Thread: Equality In Competiton Too?

Originally Posted by northpaw

I see what you mean about this particular online community, but I think Mistress Nomad has a point about problems of scale in the real world. To take it to an extreme, things may work swimmingly in a commune-sized group of 20-100 people, but once you don't have any idea what the others are doing, people tend to feel more isolated (and therefore develop a "me and mine first" attitude).

After living abroad, I've noticed that this is even more true in extremely mobile societies like the US. The job opportunities we have and the resulting "freedom" of movement also means that many people don't know if the guy they spot walking down the street is some ne'er do well vagabond or the family man from two doors down who moved in a month ago. This may seem alien to those of you lucky enough to live in relatively stable communities, but it's becoming almost the norm in many parts of the country.

In other words -- and sadly -- even the smaller groups or social units you mentioned are much less prevalent and relevant than they used to be. As jobs become less secure and we move around more, we're becoming a society of strangers, and the less we can rely on informal social groups or innate social instincts *alone* to a) encourage good behavior, or b) provide for the helpless.

If you choose to cut yourself off and live a the lifestyle of nomadic hermit that is your choice. There are Fraternal organizations that are nationwide, there are churches with world wide scope there are international organizations that exist to provide a sense of home to those on the move. Being a member, or not is a choice that you make. Loneliness is optional, all it takes is a tiny bit of initiative to avoid it.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Where did I say anything about running a country.

Why do you persist in believing that it is a the governments job to take care of people.

It is not.

It is the community you belong to's job to take care of you.

It is the governments job to stay out of the way and protect the community and individuals right to exist, no more.

That is a form of government. Perhaps not the kind we associate with in our own nation state, but any form of organizing people through any means is a government, even if every person takes part in it.

But not every person will be willing or able to take part in it. That's the nature of human diversity. Eventually, you will have people who need more care than what they are able to give, for a variety of reasons - laziness is not the only reason.

So for people like that, what would you do? Kick them out of the community?

traditionaly, worldwide, yes. Once someone neither contributes through work or wisdom their role is the same as that of a parasite. They are no longer wanted by the group and need to go. Perhaps they can then find a more compatible group.

I don't care ho much care they need or why they need it if they aren't worth providing for they aren't a part of society they are just a drain on it. there is no reason to support them.

It isn't a government, a government implies rules, and formality that lacks in most comunity groups.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

traditionaly, worldwide, yes. Once someone neither contributes through work or wisdom their role is the same as that of a parasite. They are no longer wanted by the group and need to go. Perhaps they can then find a more compatible group.

I don't care ho much care they need or why they need it if they aren't worth providing for they aren't a part of society they are just a drain on it. there is no reason to support them.

It isn't a government, a government implies rules, and formality that lacks in most comunity groups.

So you think we should just get rid of the mentally challenged, physically handicapped, and severely mentally ill? How charitable of you.

Consider how many revolutionary scientists, artists, and mathematicians have fallen into one or several of those categories.

And consider that their genius can only be tapped by us making an effort to unlock it.

This is why the world has moved away from such a tribalistic view. Because it fails to account for the diversity of what humans have to give, and it degrades the worth of people who are atypical, simply because you don't understand them.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

traditionaly, worldwide, yes. Once someone neither contributes through work or wisdom their role is the same as that of a parasite. They are no longer wanted by the group and need to go. Perhaps they can then find a more compatible group.

I don't care ho much care they need or why they need it if they aren't worth providing for they aren't a part of society they are just a drain on it. there is no reason to support them.

It isn't a government, a government implies rules, and formality that lacks in most comunity groups.

OH Wildtim, please don,t go there! Consider this , the same people who brought in the "enableing act" were the same people who decided that non contributing people of the ilk described by Mistressnomad should be,how should I put it "relocated" Then it was people who didn,t agree with them, then it was people they just didn,t like.

Sometimes it is good to remember "BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD,THERE GO I"

Originally Posted by Wildtim

traditionaly, worldwide, yes. Once someone neither contributes through work or wisdom their role is the same as that of a parasite. They are no longer wanted by the group and need to go. Perhaps they can then find a more compatible group.

I don't care ho much care they need or why they need it if they aren't worth providing for they aren't a part of society they are just a drain on it. there is no reason to support them.

It isn't a government, a government implies rules, and formality that lacks in most comunity groups.

Wildtim,

With all respects but imho this might be ok on some level for volunteer social groups and small communities but there is a difference when such ideology becomes a law for the whole nation. It has been used and it is still in use on some parts of the world today. There are also names for such ideologies but it is needless to say these as i believe every fine gentleman and fine lady here knows what they are.
These ideologies have usually gone into ugly and sad results. At least better choose the right side when society starts getting rid of those people who are not useful or don't contribute anything.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

traditionaly, worldwide, yes. Once someone neither contributes through work or wisdom their role is the same as that of a parasite. They are no longer wanted by the group and need to go. Perhaps they can then find a more compatible group.

I don't care ho much care they need or why they need it if they aren't worth providing for they aren't a part of society they are just a drain on it. there is no reason to support them.

It isn't a government, a government implies rules, and formality that lacks in most comunity groups.

There is a serious flaw in this... Ultimately, relative to the most able person in the group everyone is weaker and is therefore a relative "parasite". If the weakest are eliminated, the next weakest become the absolute weakest and therefore must be eliminated. This will continue until there is only one person remaining.

Interestingly, even though I am refuting your statement, I support the idea behind the statement for the same reason. If people are not removed (which, for the reason noted above, if you're going to have a collective they shouldn't be) it works in reverse as well... Any collective is doomed to mediocrity. The lowest level people aren't as low as they otherwise would be, but the highest level people can't go as high as they otherwise would.

The sad part is that non of you are understanding this. Weakest has nothing to do with it. I said non-contributing. I have friends who support me and whom I support who are less physically or mentally able yet they still do what they can and are a part of the community. There are at the same time many able bodies people who are not a part of my community because they choose not to be. You don't have to make it the law you just have to let it happen, good people take care of their friends and neighbors. Unless the government creates an atmosphere of fear and resentment to put a stop to it.

Talk about missing the point geeze.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

The sad part is that non of you are understanding this. ... Talk about maiising the point geeze.

Perhaps in the future you could explain yourself more clearly so that us simpletons don't miss the point.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

If you choose to cut yourself off and live a the lifestyle of nomadic hermit that is your choice. There are Fraternal organizations that are nationwide, there are churches with world wide scope there are international organizations that exist to provide a sense of home to those on the move. Being a member, or not is a choice that you make. Loneliness is optional, all it takes is a tiny bit of initiative to avoid it.

Allow me to illustrate what I meant. There is an enormous difference between the following two scenarios (and their significance for such phenomena as 'taking care of others'):

A) I now live in what might be termed either a large neighborhood or small suburb of a 1+ million inhabitant metro area. This area is at least a square kilometer, and the buildings are packed pretty tightly. Within this neighborhood is a mixture of large and small apartment blocks. Almost all of the residents have lived *exactly* where they live now since childhood, and many of their parents also lived there, as well as some of their grandparents. My wife was born here, and she at least recognizes pretty much everyone we might run into on the street. Her mother knows most of them by name, or at least knows their families. Moreover, I've been *floored* at the way people throughout the entire city seem to be able to establish only 1, or maybe 2 degrees of separation. People here laugh about how everyone knows everyone else, one way or another.

B) Life almost anywhere in the US, except for very small towns.


The difference in how this affects people is drastic. Many here leave doors unlocked, violent crime is negligible, small children play outside without adults around (even at night!), neighbors pitch in with loans when someone gets renovations done, etc. I can't imagine such a thing in a city this size in the US.

I realize this is getting kind of off-topic, but I wanted to explain what I meant before about a society of strangers. You're right - membership in an international organization or fraternal group of some kind can help one keep from feeling lonely, but it's not even remotely close to the deep, unavoidable sense of community that happens naturally when people don't pull up roots and move around all the time.