencies who just see money as something they must get rid of).
> > So? It is not inappropriate that those willing to give up one thing
> > (emotional security) should be able to get something else (higher pay)
> > for it.
>
> But presumably the fact that you believe it's worth while to move means
> you are getting a lot more money, even after tax - so what's the problem?
> Besides wouldn't it be so much nicer if people didn't have to make those
> sacrifices in the first place?
Nice. I would love to get paid a lot of money without going to college
and without leaving my family's area, but GET REAL.
> > > I've moved
> > > around a few times in order to find good jobs - and just about everytime • I've
> > > moved I've spent up to a year or more feeling isolated, stuck in a • strange
> <snip>
>
> > So? You made a choice. You could have chosen otherwise.
Right. People could choose to do nothing. I believe if people choose to
do nothing, that they should be responsible for their own inaction, and if
they can't pay their bills, tough. If they can't survive, tough. Why
should I work and earn my living AND support others who choose not to? WHY?
One good reason please, and I will shut up.
> But I don't feel it was a choice. I really really didn't want to go on
> both occasions. But if I hadn't I'd have been unable to pay my mortgage
etc.
It was a choice, work or lose something you don't fully own. As it
should be. Do you think, since you wanted to be lazy (or didn't want to
make sacrifices), that someone else should pay your bills? You could have
chosen to live in a cheaper house, you know? You could sell your car, which
you really don't need if you don't want to work.
> So I would say effectively I was forced.
Yep, you sure were. You were forced to not live in poverty (probably by
your self or those you care about). You HAVE to work if you don't want to
live in poverty (unless you're lucky). You have to work very hard to have
the finer things (unless you're lucky).
> This is perhaps getting off the point we're arguing about since I'm not
> saying that I should get tons of money for doing nothing - I'm saying that
> that's an area where things would be a lot worse were it not for the UK
> Government and the EC spending money to even out regional employment
> differences and to get businesses into areas that need them. That sort
> of thing costs tax, and I don't begrudge paying taxes to help people in
> that way.
I think businesses would move to these areas if it was in their
interests. As would potential employess move to the businesses if it were
in their interest. Why should the government force the people or the
businesses to go against their own interests? I don't know how you can say
it is right, or moral, or just for the government to take money from a
business, then offer it back if they move somewhere that is not worthwhile
moving to.
> > Paying slackers to live a life of ease isn't nice for a lot of people too.
>
> Look to be fair I'm in the UK, not the States and things might be different
> there. But over here almost noone who's unemployed is a slacker. I've been
> unemployed myself before now and it's no fun. It's not a life of ease -
> even when you're getting unemployment benefits. The vast majority of
> unemployed people are desparate to get work so they can get a decent living
> and some self-respect, and calling them 'slackers' is not just wrong. It's
> downright offensive.
I believe you that the situation in Europe might really suck as far as
job openings go. Perhaps if the governments didn't stifle the businesses in
those countries, the number of job openings would grow? I hear the
Socialist Democratic Party is losing popularity in Sweden. Thats good.
> > To steal is "to take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right
> > or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal
> > goods of another." Which part of this suggests that I am wrong?
>
>
> > > We all live in a society together.
> > So? What responsibility do I have to you based on this involuntary
> membership?
>
> Well so as not to sound too offensive, I'll turn that round. Even though
> I don't know you I feel a lot of responsibilities towards you. Like
> that I should treat you with some respect as a human being, I shouldn't
> do anything to hurt you unnecessarily, I should be honest to you. But I
> also feel that if there is some way in which you need help which I can
> reasonably give, then I should give it. I suspect that really you're not
> going to disagree with most of those on principle,
> and the difference between us
> is more about what counts as 'reasonable' on my last point????
Speaking for myself, I agree with all of those. I do feel a
responsibility to respect, not hurt and be honest with other people. I also
feel an emotional reward when I help others. I don't feel an emotional
reward when I get robbed. Instead, I feel pain and anger. And Chris said,
it is theft. I think of it as theft, too, because the government chooses to
waste and spend money in a different way than I would if I were trying to
help someone. By looking at the people who benefit from my tax money
(either people who don't need help, or people who are unwilling to help
themselves) I get pissed off in a heartbeat. Seeing those who work hard,
and still receive no help makes me even angrier. If I had a choice it would
be one thing, but since I don't, I feel robbed.
> > > If you think it's stealing, try not taking advantage of ANY of the • benefits
> > Asinine. I don't have that option.
>
> You mean you'd take it if you did? If yes, I'd be interested to know
> how you'd intend to live, and if your answer's 'no' then what's the problem
> about not having that option?
> You sound like you're arguing that you want complete freedom.
> Well, sorry but you don't have it. At a really silly level, your freedom
> to do whatever you want is limited by the laws of physics!
>
> Agreed? Well in that case, given that we accept we can't have total
> freedom, then we have to decide how to balance things out to give as many
> people as we can as much freedom as possible. You paying taxes might stop
> you spending some of your money the way you want, but everyone having to
> pay taxes
> means most people get a lot more freedom in things like being secure,
> having decent opportunities, etc. - and most people end up with much • happier
> lives.
Honestly, I think your government is screwed beyond repair, and so you
just depend on the United States, for now. Don't know what you will do when
we become undependable...
> > > you get from paying tax. Of course you'll almost certainly have to give • up
> > > your job, since it's highly unlikely that your employers could continue
> > I expect so, I work for the government.
>
> :)
>
> Simon
> http://www.SimonRobinson.com
nice site - I agree (I am allowed to say that in this group?) Lego aren't
just kiddies toys!
--
Have fun!
John
AUCTION Page (15 Sealed Space sets!)
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: What happened?
|
| (...) Nice theory and something that got debated a lot over here the last decade or so. The verdict seems to be that if the Government does nothing then businesses often don't either, even when it looks like it should be in their interests to do so. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) Ha ha! Good point. Actually these days I write about it rather than program it, which is a lot more fun :) (...) true - I've got a lot more than that - but see my point below. (...) The point about it was I felt that the way you simply implied (...) (25 years ago, 15-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
|
|
|
|
