Thread: Equality In Competiton Too?

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.

Wildtim, I don't think you're being honest. This is my post, which you were responding to.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

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?

So in your response, one of two things has happened. You either didn't fully read my post, which I find doubtful, considering you directly answered my question at the end...

Or you're backpedaling, because you realized how bad and, dare I say, "extermination"-like what you just said is.

That means you either haven't thought this through, and didn't realize how bad it was, or you have thought it through but you don't want to look bad. I really hope it's the former.

So no, we haven't missed the point. You've tried to dodge a bullet.

And besides, who makes the decision of who is "worth it" and whose not? A bunch of random townspeople with no education in human psychology, or in anything for that matter, since your model doesn't allow for competent advanced education?

Human psychology and physiology is a complicated thing, and things aren't always as they appear. Even if someone is lazy, that doesn't address why, nor does it address whether that gives you the right to ruin their lives. What gives you the right to harm another?

So you want to let a bunch of uneducated tribal people decide the true worth of other human beings.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

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.

I'm assuming this tribe it completely self-sustaining, because if it weren't, well, that would be hypocritical wouldn't it?

We already did. And you know what? People got sick of being uneducated, limited, subject to famine and tribal warfare, getting sick, trying to find the right god to beg for their lives when they're dying in labor...

We tried that. But there is only so far you can advance in a small closed system, and no, people don't always take care of their neighbors. Sometimes they kill them instead, and if you think you can change that, if think you can control the minds and actions of every single person on earth, then I'm sorry, but that is wishful thinking at best and delusion at worst.

Humans, by their very nature, want to advance. And at this point in time, we can only advance together.

If you want to start the tribe, go ahead. Sure you'll find people to join you. But I hope the UN keeps a close eye on you, and I doubt you'll make too many converts.

Also, have fun without the internet, clean water, proper schools, medicine, etc etc etc...

Because anything less than total self-sustenance, and you're being a parasite on the government that's supporting your static tribe, from whom it, and its members, gain nothing.