Philosophy Now Forum

Tell me.

It's one of those phrases that is a little worrying when Lenin says it, but slightly less so when Lennon does.

A bit like the phrase "I'm sure we can fit this in with a bit of a push". Not that worrying when used by the furniture removal man, but not the words you want to hear from a proctologist.

Imagine a family.
Does mother charge the toddler for its breakfast or the middle-schooler for clean gym socks?
Does father expect that same twelve-year-old to hold down a full-time job?

In a clan of primitive people, the old and the injured are probably fed, even though they can't hunt anymore, but they add value to the group by imparting learned knowledge or sharpening tools or mapping water-courses. Everybody contributes whatever they can to the welfare of the group. Everyone expects to be taken care of.... just because they're kin and that's how families do.

The family model of human society is no more or less valid than the dog-eat-dog model. It's a matter of choice.

Flash,

"I'm sure we can fit this in with a bit of a push"

HA!

#

Skip,

You'll agree there's a difference between my caring for mine, even sacrificing for mine, as a choice and expression of love, and, the codfied 'compassion' of 'give to the wretched or we'll make you give to the wretched', yes?

henry quirk wrote: Skip,

You'll agree there's a difference between my caring for mine, even sacrificing for mine, as a choice and expression of love, and, the codfied 'compassion' of 'give to the wretched or we'll make you give to the wretched', yes?

It's a question of whom you include in "mine". If "mine" does not include your fellow citizens, then you are either in the wrong nation or that nation is governed according to the dog-eat-dog principle. It's a choice:

If a nation decides to adopt the family model of co-operation as their ruling principle, then everyone agrees to take responsibility for the welfare of its citizens and they contribute willingly. They don't create a "wretched" class in the first place; don't have to be compelled to give, and benefits accrue fairly evenly across the board. This approach has its advocates.

If the majority or ruling elite of a nation decides to adopt the principle of each-vs-all competition, while retaining to itself the administration of law and defense, then each citizen must be compelled to contribute the minimum they can get away with to the administrative fund, in which case the contributions and benefits vary greatly. This approach has different advocates.

There's a third way, Skip.

Self-direct, self-rely, expect no help.

Far more brutal (and honest) than capitalism, unforgiving of communitarianism, and unlikely to ever be.

Not really about choice...really about individual make up or one's 'nature'. Some folks, as I say elsewhere, cannot exist without community and some folks are stymied by community.

A body is what it is.

You can be an outcast or hermit, I suppose. But that's an individual situation - whether accidental or chosen - not a national policy.
Give nothing get nothing maybe the dogs will eat you maybe you'll eat the dogs. Good luck.

What was the question?
I mean, what does a feral creature want to know about social philosophy?

"You can be an outcast or hermit"

Or, I can just keep on with what I'm doin' now.

#

"feral"

No, just my own.

There's no incentive to do your best, if you don't get the rewards. If you do your best, and the rewards go to those who won't or can't, there is no incentive to do even adequately. Self satisfaction only works for a limited time, and then it wears off.

thedoc wrote:Self satisfaction only works for a limited time, and then it wears off.

In your case, I'm surprised it works at all.

bobevenson wrote:

thedoc wrote:Self satisfaction only works for a limited time, and then it wears off.

In your case, I'm surprised it works at all.

I was referring to self satisfaction of a job well done, as in my case, not in delusional self aggrandizement, as in your case.

thedoc wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

thedoc wrote:Self satisfaction only works for a limited time, and then it wears off.

In your case, I'm surprised it works at all.

I was referring to self satisfaction of a job well done.

I'm surprised you can even do it.

From each, according to ability, to each, according to need.'
If not
From each according to their powerlessness, to each according to their riches.

The people do the wirk and the rich reap the benefits.

henry quirk wrote:"You can be an outcast or hermit"

Or, I can just keep on with what I'm doin' now.

#

"feral"

No, just my own.

Whatever you say.
My question, however, remains unanswered:
If you have no use for schools and roads, electricity and running water, or any of the products of co-operative human endeavour, then why do you care about the principle on which such co-operative endeavour is organized?

"If you have no use for schools and roads, electricity and running water, or any of the products of co-operative human endeavour, then why do you care about the principle on which such co-operative endeavour is organized?"

Where did I say I had no use for such things, and what do those things have to do with 'from each, according to ability, to each, according to need'?