paul wheaton wrote:The first image shows two criminals.
The second image shows three criminals.
It sounds like somebody wishes to encourage crime?
"Curiously, there was no shortage of complaints that the kids were just freeloaders and should buy a ticket to be inside the stadium if they want to watch the game. Which, I think, entirely misses the point."
Marco Banks wrote:
In permaculture, we speak of abundance. We take the worst piece of land, invest sweat and time and treasure into that land, and build a system where it goes beyond productive to a point where we are able to give away a surplus beyond what we are able to consume ourselves. There is not underlying assumption of limited good. The sky is the limit. There are not just 3 boxes. There are an unlimited number of potential boxes, you just have to do the hard work to build them.
Marco Banks wrote:
To rephrase my bother's comment (that I quoted above): when someone argues, "We just want a slice of the pie", he would respond, "You mean you want a slice of my pie? Bake your own damn pie." I will help you, give you assistance, coaching, and support while you get your system up and running, but don't expect to eat from my fruit trees for the rest of your life. Plant your own trees. Invest in your own chickens. Bake your own pie. Build your own damn box.
Jocelyn Campbell wrote:
It is a crime to try to attend or watch something for free that requires a paid ticket.
Dan Boone wrote:
There are places where condo towers with balconies overlook professional ballparks and people routinely hold viewing parties on their own balconies; nobody considers that a crime because it isn't. It's just a leakage in the business model, not worth plugging because there's no practical way at reasonable expense.
Curiously, there was no shortage of complaints that the kids were just freeloaders and should buy a ticket to be inside the stadium if they want to watch the game. Which, I think, entirely misses the point.
Marco Banks wrote:So this old thread has resurfaced. I would imagine that future contributions to the thread will reflect those that have already been posted. There are two camps:
Camp 1: Inequity is the responsibility and fault of those who have, and their resources need to be redistributed to the have-nots to make things fair. Your prosperity is evidence that you have somehow taken something undeserved from me.
Camp 2: You can't blame people if they worked harder, sacrificed and built something better for themselves. Your choices matter. Individual responsibility matters. Take a look in the mirror, and stop blaming your problems on others. Be a maker, not a taker.
Camp 1: How can people be a "maker" when they don't have resources, access to capital, and are systemically kept down by the man when they try to get ahead?
Camp 2: Stay in school. Save a bit of your money. Stop making self-destructive choices. Don't create children you can't take care of (or intend to walk away from). Nobody is forcing you to make bad decisions so stop blaming "the man" for your lack of discipline.
Camp 1: You were born with more and that's unfair. We should establish a "fair" threshold and then tax anyone whose income is above that and give it to those below it. You were given everything you have -- born at the top of the strata. You didn't earn it.
Camp 2: Where is it written that life is fair? Work harder. I'm sorry if you didn't win the "genetic lottery", but my intelligence, strength and good looks are not something you should punish me for. Be angry at your dumb, weak and bad looking parents, but that's not my problem to fix. And who are you to say that I didn't earn what I have?
And from there, the two camps build a higher and higher wall between them, lobbing rhetorical bricks over it at one another.
There is truth to what both camps are saying. There is also a big blind spot inherent in each camps' perspective.
I don't imagine that this thread will change either of their perspectives.
Trace Oswald wrote:
I agree that this thread will probably not change the minds of people in either camp. This discussion has been going on through the ages, and probably always will. As for me, I'm pretty firmly planted in camp 2. Myself and my brothers came from pretty much nothing. We weren't raised in a family that encouraged college, and only one of four of us attended. My parents divorced when we were young children. No one in my family taught us about investing or saving, because they had no money to invest or save. In spite of that, and the fact that we chose different paths to get there, all of us have a very good standard of living and are what I would call successful. All of us have some things in common. We all worked hard, most of the time more than one job. None of us have $1200 cell phones or drive expensive cars. All of us live within our means and have some money put away. All of us own houses. One big difference I see between my brothers and I and a lot of people is that, for whatever reason, we never saw people that had more than we did as somehow having stolen from us or as owing us anything. I will never understand the point of view that because someone else is successful or has money, they somehow owe people that have less. I believe in sharing, and I believe people that have more can and should people that have less. I also believe it should be voluntary, and the people receiving should feel gratitude, not entitlement. I have 80 acres of land now. Lots of people have none. It took me until a couple years ago to get that land and I'm in the second half of my 50's. I don't feel any obligation whatsoever to people that don't have land because I scrimped and saved and worked my ass off to get mine.