ReadyToBe
6/2/2015 21:59 EST
Brian,
Forgive my delay in responding. I have been very busy.
>"Families work. Communism doesn't work."
>I agree. Not saying otherwise.
I disagree. Not trying to be mean, but your post that I was responding to smacks of left wing idealism, where the
whole world will work together for the greater happiness of all. I don't think the world works that way."
"I disagree" I assume you are not disagreeing with your original statement so therefore I will assume you are calling me a liar. I'm sure you are calling me a liar in a nice (but rather presumptuous) manner in that I am not intentionally lying
but simply confused and that in your wisdom you know me better than I do. I take no offense and in fact welcome your concern (please everyone take note of this) and efforts.
Where did I say or imply that families do not work or that "Communism" does work? I didn't. That is a matter of fact,
which I assume you know which is why you have not offered any evidence to the contrary. "Left wing idealism" eh? Do you care to define that term or offer any evidence to justify bludgeoning me with it?
I can't resist noting (in the hope of adding some common sense but at the risk of further fueling nonsense), that a family is a communal enterprise, as is a loose knit community (coincidence that 2 letters separate the words?), as is farming, as is procreation, as is life, and so on (as is this commun-ication between us). I am not a "Communist" nor do I think "Communism" works in the Marx, Soviet, etc. ideology. I have no problem with unity, community and communing and truth be told neither do you
and it doesn't make eiter one of us Joe Stalin. Only a hermit should be able justify branding someone who advocates any form of
communal action a "Communist" without being considered an honest fool or a calculating, slanderous fool.
I prefer to deal at the
level of common sense and in political terms "Communism", "Capitalism", "Socialism", "Fascism" and most "isms" are a bunch of nonsense and how could they be otherwise? Government is a bunch of nonsense and these various ideologies are probably purposefully concocted to distract and confuse people and dull their common sense (some careful investigation into the men and times that spawned these ideologies and gained by them since surely wont lead you to certainty of the opposite). There are and were people somewhere who thought "Communism" worked, "Fascism" worked, and "Socialism" worked well, together and for their purposes, which is why they funded its rise in Russia,
Germany and the U.S. and created a great big genocidal, family wrecking, and society wrecking and reshaping world war. Part of this, it seems likely, is to frame options - as this is the the most subtle and effective way to control people's thought and action. Think of Democrats
and Republicans in the US (For non USians these are the 2 political parties in the USA) and the way all "issues" are framed in the USian media. There is no reason to think the "isms" are any different. If you don't like the dominant "socialism/capitalism/democracy" then you must
choose "communism" or "fascism." Of course the example of "communism" is a murderous tyranny and the example of "fascism"
is a murderous tyranny and therefore you should appreciate the murderous tyranny that is "socialism/capitalism/democracy" because
it is the only "moderate" option and changing it means the gulag or the gas chamber. Its a thing of terrible beauty: if you work with people and show compassion you are a communist, if you attempt to lead people you are a fascist and so you are left with the option of being weak and alone. Forget "isms". You don't want to be at the mercy of a murderous tyranny but you also don't want to be weak and alone.
Truth be told, the source of problems is not "isms." Take a common sense look at the world. All people want what is in their own best interest.
Best interests can be complicated or confused in the human mind. This can happen to the point of a person's (and/or a people's) perceived best interest not being their actual best interest. The source of problems is relatively simple: their are a small minority of persons whose perceived (and perhaps actual)
best interest is best served by having the vast majority of people act against their own actual self interest; and because all people want what is in their own best interest there must be a vast, complicating and confusing pseudo reality to keep the majority from acting in their own actual self interest. My purpose in offering my observations is in trying to understand what our actual individual and collective best interests are and hoping that others might be
willing to help me.
Since we are here: liberal and conservative = dumb. A liberal believes in freedom? Which in practice means regulating everyone and everything.
A conservative believes in conservation? Which in practice means destroying everything. The last 100 years of work by liberals and conservatives has brought the least amount of freedom in human history and the near impossibility of living how humans had previously lived. What are ideologies?
Who creates them? For what purpose? Political ideologies serve a political ruling group. A political ruling group is
created by concentrating power in the hands of few. If you aren't in that group then political ideologies will never serve you.
"where the whole world will work together for the greater happiness of all."
When exactly did I say this? I didn't. You have repeatedly claimed I have said this but I have not.
Some more common sense: The "happiness" of all may not be the point anyways (depending on how you define happiness in this context).
All of nature "works" (not like in a factory but in the sense of success) together for the eternal life of nature. That doesn't mean that every creature knows it or needs to know it, though many humans (because of various corruptions or other reasons) may. It is not forced except by the creator/limits of the system and it came about, and continues to at every moment, organically. Every creature is working together for the greater life of all, whether that be a legume partnering with bacteria to make nitrogen available for other plants and creatures or it be a baby bird pushing its sibling from the nest to certain death. You could then question whether this is true of all human activity or not. That is quite the question. To me it is a question best answered
at the individual level. All creatures I think seek eternal life (perceived in one form or another) and I think it is pretty
clear in both religious and scientific thought that "working" together is the only means of achieving it. I should like to think that enough observation and/or study combined with contemplation would lead individuals to this path and every example will make such a reality that much more obvious and then humans can join the rest of the whole world in naturally (organically
and individually) working in the factory of eternal life. The big mental trap for people (in all degrees of awareness) is
getting past the deeply and subtly implanted lies to realize that such a way of being should not mean sacrifice and misery but happiness and prosperity.
>"Human nature means people tend to take care of their own at
>the expense of everyone else."
>This is far from fact.
"Again, i disagree. Even charitable people take care of their families first. And the resources that were used to take care of their family weren't available for complete strangers. This doesn't mean that people can't do incredibly selfless acts.
And sometimes people do things that go against human nature. But if you look at the average human, he'll take care of
himself and his family before helping anyone else."
Ok. To be clear I am not saying that people do not take care of their own. Nor am I saying that if you are forced to choose between my child starving or yours, you will not choose to feed your own. People in faminous areas have been known to eat
their own children (or trade children with their neighbors to avoid the stigma of eating their own). I now am assuming that this is what
you meant by your original statement. If you read your own original statement it is not clear that this is what you meant.
I took your statement for,
and therefore was disputing, the idea that nature dictates that taking care of your own must come at the expense of others.
That said, why reduce this to an extreme, artificial scenario in which it is me or you? When did I ever say you should give everything
you have to others or at your own expense? Perhaps you were reading the bible when reading my comments and got confused
about who said what or you find it more convenient to label me "leftist, idealist, communist, family hating...blah blah" than
someone else (you will have to forgive my bluntness or sharpness here but I think it needed to be said and I don't have the time to sugarcoat it)?
For the record, though I don't disagree with your statement in the context, talking about the "average human" is quite dangerous.
There is no way you or I have encountered enough of the billions of humans to begin to comprehend the average human.
The "average human" where I live probably thinks "we liberated Iraq," the economy is improving, hosing down your self and your environment
with chemicals makes you clean and healthy, Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack, and taking your kids to McDonalds is doing something
nice for them. I doubt these views are the average everywhere
(certainly the average Iraqi parent does not agree with the first or the third). The average human where you live may think
the USA is the promised land. Point being: "average human", how do we know and why do we care? If we think we know and
we make our decisions based on that then how long until we are long gone into delusion (trying to build truth on an unverified
and likely false foundation)?
"There's also difference between working together and giving with the assumption that you'll never get something in return.
You give to the person in need. You don't give away everything you have to the first thief to come along."
I didn't respond to this originally because I didn't think it was necessary and I wasn't exactly sure why you were stating
the obvious. I now am concerned that you are making statements and attempting to attribute the contrary to me (in your own
mind and to other readers) which is discrediting me and distracting from what I have actually said. So now, let
me say that there is a difference between taking on some people to work for/with you in a mutually beneficial arrangement
and being Karl VI Mao Il Stalin Marx aka the scourge of all families and bankrupter of all God fearing men aka a foolish,
naive, leftist, idealist. There is also no reason to jump to the conclusion that giving some people this opportunity will
in every circumstance end with you not getting something in return. The best for last, again I have never, ever said you
should give away everything you have or even anything you have. You cant stop there though, you have to imply not only do
I want you to give away everything you have but avoid people in need in favor of a thief (the first thief, no less)? Or maybe
you are just stating the obvious? In which case, thank you for that valuable information and let me advise you: you use a
contained small fire to boil water. You don't pile all of your belongings into your house, set it on fire and climb up a
ladder and hold the kettle over the roof.
"LOL, I assure you a 4 year old boy will share his food or toys with his 2 year old sibling before a random stranger. Also,
we're talking about adult behavior here, not children."
Much laughter indeed, I have children. Not always the case, wouldn't even say it is the case a majority of the time. If you
recall there is big campaign (in the USA) to train children to avoid and fear strangers. Again, I think our difference here was a miscommunication.
As far as talking about adult behavior, you may be talking about that now, but my response if you read it and your original
comment that prompted it was about "human" behavior. Children are humans, the most uncorrupted humans. My point is that adult behavior is not as
accurate a representation of human nature because it is corrupted by various influences over the years - that is also in the
bible.
I am curious: I assume you do not believe in evolution (correct?), do you believe in survival of the fittest?
">in the context we are speaking has to conform to the "nature of
>life" which is collaborative.
??? This isn't making a lot of sense to me. I think some creatures in nature collaborate and others don't."
We are not talking about some creatures or others but rather life as a whole. Look at your own body: your stomach
and foot don't obviously or directly work together to digest food but still are cooperating members of the whole.
The nature of the part has to conform to the nature of the whole.
I assume you know this but I will say it for anyone who may not and because I think it is helpful in answering your "???".
Separation is an illusion. Our eyes and brains separate
things. The empty space between us and objects is not really empty. If you are holding a pen, your eyes and brain make
the distinction of where the pen ends and your hand begins, at a more finite level it is impossible to tell. At a microscopic level
there is no clean edge to your body - it is a blur of vapors and particles. Your body is also not at all permanent -
obviously we will all die and our bodies will decompose and recompose as other "things" - your body may, as you perceive it, have a relatively
fixed form while you are "alive" - even in this fixed form there is no permanence. If i recall the numbers correctly, most
of your body (99% i believe) is rebuilt within a year and all of it is rebuilt within 5 years - think of your hair and skin
and respiration for the obvious visual examples and the fact that the human body is largely fluid but realize this is constantly
happening in your entire physical being just as it is constantly happening in other living things. What made up "your body" 5
years ago could be "my body" now or any number of other "things".
If your eyes and brain functioned at an atomic level many of the presumed facts of life would be obviously incorrect.
Look at the big picture, my friend. Life goes on - it is one big collaboration. An acorn gets eaten by a squirrel but
another gets planted by the same squirrel. A rabbit gets eaten by a coyote but others survive and have more forage. The coyote gives milk to pups, defecates
and dies and both feed the soil, which feeds the plants that the rabbit eats. Interactions like this are constantly occurring,
those you can see and those you can not. Life is bigger and smaller than individual creatures (please
don't assume I am saying this to devalue individual creatures or telling you to sacrifice yourself or your family) meaning no
individual creature can live without others - you need the plants for oxygen and they need you for co2 - those fruit trees of
yours feed you so that you will scatter their seed. You should mix in some study of ecology, into your other studies - i have
found it incredibly valuable (like you, i'm guessing, I like to study politics, history, philosophy, religion and practical
living, for me ecology was very helpful in understanding and unifying the lot - beware though and contemplate carefully as there are a lot of liars and kooks in
the mix - both left and right). Fukuoka's "The Natural Way of Farming" and Robert Hart's "Forest Gardening" and "Beyond the
Forest Garden" are 3 of my personal favorites which are kind of a blend of ecology, agroforestry, and sustainable (in the peasant
sense not the phony sense) philosophy - they are well written, entertaining, informative both practically and philosophically
and quick reads. I would be happy to tell you more if you are interested.
"You breathe oxygen, plants breathe carbon dioxide - it doesn't
>really get more basic than that.
We're not collaborating with the plants the way a pack of wolves might for example. They're consuming what they need and
producing waste products, and so are we."
Now, I don't understand. I assume you mean we're not collaborating with plants the way one wolf collaborates with
another wolf? In one sense you are correct, in other senses you are not. "Consuming" and "waste" are one way of looking
at what is happening. The danger is it can suggest a linear design when nature is cyclical. Why is your fecal matter or
urine considered waste instead of your contribution to the system or a part of the self contained system of life? Is
the flesh of your peaches waste? When you eat that flesh are you consuming it or merely modifying it and transferring its energy? There
is a great book called "Farmers of 40 Centuries" by FH King detailing the farming practices in China, Japan and Korea prior to industrialization
by which these people were able to support large populations by intensively farming the same plots. Farmers there were
very eager to get fecal matter, so much so, that they would build nice outhouses along the road and even compete with each
other to entice the traveler. There is no waste, not in nature. The living creatures on earth can in fact be viewed as
one organism (check out Dr. James Lovelock's work for more on that) but either way we are certainly all collaborating to
create more and more life. If you are not aware of this it will be hard for you to understand my thinking.
"That's the difference between what you're saying and what W
>is saying."
>Respectfully, it is not. You are jumping to a conclusion that I
>am saying something which I have not and am not.
"Sorry, I think you have a really distorted view of the world."
Yes, "[you] think" which is why you are "jumping to a conclusion." Do you care to elaborate? Presumably then you know
what my view of the world is? Also then you know the correct view of the world? Perhaps you would be gracious enough
to share? (using ambiguous, vague and broad terms like communist, leftist idealist, etc. to bludgeon me is not really effective
- perhaps stop ignoring what I have actually said and offer me your (rightly) famous line by line correction - that is what I was
hoping for - if my reasoning is faulty I would like to know, genuinely). The fact is you could not know what my view of the world
is and if you did at a point (which you clearly do not) my view is ever changing (like everyone else's). Personally I don't think
a "view of the world" is terribly important to more specific questions that we are (or should be) discussing. Specifics should
inform a world view not vice versa.
"I'm saying that the world is full of people like that. And to think that you can collaborate with people like that to make
the world a better place is utterly absurd. It's this line of thinking that makes some people say that if thieves just had
better economic opportunities, then they wouldn't be thieves. And while this might be true for the poor guy stealing food
to feed his family, it certainly doesn't apply to the bankers who have billions and continue to steal more and more anyway.
Humans have a sinful nature. And people without a moral compass embrace that nature rather than fight it"
Who suggested collaborating with "people like that"? You did. I didn't. I suggested collaborating with good people (or those
with a moral compass whichever you prefer) who
may not afford to be able to do what you are doing alone (in other words: your natural allies). The logic being that you could gain from them directly and they
could gain from you. Not at your expense but by creating more. The further logic being that good people who can not afford
to buy their way to a good life will be forced to collaborate with the bankers' world and then instead of you gaining from
the good people the bankers will.
Also if you believe the bankers are motivated by money (careful, that is dangerously close to a marxist theory of history
- which for the record I do not share with you) then logically better economic opportunities would also apply to the bankers.
It doesn't make the bankers any better or justify the behavior but if money is all that matters and the bankers had the
opportunity to wash your feet for trillions or steal from you for billions it seems logical that they would choose the
honest option (again, I don't share your marxist view of the world - i am going by your logic here).
I'm not sure I agree with you that humans have a sinful "nature." I'm not sure that Jesus would either. If humans come from
a creator who is Perfection then how could their nature be sinful? The nature of society maybe. I don't think I would
say the world is "full" of people like that either. I can agree that there are many and their ranks are swelling. I can agree
that it is absurd to think you can collaborate with people like that to make the world a better place (THIS IS PRECISELY MY POINT).
Can you agree that if people who are not like that (decent people) are forced into collaboration with people
who are like that (corrupt people) on the terms of corrupt people then the decent stand a good chance of being corrupted by corrupt people and
will most certainly be strengthening corrupt people (i.e. making the world a worse place i.e it "is absurd")?
>"You'll give to them because you're a nice person hoping they'll
>give back. But really, they'll take and take and take from you and
>never give back. This is reality."
"Of course there are exceptions."
So in other words you were exaggerating a tiny bit? Maybe "never" isn't precisely reality? Or "exceptions" aren't real?
(I'll be generous and allow the use of "exceptions" in favor of "evidence to the contrary" or "proof that you are wrong".)
"Evil people are accidentally good sometimes. And good people are accidentally evil sometimes.
But the only safe view is the cynical view."
I would like to think that people begin as good and accidentally become evil but otherwise i agree. My question (and it
was always a question) is whether the cynical view is as safe as we might be inclined to assume? I don't mean give to the
"first thief" or partner up with evil. I mean that cynicism in this case seems to logically be leading all of us to be weaker
in the long run. I try not to be a cynic but I am certainly a very healthy skeptic and I apply that across the board.
It is tricky because on the one hand nobody gains from being ruined in the short term and that is a valid concern but on
the other hand if we (the decent people) are so cynical that we don't help each other as a safety rule then it seems
likely that we are all on a slow road to ruin. We have all seen that in the USA culture, right?
Also, a point of common sense: If the only safe view is a cynical view you can not be selectively cynical. You need
to apply that same cynicism to your own concept of safety which you have derived from cynicism. You should also apply
your cynicism to your belief in cynicism and then to the idea that safety, or safe views exist. It reminds of the
elementary school idea of "opposite day" where everything is opposite - what is the opposite of opposite day?
"We improve our odds by choosing only to work with christians in certain situations.
But even that's not enough sometimes."
Don't I know it, brother. It can sometimes be hard to even have a friendly conversation with christians. They sometimes
even mistake you for a communist.
Seriously though, I am not disputing that people can be difficult to work with but
rather that all of us with a common interest should identify and refine that interest clearly and work together to formulate a way that
is not so difficult or dangerous. The reason I decided to comment was because I don't think logically that being opposed to the
thought of collaboration is as "safe" or as "logical" as you and others maintain. I'm simply trying to balance your concerns (for example:
you could fall into a well, people have - a well is a dangerous thing - but to conclude that avoiding wells is the only safe thing may
not be advisable when you consider dying of thirst. A fire could burn down your house, fires are dangerous but to concluded that avoiding
fires in the home is safe may not be advisable when you are freezing to death). If you, W or anyone else is determined to go it alone, then so be it.
I wish you all well. I strongly believe you have a right to do what you please with your own lives. My concern is that I do not believe you have the
right to confuse others with unbalanced logic in doing so. My hope is that if my logic is faulty you would correct me and
if it is not then we might consider ways in which we can all increase our individual prosperity and safety in a manner
which offers the least risk and most reward.
">More importantly I can imagine the possibility of an arrangement
>that accounts for the positive aspects of "human nature" AND the
>negative and makes it in the interest of the individual to give
>back.
In the context of going in together on a property, I don't see how that's possible here"
It may not be. You seem well informed but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it is automatically impossible
(i'm not saying it is possible). I don't know the laws. You have certainly raised some valid concerns. What about
a trust? What about a lord of the manor/lease type arrangement? What about a religious community like a mission or a monastery?
What if you employed expats on visas (no BPS) as volunteers and provided them with a bit of food and a little spot to build
a cob cottage? What if you employed natives as volunteers and gave them (not paid them) a share of what they produced? Could you use some
type of well drafted legal release to protect everyone? What is the harm in
exploring the possibilities (in the realm of thought)?
"As I said before, there's a difference between giving to those in need not expecting anything in return, and giving
everything you have to the first thief to come along, or liquidating everything you have so you can hand it out to
the homeless. You would be a better steward of what God has give you to create a place that can sustain people, then
use it to sustain as many as you can on an ongoing basis. Over time, you would help more people. But this doesn't
mean inviting all those people in on the deal up front"
I agree mostly. I do recall something about giving everything you have to gain much more (i'm not saying you should do
that, I haven't, but that is what Jesus advocated). I agree that you can perhaps better give by creating a place to
sustain people but it is a treacherous road. It is much easier to give all you have in the sense that you can not be
in error then nor be tempted to greed. There is also the fact that by collaborating with other decent people you can
create a better place and sustain more people. Also, if we are all trying to escape the "nanny state" I'm not sure it is
wise to aspire to be a miniature nanny state - isn't that logic the problem in the USA - people want to be able to do for
themselves to meet their needs instead of being helpless and having their needs decided for them).
Personally, I am a decent person I hope. God has given me a great deal but not money. I think part of what God has given
me is "no money" as a gift, i have gained a great deal of wisdom and decency by having little money. What I can't seem to do
yet is find that place to create or strengthen. It is difficult in a world where others do not see the value in those without
money in a practical manner or don't see what they have to gain by collaborating.
Helping people without money or homes should be seen by those with as an opportunity not a burden (I don't mean "opportunistically" in
the predatory sense). It is good to be charitable but
the best way to be charitable is by offering someone without a home and food the means of creating a home and food. If carefully done
the giver can practically receive more than they have given, while the recipient can prosper and give in return, and so on. The giver
will additionally have the loyalty and gratitude of any decent recipient. I recognize that the way in which "charity" is handled at an
institutional and increasingly cultural level has created a mentality amongst many poor people that they are both entitled to charity and
that the charitable by nature of their ability to give should be held in contempt (and thus do not deserve gratitude, loyalty or even respect).
There is also an unwillingness, bread largely by this system, to do anything but collect charity. Those without need to also view themselves
as having something to offer rather than simply being a drain. Of course there is also a minority of the poor who are regardless
of circumstance going to take advantage and do not seek opportunity or value themselves or others - this is a small percentage.
I agree that "this doesn't mean inviting all those people in on the deal up front" and further that those who are obviously not willing or
able (due to attitude) to reciprocate should be invited in on any deal at any time. For people that are it should also not mean all up front.
My thought would be something gradual and organically arising where the giver can meet a need they might have or the giver might consider what
opportunities they are not exploiting/resources they are not adequately putting to use but could with the help of others and then seek decent
people to fill these voids.
">My point that you both missed or chose to ignore yourselves is
>that your haven of safety is an illusion.
I assume you'll be leaving your doors unlocked tonight then?"
Haha, actually yes I will. Even if I locked the doors, I wouldn't think that someone couldn't kick them in, or break
one of the many windows or set my house on fire, or shoot right through the walls. Actually, I am far more concerned at
present with legal criminals. I understand you, obviously with in reason
safer is better hence my desire to get out of this country asap and find my own haven of relative safety. Do you
understand my point? The mess up here in the northern hemisphere is spreading. It wasn't that long ago that you could
find a haven of safety in areas of the USA and at the current rate it wont be that long before it is hard to find or maintain
in Uruguay. I am just trying to balance your cynicism a little and note that though there is a risk in collaborating with
other decent people there is also a risk of not collaborating and losing those decent people. To continue the biblical,
burying your talent in the ground is not advised.
">By ignoring the rest of
>humanity that would work with you, are you not strengthening
>what you think you are defending against?
"Not really.
It's absolutely common sense to protect yourselves from those who mean to do you and your family harm. This is true
whether it's a thief who wants to rob your house, or a partner who manipulates your land deal to take advantage of you"
I agree with you. The thing is that I would not define someone doing you and your family harm, robbing you, taking
advantage of you, etc. as someone that "would work with you." You are missing my point. Let me be clearer: I don't mean
the entire rest of humanity but rather the decent people that could gratefully and by choice give you their labors and their production rather than
by force or in desperation give it to those who mean to do you and your family harm. There are plenty of people, in the USA at least, who are decent
but are forced to be indecent to make a living (i don't mean selling crack and robbing old ladies - i mean working for the
corporations, the government, etc.).
>I wish you the best. You are truly an inspiration. For my part I
>want to make that choice as well. At the moment my options are
>not as broad. For those where choice is an option, I assume they
>would want to make an informed choice. For those where choice
>is not an option, the only option becomes digging in to defend
>one's family by slaving in a system and giving their energy,
>production and earnings to a system that will use it to attack
>families (mine and yours). That is most people who fall into the
>no choice category. Wouldn't it be great if you could give them a
>choice? Wouldn't that be the best if not only way to truly defend
>your family? Maybe you can and maybe you can't. To avoid
>looking for a way in which you can and discouraging others to
>do so is not in your best interest, at least as I see it.
"You're giving me a headache."
Why? Do me a courtesy and read this again:
"For those where choice
>is not an option, the only option becomes digging in to defend
>one's family by slaving in a system and giving their energy,
>production and earnings to a system that will use it to attack
>families (mine and yours). That is most people who fall into the
>no choice category."
Do you understand this or not? Is it logical?
"Look, you can't save the entire world."
Again with this? When did I ever say anything about saving the entire world?
Some common sense: Look, YOU can't save YOURSELF if the entire world is lost.
"But you can grown food on your farm to feed your family (thus avoiding slaving in the system)
and help feed the homeless."
I don't have a farm... so unfortunately I can't. The key to what I am saying is slaving in the system means slaving for
the system. What is for the system is against those outside the system.
For others it might look like this: You can work for a big box store, you can buy gmo bread, you can help the chemical giants get larger, you
can count on them circling Brian's family farm eventually and poisoning the food he grows, the seed stock of that food, his water supply and his
family directly. (I am truly sorry to say this. I don't wish it on you and I hope it isn't the case. Its happened across the U.S., its happened
in the Amazon, its happened in Oaxaca, in remote valleys in Nepal, and on and on. There is no place safe it would seem and no place sacred.) I'm curious,
if you recognize this, which I assume you do, then what is your solution? All I am saying is that as clearly obvious as it is that accelerating this
process of your own destruction is not a good plan it should be equally obvious that family farms in themselves are weak. They will coerce your descendents out
and if that doesn't work they will force them out (by law, economics, poison, or worse).
"Would you invite those homeless people
to your house to eat and stay at your place? That would be a nice
thing to do for them. What if after two months, the homeless people
went to the BPS office and lied claiming they were working on your
farm, and you didn't pay them? Do you want to take that risk? I don't."
I wouldn't. I don't blame you. To be clear we are not talking about people who are necessarily homeless, but rather people who are "farmless" or "landless" or
"Uruguay-less." People who are "homeless" in the sense that they rent or do not own their homes outright or have enough equity to profit from sale. People who
can not afford (or not confidently afford) to individually come from another place and start a homestead in Uruguay but if they were to collaborate with others could
do so (people for whom if costs, skills, labor, knowledge, etc. were combined and given value could confidently afford and create or contribute to a strong homestead).
"So I'll continue to provide them with food and clothing where they are,
while encouraging the government to make soup kitchens and homeless shelters.
You see?"
Admirable. BPS sounds like a real disaster. Nothing wrong with trying to think of other options is there? Haha soup kitchens?
homeless shelters? careful there FDR you are starting to sound like a socialist. (kidding)
"Make a safe place for your family, then help people from a distance."
Not everyone as an individual has that luxury. Some don't because they are practically hopeless, others just lack opportunity. That is one of the lessons of poverty.
Your place can be made safer by a group, your capacity for helping people can grow and your opposition can be weakened, that is all I am saying (not give it
all away, or get "screwed" by BPS or swindlers, not proceed without caution, not guaranteed in any circumstance).
"And if an American needs a place to stay, no problem. Because they're not part
of the system and culture that thinks it's ok to screw people."
Can you pick me up at the airport? Or just give me your address. (kidding - maybe...)
"Friendly maybe, but certainly not practical from a safety point of view."
I hope you understand me at this point - there is short term safety and long term safety - i'm not saying you should sacrifice either -
i am saying that you and I can never really be safe. I have just spent more time than I have to give responding to this. I hope you
at least read it and somebody grasps what I am saying. As I have said, my mind is very much open and I was hoping to explore
some of these ideas. God bless you and your family. I think you are a decent man, no hard feelings, comrade.
Post a Reply
 0 0 abuse
|
abuse
