Have we been *that* boring, Shemp? :-) I wouldn't touch this one with a ten-foot pole. I'm trying to cut down on my posting, not get involved in the Shootout at the PK Corral. :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/fischer/fischer11.html > > > Heartless > by Andrew S. Fischer > > > About twenty years ago, I had occasion to work with a computer > programmer named Carl. One day, for some reason, we discussed a > lawsuit which had been brought against a national toy company. The > toy involved was a plastic "sprinkler head," which was attached to > the business end of a garden hose and, when the water was turned on, > transformed the hose into a kind of whirling dervish, which spun > around in the air, spraying water all over the place to the delight > of summer children everywhere. Unfortunately, it seemed that some > kid somewhere decided to place the device in his mouth, turn on the > water and, predictably, the child drowned. > > Carl had no sympathy. "Culling," he called it. Nature's way of > weeding out inferior designs. While I was shocked at Carl's lack of > compassion, deep down I had a gnawing feeling that perhaps he might > be right. A single kid, among hundreds of thousands, and among > perhaps millions of uses of this toy, was tragically killed because > he thought it would be fun to jam it down his throat and open the > spigot. The thought that this must have been an inordinately > reckless, or inordinately dimwitted child, nagged at me for days. It > did sound pretty stupid to do what he did, after all. On the other > hand, kids do stupid things. Should the penalty for that be death? > In any case, we agreed that the lawsuit brought by his parents was > absurd. Hundreds of thousands of kids used that toy without a > problem; one kid did something stupid with it and died, so that > meant the toy should be taken off the market and its manufacturers > should pay millions in damages? Obviously not; the fact that one > individual out of so many suffered a negative result due to his own > misuse of a product hardly rendered that product dangerous, despite > the assertions of government and its legal system. > > Over the years, we've all witnessed scores of cases such as the one > noted above. Million-dollar settlements, products removed from the > marketplace, idiotic warning labels on everything from Silly Putty > to cattle prods. All of this to prevent people from doing stupid > things and making foolish choices. Yet people continue acting > stupidly, not just in regard to consumer items, but in all aspects > of their lives. They smoke (sucking a solid into their lungs), > damaging their health. They overeat, and don't exercise, ditto. They > spend too much money and have more children than they can afford. > This is all called freedom, and people can do whatever they want to > do to themselves, as far as I'm concerned (but they shouldn't go > begging to the state when they find they've screwed up, of course). > > Culling, he called it. Social Darwinism at its most brutal. It's not > that I don't have sympathy for people in dire straits, or even those > in simple need. When I encounter a homeless person on the street, > for example, I recognize that under different circumstances that > could be me. I typically feel a ripple of sorrow, and sometimes hand > over a dollar (although I fully suspect it will be used for alcohol, > or worse). At the mall a few years ago while waiting for the > elevator, I found myself standing across from a boy in his late > teens in a wheelchair. He wasn't a bad-looking kid, but from his > speech and mannerisms I realized he'd never have a normal life. > Somehow this brought tears to my eyes and I had to walk away. This > kind of thing doesn't happen to me often, but it's necessary that I > mention that little story because of what I must write next. > > You see, I've reached the point where I have to agree with Carl. > This is an unpopular position, to be sure. When discussing it with > friends, it always ends up with my being labeled a hard-hearted > hater of poor people. With me supposedly caring not a whit about all > the children who never had the advantages I had. I'll admit I was > fortunate enough to have had good parents, a husband and wife who > loved each other, worked hard together, and tried their best to > provide my brother and me with a decent lower-middle class > existence. They made sure I did my homework and do as well as I > could in school. Yes, they scraped together enough dollars and paid > my tuition at an unexceptional, mid-city "commuter college" (in an > era when, fortunately, it cost just $300 per semester), and they > were supportive in many ways when I foundered in my career and my > life. > > While these don't seem to me to be extraordinary advantages, this is > obviously better than having parents who are alcoholics, who are > constantly fighting, who don't care about their kids, who berate > them or beat them, who let them run around unsupervised so they can > get in trouble, do poorly in school and fail to develop basic common > sense or an ethical system, or the ability to solve the slightest of > problems, or gain any skills for earning a living. Certainly most > kids from such an environment will have more trouble than I did in > attaining a modest, middle-class existence. > > Not that it is impossible, however. As the book The Great Reckoning > notes (quoting Economist magazine), poverty can be overcome fairly > effectively if teenagers do just a few things: finish high school, > don't have babies, and find a job and keep it. Two people working > full time, each earning just $7.50 per hour, should have over > $24,000 a year after income taxes. They could spend a third of that > on rent and have enough left over to live decently, couldn't they? > There could be some savings, too, if they shunned the X-box, cell > phone, widescreen TV and the new car, right? They might not be > living high on the hog, but they could live in a dignified way, and > would be stable enough to improve their work skills, and get ahead, > however slowly, wouldn't they? It seems to me that people need to > live within their limitations; it's simple: just don't spend what > you don't have. Yet, "can I afford it?" is a question no one asks > themselves anymore. "Do I really need this?" is another. > > Like it or not, those groups who do not or cannot live within their > means, act responsibly, perform useful work, provide for their > offspring, save money for their future, etc. are supposed to wither > away; their bloodlines are supposed to peter out. This is Nature's > way. Survival of the fittest. Culling. Yes, it sounds heartless, but > it is inherent in life. The effective and competent members of a > species survive and multiply and, furthermore, they instinctively > limit the size of their families to match the availability of > resources; those who cannot do so vanish, and the species as a whole > becomes stronger. At least this is how it happens in all of the > animal kingdom except in a single case. Somehow, civilization > (specifically its subset "government") has altered this state of > affairs where human beings are concerned, and has turned Mother > Nature on her head. > > By providing for and otherwise mollycoddling the incompetent, the > state has ensured the survival of bloodlines that were not supposed > to continue. It has given rise to "welfare queens" and unstable > families, abused and forgotten children, illiteracy, crime, and all > the rest. Groups whose "survival shortcomings" Nature did not intend > to embrace are instead nurtured by the state, and these groups may > even have birth rates higher than average. At the same time, the > state taxes its competent citizens so painfully, that they are ill- > disposed to help the less fortunate especially since much of this > taxation is already supposed to be doing just that. > > While adults can, and should, be held accountable for their actions, > innocent children can hardly be blamed, since their plight is due to > the shortcomings of their ancestors, their families in short, > their bloodline. As a civilized people, we don't want to see them > suffer; we have empathy. I believe that most people in our society, > if not taxed as heavily as they are now, would give a lot more money > to various charities to help the poor, the less fortunate, all the > down-on-their-luck folks. (I know I would annually donate twenty > times what I do now.) Some might even "adopt a family," not only > giving money, but also providing guidance and education. The > difference is that it would be voluntary and specific, not mandatory > and expansive as it is now, and that makes all the difference in the > world. > > So, when I argue that government social programs and handouts should > be scrapped, that it's not my problem if some people don't have > health insurance, that it's "tough luck" if the elderly reach > retirement without having provided for themselves, that all of us > are responsible for our own actions, for our own choices, and our > own lives... I'm branded as heartless. The question is: do I deserve > this label? > > > February 11, 2006 > > Andrew S. Fischer [send him mail] is a controller for an investment > advisory firm in Pennsylvania. > > Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
