Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00322)

Randy wrote:

>1.  I agree it is moral and ethical to share and be more selfless.  The
issue
>is how is this accomplished.  Liberals think it's the state's job to
>redistribute the fruit of labor, to force everyone to be "moral" as the
state
>defines it.

Actually, most liberals think it is a national government task, not state.
The national government is not here to only preserve business opportunities
- which many conservatives and libertarians seem to believe - but to
preserve opportunites for ALL people and ensure the welfare of ALL people.
Business folk LOVE the government when it helps them, but jumps up and down
when government tries to pass laws that also help people who, for any
number of reasons, are enduring dangerous streets, run-down schools, lack
of medical care, and find nowhere to go when they become sick.

Corporate welfare - ok!  Human welfare - hell, no!  What hyposcrisy.

The universe does NOT consists of only business people and millionaires,
but of children, the uneducated, the infirmed, the elderly, the mentally
handicapped, the mentally ill, the oppressed, people of different talents,
people of different faiths besides capitalism, and on and on.

Libertarians tend to have a rather myopic view of humanity.  And if you
think that scrubwomen work any LESS harder than someone like Bill Gates,
you are sadly misinformed.  If the amount of work and toil should judge a
person's wealth, then janitors, nurses, social workers, childcare workers,
agricultural workers, and the like should be the millionaires of the world.
 But they are not. . .why is that?  Why do these people earn paltry wages?

Bill Gates got where he is because of OTHER people's ideas and work - do
you really think he thought of Windows 98, Access, etc. all by himself?
You ask why I believe Bill Gates has too much?  Because no millionaire or
billionaire ever got to where they are without the backbreaking work and
ideas of other people; yet, when the checks start rolling in, they act as
if it was their brain, and ONLY their brain, that has offered them this
windfall.  Business folks would be nowhere if the people did not buy their
products and did not work for them - the common folk can make or break
anyone in business.  However, both business advocates and even the common
folk have forgotten this.  For me, anyone who lives on this planet, and
especially the successful, OWE alot of people.

Those in business often whine about the uneducated people they now have
coming in to apply for jobs - well, did the business executives give
generously and of their time to their local schools in order to ensure that
students are given a broad and top-notch education?  Most did not; and of
those that did, it tends to be in the form of one or two scholarships for a
select few.  Well, now, because of greed and self-centeredness, business
people are beginning to reap what they have lacked to sow.  And this lack
of nurturing for children is going to have far broader effects on society
than just the business world.

Money means nothing.  It doesn't say anything about who you are - if you
are dull of soul or loving of soul.  Money comes and goes.  Businesses come
and go.  But acts of sharing last forever and affect the world.
Unfortunately, capitalism claims the opposite - money is the measure.  And
capitalism, in order to exist, must have a disposable work force.
Capitalism loves no one - not even the rich - for if you lose your
"richness," capitalism merely waves goodbye to you and moves on.  It cares
not if you live or die, what your previous contributions were, or what kind
of person you are.  If you can no longer or failed to produce what
capitalism demands, then your value is zip.
And this, Randy, is what you consider theosophical?

>Let's say
>every country on earth had a female army except one.  War could only be
>fought by hand to hand combat and the number of participants on each side
>must be the same. Who do you think would end up in the number one position?

Whichever group was the most skilled in weaponry - speed, agility,
intuition, and the proper measuring of one's opponents' weaknesses and
strengths all come into play in combat.  In fact, according the what I
heard, the more muscled someone is, the slower they move.  I would side
with the army commander who chose less muscular individuals, intuitive
individuals, and those who are fast with both their feet and hands.  So, I
would say, Randy - that the odds are probably against the brawny male army.

>Some more
>obvious such as the testicular narcissim that chest beats hear occassionally.

Many men, testes included, are not into "narcissim" - those men who credit
their balls - "My balls made me do it" - for warfare and other
indiscretions are standing on shaky ground.  Randy, are your testes really
in such control of you?  If so, then I guess men should only be in jobs
that require testosterone - and the rest of the jobs should go to those who
do not have testes since you seem to suggest that testes-holders cannot
maintain nor carry out ideas that require rational and discretionary thought.

>3.  "Affirmitive action" is a pathetic putative attempt by the state to
force
>a subjective moral issue.

Before going on - what is a "subjective moral issue?"

>I'm again surprised that as a theosophist, believing in karma and personal
>responsibility, you would buy into this political nonsense and not position
>yourself with those who advocate the most amount of personal freedom and
>liberty.

Surprise is the spice of life, Randy.

>It's a theosophical thing too: law rules.

Spiritual law; not human law rules in theosophy.

>Problem with your democracy is
>that 51% of the crazies can vote to kill the other 49%.

This is a false analogy, and has never been proven true in history.
Leaders have enacted laws to kill certain groups, but never has such an
action ever, that I can think of, been actually voted upon by the general
public.  The majority of people are not, as you seem to think, "crazy."
But this is an excuse many dictators and despots have used in order to
seize complete power -  "Most people are stupid."  The evidence does not
support this, nor does history.

I will address the rest of your post in a bit.  But one final thought for
this post:

Your letter portraying Cindy as being willing to dump her husband because
of your trinkets and washboard abs is a male fantasy gone gross.  I'm sure
Grigor loved it, though.

Most heteosexual and homosexual relationships are based on other things
besides looks and material goods - friendship, intimacy, love, sharing,
arguing, debating, fighting, the sharing of experiences, both ups and
downs, are the bonds that cement relationships.  If Cindy would have left
her husband for you, it is most likely because there were problems to begin
with.

Your idea of women's thought-processes is most ignorant and insulting; your
fantasy odious.

A piece of advice:  if you have any plans to woo and keep a woman, I
suggest you treat her kindly and as a individual in her own right.  But,
most importantly, by all means, keep your mouth shut.  If you had related
this story during dinner to me, you'd have been not only wearing your
dinner, but paying the hefty bill as well.  AND, I'd have told all my
female friends, and they would have told others, and they would have told
others - and eventually, you'd die a lonely, old, bitter man.

Do not forget, grasshopper, your future is in women's hands. . .unless, of
course, you will be satisfied snuggled up to a $100 dollar bill every night.

Kym