Happy Stick it to The Rich Year!

[jcarmody]

---

@LV_Pro wrote:

It worked so well for the Hatfield and McCoy families. Out sourcing to "private security" (or paladins, mercenaries, hit-men) has many flaws, not the least of which is that to hire them requires money, so those with the most money, how ever acquired, get the most say, whether they truly are in the right or not. Then again, there have been more than one instance in history where the "hired help" has decided to keep whatever they have been hire to get for themselves. 

---

Right.  That's why I said that this is where it gets interesting.  How, then, do "we" provide a police force?  Is it not only by coercively getting "everybody" to pay for it?  What if I decide that I'm tough enough to fend for myself?  It is immoral/unjust for "society" to force me to pay for something I neither need nor want.

On the other hand, to follow your Hatfield/McCoy reference, what we have now has resulted in enormous abuse from those "we've" hired "to protect and serve" us.  Hatfields and McCoys only killed Hatfields and McCoys.  Do I need to link to a YouTube video of a cop tazering an old lady or is rampant police brutality in the US universally understood?

[Ben]

Re: Police etc.

Discipline comes from within and not from without, that is restraint.

Police are a modern concept. If I reacll correctly that go back only to the 1800's or so. Prior to that there where sherrifs and the like that worked for the people (think outraged homesteaders going to the sherrif) to provide protection from those that chose to live outside the community and its laws outlaws.

But rather than explore "how do we provide police?" I prefer to investigate "How can we do without police?"

Picture an image of entire society of "Jesus's" running around. Would you expect a need for police in that socierty? I would not. So I lean toward the line of thoght that with the members of a group exibiting self discipline the need for exteranlly applied laws goes away.

So, Ben, what are your plans to turn everyone inot ideal citizens?

I believe the answer is in how we bring up our children and what we teach them. A big part of the rearing is the stories we tell our children. It is from our stories of how we interact with others and similarly how others have inteacted with each other. Now if we continually lie to our childeren they will grow up beliving our lies right up until they are faced with strong evidence of what they think is true is in fact not true. If we bring them up right they will have the tools an knowledge they need to act as good citizens.

But rather than me try to make the arguement I urge readers to read Plato's Republic (If memory serves me it is chapter ten) where the character Socrates explores the stories we tell each other and our children. He came to the conclusion that all artist and actors should be outlawed. I can not do his arguement justice but in summary the crux of the idea was that those that write perform shows etc lack a true knowlege of what they portray. Those who are on the recieving end are therefore taught falshoods.

Example:

How often do you see people reloading in action movies?

AR-15's and the like are protrayed as automatic weapons when they are not.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook we heard talking heads speaking of "spraying bullets".

So those that have learned the correct leasosn about guns are under a flase impresion of what is real.

I was reminded by an invertiew I saw last night of how things have changed since i was a kid. My brother and I had fatigues like my father and had our own training rifles. We played shot-em-up. WE learned that we shot our brother he layed down and did not move and the game was over. IN today's video games kids learn that when they shor someone they get point!

While I can not go all the way to Platos view of outlawing all entertainment media since free speach is protected. I can urge people to be very careful about what they allow themselves to be exposed too and what they support with their money. If we choose not to watch those amoral movies and video games we can take a step toward improving the shaping of our childern and the type of citizens they will be come.

Ben

[Thoric]

---

@Ben wrote:

Re: Police etc.

 

Picture an image of entire society of "Jesus's" running around. Would you expect a need for police in that socierty? I would not.

---

Not to be protaganistic, but the general opinion of what counts as unfavourable behaviour is a relative term, and in any society of imagined citizens (whether Jesus's or tyrants) there will be those exhibiting behaviour traits that exist at the limits of the globally experienced scale. Therefore, whether Jesus's or tyrants, some of the citizens exhibit behaviour inevitably considered unfavourable, no matter how benign with respect our own experiences, and fall into a category of unacceptable. In all envisionable scenarios of citizens, someone will be seen as the extremist and the remainder will wish for some policing structure to deal with them.

For example, today we consider minor speeding offences far more trivial than murder and rape. But in a world without murder and rape where speeding offences are the worst offences imaginable, these would be considered just as extreme and policed as such. There is no such ideal, it's always a relative picture. Our mind's consider only one scale, with end stops that move to accommodate the experiences we know and understand. As we experience greater injustices we expand this scale to accept the reality, moving trivialities further towards the 'acceptable' end of the scale. In a perfect world the scale would be infinitely narrow, and in a world of Jesus's the scale would be very narrow, but one of those guys would do something that falls towards the wrong end of the scale (such as scratch an itch in public) and be considered unacceptable. Ultimately there are always people that perform acts that others consider unacceptable, and therefore there will always be a perceived need for policing. A self-policed society can enjoy no equilibrium.

Spoiler

I've been to the pub for lunch, had a drink, and now this conversation is more interesting than my current work

[Ben]

---

@Thoric wrote:

---

@Ben wrote:

Re: Police etc.

 

Picture an image of entire society of "Jesus's" running around. Would you expect a need for police in that socierty? I would not.

---

Not to be protaganistic, ... 

Spoiler

I've been to the pub for lunch, had a drink, and now this conversation is more interesting than my current work

---

Your spoiler is supporting in part my point re: what is right and wrong drifting

When I started "in the real world" my customer would always have a 3-martini lunch. He always came back happy and that is when I would present my cost estimates to him.

In the modern US, a 1-maritini lunch will get you fired!

So waht is noraml in your world could destroy a career over here.

So if having a drink or not is something that could be right or wrong how come right and wrong depends on where you are standing on the planet?

When in college I studied material Science, Electrical Engineering and Physics. Whena asked a question like "In the circuit shown which way will current flow?" I had to first ask myself, "In which building am I now?" since one group spoke of change carriers and the other spoke of electrons.

Somewhere depp inside me there is a voice screaming that what is right and wrong is right and wrong and laws etc can not switch the two. At this time I am reminded that Jesus is quoted as saying that a sign of the end times would be "what is right is wrong and what is wrong will be right."

This relativism throws a monkey wrench into my cerebral machinery.

Ben

[Thoric]

---

@Ben wrote:

---

@Thoric wrote:

---

@Ben wrote:

Re: Police etc.

 

Picture an image of entire society of "Jesus's" running around. Would you expect a need for police in that socierty? I would not.

---

Not to be protaganistic, ... 

Spoiler

I've been to the pub for lunch, had a drink, and now this conversation is more interesting than my current work

---

Your spoiler is supporting in part my point re: what is right and wrong drifting

When I started "in the real world" my customer would always have a 3-martini lunch. He always came back happy and that is when I would present my cost estimates to him.

In the modern US, a 1-maritini lunch will get you fired!

So waht is noraml in your world could destroy a career over here.

---

Absolutely! It's all relative, and where our scale limits apply to what is acceptable and what is unfavourable depends on your world. In one circumstance it's acceptable, and therefore other more 'harmful' attitudes register as unfavourable, in another's society it's not acceptable. In all circumtances a 'policing power' is required to enforce justice when unacceptable behavour is experience/encountered.

---

@Ben wrote:

Somewhere deep inside me there is a voice screaming that what is right and wrong is right and wrong and laws etc can not switch the two.

This relativism throws a monkey wrench into my cerebral machinery.

---

It takes a big person to accept that what is right in one world is wrong in another. I find it tough to accept that a worker cannot enjoy a Friday lunchtime at a public inn that includes an alcoholic drink. If I'm legally permitted to drive my car after one beer then I'm surely capable of continuing my work at a desk with a laptop (I didn't drive actually, I never do when I've had a little drink, it's just not worth it, even if the law says I'm allowed). You, and this in conjecture, might see the act of enjoying an inebriating beverage and returning to work totally insensible? This could be imposed expectations from a society that largely frowns upon the idea. Relativism.

These are minor variations. Consider a far flung country such as Japan, where 14 hour working days, 7 days a week, for an average wage, are not unexpected in some industries. I would balk at such an ethic. I work to enjoy my life, not live to work. Very different expectations of unacceptable behaviour. People can be fearful of such unsettling differences and treat the other as 'crazy', where in fact it's just different. Personally I find some of the more extreme cultural acceptances in some countries to be interesting, fascinating even. It nurtures a need to travel and experience other people's worlds. I know a Lithuanian couple in my town and some of the stories they tell us of their home country make me recoil. Their accepted world is so very different from mine.

Spoiler

I'm rambling - I can be stopped by invoking "Be Quiet, Fool" on the "Thoric" instance...

[JÞB]

Ben wrote..

Picture an image of entire society of "Jesus's" running around. Would you expect a need for police in that socierty? I would not. So I lean toward the line of thoght that with the members of a group exibiting self discipline the need for exteranlly applied laws goes away.

---

OK I'll jump on that one since it triggers me in theological and philosophical thought processes...

Let me repeat  the need for externally applied laws goes away. That, I believe was the point.  Previous laws in the society that Jesus ran around in were very much externally supplied (Written in stone by the more reliable accounts).  Paul's letters to Timmothy might make the point with more clairity than I would be able to duplicate here.

As "Disciples" (those with self-discipline) we internalize a pattern of thought that is not instinctive, but taught, and it changes our behavior.  Therefore, the force resulting in the action leading to the reaction of change in behavior is external to the system being acted upon (the self).  Yes, it has been my experience that I have observed that human behavior seams to follow Newton's Laws. 

"Free Will" and "Freedom" are concepts where we accept (internalize a change to ourselves) that any individual can reject or internallize a moral code.  But, those codices are necessarilly sourced from an external originator.  If that originator is "Perfect" the moral code will also be "Ideal",  we call that "Good"  The  "Evil" which opposes it must stem from imperfections.  

Its an imperfect world ladies and gentlemen.....but, read my sig line for how I think it will all work out in the end.

[Intaris]

@Ben.

You know I respect you greatly but our world Views are completely diametrically oppsed to eachother.

If morality is god-given and a lack of religion leads to disharmony then how can you simultaneously plead that removing all externally applied laws is beneficial.  Your two statements contradict each other.

Ben Wrote: 😎 Mandate study of the constituion and the bill of right a requirment for high-school graduation. Ensure the first is understood as "Freedom OF religion" NOT "Freedom FROM religion". The lack of a moral standard in society has set us adrift in an amoral sea. Even if indivuals choose not to steer by the moral standard God brings to a socierty, at least there is a refence.

This is offensive to me because you're basically saying that no matter what I do you cannot treat me as a moral person.  And of course the freedom of religion is also a freedom from religion if one so wishes.

Shane.

[Ben]

---

@Intaris wrote:

@Ben.

You know I respect you greatly but our world Views are completely diametrically oppsed to eachother.

If morality is god-given and a lack of religion leads to disharmony then how can you simultaneously plead that removing all externally applied laws is beneficial.  Your two statements contradict each other.

Ben Wrote: 😎 Mandate study of the constituion and the bill of right a requirment for high-school graduation. Ensure the first is understood as "Freedom OF religion" NOT "Freedom FROM religion". The lack of a moral standard in society has set us adrift in an amoral sea. Even if indivuals choose not to steer by the moral standard God brings to a socierty, at least there is a refence.

This is offensive to me because you're basically saying that no matter what I do you cannot treat me as a moral person.  And of course the freedom of religion is also a freedom from religion if one so wishes.

Shane.

---

I Shane I value a difference of opinion to help keep me sharp (As face answereth to face and iron answereth to iron, so does a man tryeth words. Ben's translation, we bounce our ideas of others to see how they sound and fix as indicated).

Re: If morality is God given...

I initended to say that the bilbe provides A standard. Even a standard provided by the Flying Spagetti monster is still a standard. Look at what LV code used to look like before Christian provied a standard that we can look at as a reference. No we don't all adhere to Christian's style but for some of us, the images of good looking code cross our minds as we drop ugly stuff.

I have come to learn that there is a fundemental difference between the US looks at the term "Religeous Freedom" and France. In the US the term has been understood as allowing the expresion of faith while in France it is understood as a state where we are not exposed to faith. How does this compare with you?

I can still respect you as a moral person without having to lay a a rule like "You must bow down to my magic sky god and...". I suspect from reading your post you have no disagreement with the basics of morality that has been around since the bigining of recorded history "Don't seal, Don't murder..."

As to the "offensive" statement. I believe you are a moral person.

Re: Religion

I am not a religious person. I am often catagorized as such because I speak of God often. I do not call myself religious becuase there is no religion that I have found that is consistent with my persoanl relationship with "my magic sky god". Whet I share regarding God are my own thoughts developed while growing my relationship with him. It is a personal relationship and no worldy organization can tell me I am right or wrong. As such I am 100% responcilbe for getting it right and no others. That being said...

I looked at the stories past to me (via the bible or the Dev Exchange or whatever) and try to learn what I can. THe history of Abraham is one to take note of when I am looking for how religion is involved with our relationship with God. Abraham is reportedly called "God's friend" while not being a member of any religion. So that story tells me at least one man had a relationship with God and did not require regiousity to do so.

In today's world we have mixed up the meaning of words such that it easy to not fully understand others that use different meanings. Religion is one of thoes words. legally speaking in the US you need an organization for it to be concidered a religion. But the world religion can also mean "the expresion of faith" which is what I understand as being protected by the 1st ammendment.

ANother trmapling of words...

Shooter

The Fort Hood Shooter the Sandy Hook shooter.... etc.

I am a shooter. I am not a mass murderer. Those incidents are not "shootings" they are masacres. By using the word "shooter" the mass media is working to cast responcible "shooters" in the same group as murderers.

Enough babling, good morning all!

Ben

[Intaris]

@Ben,

Ensure the first is understood as "Freedom OF religion" NOT "Freedom FROM religion". The lack of a moral standard in society has set us adrift in an amoral sea.

This seems to irrevocably tie in religion with morality.  Or have I simply misunderstood?

In case I have understood your meaning: How does one being free from religion lead to a lack of moral standard?  This point I very strongly take issue with.

Shane.

[Ben]

---

@Intaris wrote:

@Ben,

Ensure the first is understood as "Freedom OF religion" NOT "Freedom FROM religion". The lack of a moral standard in society has set us adrift in an amoral sea.

This seems to irrevocably tie in religion with morality.  Or have I simply misunderstood?

In case I have understood your meaning: How does one being free from religion lead to a lack of moral standard?  This point I very strongly take issue with.

Shane.

---

OK, sorry my bad!

Those two statements one after the other were confusing! I would have been beter of listing those a seperate bullet points. While I believe both statements, I did not and do not claim that morality is the sole domain of religion.

Thanks for pointing that out!

Ben