[MD] Neoconservatism

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Gene M" <boredandunstable at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Neoconservatism
>Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:23:04 -0400
>
> > An individual who owns nothing and is prevented by society from ever
> > owning anything is a slave.  Do you want to argue for the degree of
> > slavery you find acceptable "to make sure everyone in society has all
> > they need?" Do you want to argue for giving the government the power to
> > decide what you need?
> >
> > Obviously I find it hard to imagine how you would implement your social
> > goals. What am I missing?
> >
> > Platt
> >
>
>Platt, you misunderstand me. I think people should be allowed to own lots 
>of
>things. Televisions, automobiles, guns, underwear, all kinds of consumer
>goods! An economy is a fine thing. I just don't see why we can't guarantee,
>food, water and shelter to the entire population of our ridiculously rich
>countries? I'd like very much for this thing to occur without government
>intervention, but we really need someone to plan the whole thing, it's a
>rather large-scale problem.

Gene,

You might be interested in this:

http://freegan.info/

"Freegan" is a made-up word combining "free" with "vegan" and refers to 
those who would save the world's resources by using the waste of others. Of 
course, here in the US we have several different terms for these people - we 
refer to them as "bums", "dead-heads", "hobos", and I understand that the 
archaic term "hippie" was once used quite frequently too.

>
>I simply question the need for a 30,000 square foor house for any
>individual. It'd be nice if they would be prepared to sacrifice some of
>their own wealth for the good of others. I admit I'm not particularly
>interested in forcing people to give up their things, force is a terrible
>solution to any problem. I must say I have no real viable solution at the
>moment, just a problem.

Here's a solution: quit your job, move into an abandoned building, and 
Dumpster-dive for your breakfast. Not to worry if you get a touch of food 
poisoning. I'm told that your system will adjust in a few weeks. That, or 
you'll die. No worries, either way.

>
>I honestly can't imagine any difference between a cat peeing on a tree and
>calling it theirs, and a rancher putting up a fence and calling That 
>theirs.
>People are generally too attached to their money in my opinion, and we
>should as a species move away from such things. Move towards higher goals,
>like social and intellectual patterns. This biological urge to territory 
>and
>mastery of our environment is getting kind of silly, don't you think?

Most definitely. That's why I'm in the process of training my cats to pee on 
my neighbor's house so they can claim it as their own. It's a much bigger 
house and nicer than ours, you see. My neighbor has this nasty habit of 
getting up in the morning and going to work every day and then plowing his 
money into improvements on his property. He is way too attached to his toys, 
in my opinion, and should instead be moving towards higher goals. My cats 
and me plan on helping him out by moving into his house so he won't be so 
obsessed with material possessions. Perhaps my cats will pee on his Hummer 
too. It would be a cool ride. Of course I'll convert it over to run on used 
cooking oil instead of gasoline - as long as my cats will go to the store 
and pee on the conversion kit.

Dan