ECO9 (fwd)

Homer Wilson Smith HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Thu Oct 1 13:41:27 EDT 2020


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


      NEGATIVE WORTH PEOPLE

> Reply to your posting on hourslist about the negative economic people.
>
> I just asked whether you were willing to kill these
> excess persons with your own hands, and whether you had noticed that 250
> people kicked off welfare in Arkansas had attacked the governor-- that they
> hadn't been able to find jobs and were pissed.

       As I had said, I am not on hourslist any more.

       What we should DO about negative worth people is a difficult
question, just as what we should DO about criminals is a difficult
question.

       I am not talking about those who by circumstance are presently out
of work but who are otherwise able and interested in producing.

       By negative worth people I mean those who are unwilling or unable
to produce more than they consume.  Negative worth is evidenced by the
fact that other people have to be FORCED to pay their way.  If people
can elicit WILLING charity from other more productive people, enough to
survive, then they must have enough positive worth to make their own way
in the world, by definition.  What ever another person willingly pays
you for, is enough to call positive worth if its enough to survive
without forced handouts from others.

       Some people will consider you worthwhile enough, just because you
are alive, to give you what they can.  If this is enough for you to
survive, then you are positive worth enough to survive.

       Lucky you for having such a valuable smile, eh?

       But such charity can only go on until affluent reserves are
spent, then EVERYONE will start to look for a return for their
investment more solid than a thankyou and a God Bless.

       So back to the question of what we should DO about truely
negative worth people, those who can only survive through handouts
forced out of the reserves of producers at the point of a gun.

       We have to ask what obligation we have to do anything about them.
It's not about killing them off, as you suggest, its about hand
feeding them.

       Before we ask if we should 'kill' them, we should ask if we
should be supporting them, particularly on their own terms.  If we
just left them alone, the worst cases would starve or turn criminal
anyhow.

       Turning the argument towards the problems of proactively DOING
something about them avoids the issue that we already are doing
something about them, namely enslaving ourselves to support them, and
we need to discuss that matter first.

       Although in a rich world we can support non producers for a
while, if we give them better breeding grounds than the producers,
they will in fact out breed the producers, teach their children
nothing except how to suck off the producers, and eventually sink a
charitable society under its own addiction to sympathy, propitiation,
and weight of total non production.

       My first response as a devil's advocate might be we shouldn't do
ANYTHING about them, and let nature take care of its own failures and
let charity be freely given to those who can solicit investment in
themselves.

       But then the worst cases turn criminal and put the rest of us on
the spot. So by kind of a back door extortion, they get us to support
them 'willingly' anyhow.  It's basically "Either you feed me or we
will revolt and burn the place down.  If we gotta die from our own non
production, we are going to at least take you producers with us."

       It's a kind of back door criminality that society gives into.
It's at least better than the kind that says "I am going to rob you
even if you do feed me!", so we have a certain amount of sympathy for
them, or propitiation, depending on how you look at it.

       Practically speaking, although I hate bureacracy's, efficiencies of
scale tell us it is more efficient to have a mass charity through a well
distributed and funded welfare bureaucracy than to depend on individual
giving during time of need.

       The down side of this choice is that many non producers get the
welfare who don't deserve it, because the individual charitable decision
making process is removed, anyone who wants it gets it,

       And also eventually corruption, temptation and seduction begins to
settle in when the negative worth people go to work for the charity
bureaucracy department and make sure the police come to our doors to
force us to tithe to their parasitism lest they lose a job.

       In general this downside is a price most of us are willing to pay
for the timely disbursement of funds to the worthy in need.  Nothing
would get done if we all had to depend on individual charity for every
worthy need.

       As I have said, my religion DEMANDS that duties and rights be
balanced.  If I have a duty to feed them, then I have a right to fair
exchange in return.  If they have a right to be fed, then they have a
DUTY to give fair exchange in return.

       The basic fair exchange is work of course, but before work must
come training.  So rather than force all the negative worth people into
gas chambers, I would force all of them into classrooms.  In an ideal
world run by God, I would also limit their ability to breed until they
could show a positive return in life, and demonstrate before a court of
competency that they will not spawn more welfare cases, murderers and
covert criminals, but that ain't going to happen on Earth at this time.

       As inalienable as it seems to all of us, the idea that just ANYONE
can breed and bring up their children just ANYWAY they want is actually
kind of weird.  It's very natural of course, but nature takes care of
its own.  In this society we are no longer allowed to let nature take
care of its own, so we need to think about the consequences of letting
nature breed on its own without the preening function in place.

       It's not fair exchange that nature can breed at will but not be
burdened with taking care of its own, you know what I mean?

       I wouldn't want humans at the head of the license to breed
department though.

       So until God comes back to Earth we have a serious problem.

       And in the meanwhile society sinks lower and lower under its
mandate to keep everyone alive no matter how unworthy of life they are,
or how much they consume and waste the worthiness of others who carry
them on their back.

       Nature has a very austere definition of 'worthiness.'

       "Can you reap more useful energy than you sow?"

       Alone or in tendem with others.

       Humans are not above Nature.

       Homer

Mon Jun 22 16:36:57 EDT 2015

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Sep 30 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB:  http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP:  ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco9.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFfdKuEURT1lqxE3HERAutOAJ43KfecD5hM6SQ0pG+NsDrAzOlFEgCdFAUC
IJNs+KOM9QWOippJbSvjQPo=
=sWGv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l


More information about the Clear-L mailing list