From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Subject: Re: government still at large (was Re: FDA still at large)
Keywords: FDA, unconstitutional illegal action,single-issue blindness
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:44:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.154510.18229@apex.com> chuckh@apex.com (Chuck Huffington) huffs:
>In article <1992Jul25.180505.2817@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul24.063341.13871@apex.com> chuckh@apex.com (Chuck Huffington) huffs:
>>>In article <1992Jul23.185038.3415@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>>>>Another thing I've never liked is the concept and apparent necessity of having
>>>>to sell one's toil/time or the best part of one's life to others in order to
>>>>stay alive (or the other leg of the so-called "free choice": starve), an
>>>>inherently irreversible transaction.  In other words, "work sucks".
>>>
>>>You would prefer that someone else toil and spend the best part of
>>>their life so that you would not have to?
>>
>>This is such a pitiful rejoinder that, beyond this, I will not dignify it
>>with a reply.
>>
>None the less, I stand by it.  Would you care to explain what is wrong with it?

Sigh.  Your reply, which I took issue with, assumes that people who dislike
the institution called "work" just want to sponge off of others.  Well, I
disagree.  I think it's a pretty narrow view of what life is all about.
I would never obtain employment out of any sense of obligation to my fellow
human being for the very basic reason that I feel no such need to do so.
I might obtain employment for *reasons* *of* *my* *own*, but those reasons
would never be from the negative viewpoint that I would be a burden on
society if I didn't.  I do agree that the world does not *owe* me a living.
I also assert that I don't owe the world a damned thing, either, and I will
do my damnedest to wiggle out of any synthesized, phony "obligations" that
may get foisted on me by other's expectations of what *I* "owe" the world,
and by extension, them.

In another posting I went into this in greater detail, where I give a couple
of references.

>>>I have no problem with support of those who can not support themselves.
>>>But only on a private basis.  The cost of govt programs is too great.
>>
>>Do you have a problem with panhandlers on the street?  They are trying
>>on a private basis to support themselves.  Yet there are those who would
>>make such acts illegal.  It really sticks in some people's craw (usually
>>some "hard-working" mean-spirited Pioneer Square boutique owner or feather
>>merchant) to see somebody making a go of it panhandling (or trying to, at
>>any rate), and they want to fuck it up.
>
>I don't care for it, but I tolerate it, until it becomes aggressive.
>They have a right to beg, but no one can be required to support them.

So, what's the "required" bit?  Who's "requiring" anything from you?

From the tone of your posting, I gather that the cost of sweeping the
panhandlers off of the street would be one that you are willing to bear,
even if it's greater than the cost of just giving the panhandlers free
handouts.

The government is the most aggressive panhandler I know of.

>What service/goods are they selling?  Nothing.

Would you say that the work of somebody who takes a lumber company
over, and then starts felling old growth timber at a rapid rate in
order to pay off the debts incurred from the takeover, is being
"productive", and does *not* constitute a burden to their fellow
human beings?  Would you rate that human being as somehow more worthy
than the panhandler, because they are occupied with "work"?

>                                                They live on the good
>will of working people.

If you are an example, sounds like slim pickin's.

>                         The mean-spirited merchants pay a lot
>for store fronts.  If customers are kept away by aggressive panhandlers,
>I would expect them to be upset.

Perhaps so, but nobody promised them a rose garden, either.

>Have you ever offered food to a panhandler who has just asked for money
>"for a hamburger and coffee".  I did a couple of times.  It was a learning
>experience.  I would never do it again.  It's dangerous.

Maybe the guy didn't *want* the food you offered.  You didn't say what you
learned.  Maybe he did you a gross injustice.  It's pretty hard to tell
if you're Mother Teresa when you get all done up in redneck drag.  Who knows?
I can't tell from what you say, but it sounds like you have a nice
generalization waiting for us.

You sound like one of these guys that says "Get a haircut.  Get a job"
to street people as you are on your way with your wifeAndKid to the Mariners
game, and then freaks out when they react in a negative manner, maybe by
giving you the finger and saying, "fuck you, asshole".

Funny, I've never had any difficulties with panhandlers or getting menaced
on the street.  Sometimes I give them money, and sometimes not.  Could be
that said panhandlers see the chip on your shoulder, and being bored and
with noting to lose and not giving a shit, pull your chain.  That's what
chains are for, right?

Give ya a tip: *don't* take an arcade token and hold it over a Bic lighter
with a pair of long-nose, and then drop it into the panhandler's hand.
It makes them soggy and hard to light, not to mention ferociously riled. :)
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: sci.med