Re: Ticket terrorists

[Alan McKendree <amck@thenetdr.com>]

>Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 16:47:01 EST
>From: Deliphus01@aol.com
>
>> which love of money will lead one is abandoning Christianity, rather than
>
>Someone ought to tell that to Fallwell, Robertson, etc. and so on!

:-).

>That's not why I used the quote; you asked why I felt that personal gain was
>the lowest motivation. If you don't like the quote, in either form, then
>let's just say it's a given in regard to humans.

I'm content to let the record show that you'd like your assertion to be
taken as a given.

>> First you say the temptation to make money is the lowest motivation
>
>No I didn't, I said "Money is the root of all evil." You corrected the quote,
>but that's not what *I* said.

But you did say it, and I even quoted it.  Here it is again:

>>Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:08:58 EST
>>From: Deliphus01@aol.com
>>
>>I have a little more faith in people than that, misplaced as it may be. I
>>hope they would rise above the temptation to make money...after all, this is
>>the lowest of motivations.

Moving on,

>...I will still believe that it's a higher motive
>than self interest. And higher motives are a good thing...that's what I've
>ALWAYS gotten out of Townshend's lyrics, and why I like them as much as I do.

I'd say the quest for enlightenment itself is self-interested (I know there
are theologians who would argue that I'm wrong...meet me on the theology
list).

>  Countries
>   should>  exist to serve individuals (by protecting them), not the other
>way
>> around.
>
>Too many people feel the government "owes" them something. I don't.

I agree, but I'll bet you think the government owes you (and me) more than
I think they do.

I also
>think the government's only job should be the offering of services that are
>better managed collectively than individually (such as roads, schools) and to
>interact with other governments, but THAT'S ABOUT IT.

Yep, sure 'nuff.  I am dead set against government-run schools.

>we both know the meaning of his [Kennedy's]
>statement would not fit anything Goebbels might believe,

I certainly do believe it would fit. Nazi intellectuals justified the
movement on the basis of subordinating the individual to the state.  If I
may recommend yet another book, _The Ominous Parallels_ by Leonard Peikoff
does an unequaled job of explaining the philosophical roots of Nazism.

 while on the other
>hand most of Bush's would.

I'm tempted to ask for examples, but you could be right.

>Besides, I find a distinct
>difference in what someone does in their personal life and the laws they
>enact as an elected official.

The problem was that his personal life was NOT separate from his public
duties, by his own choice.  Most troubling was that habit of bombing other
countries to distract from his impeachment woes.

>Do you own a business? If so, you know there's a psychology to it, or it
>fails. And just because you have a discount store doesn't mean you have
>enough money. Does ANYONE have enough money?

I'd say that's up to each individual to judge for him/herself, so yes, some
people could be found who would say they have enough.

>Ever hear of junk bonds?

Of course. I won't go into the details but suffice it to say I see nothing
criminal about the financial benefits they offered.

Civil rights (does anyone remember when we had civil
>rights?)?

I don't think those become illegal in the '80s, they've pretty much been
mandated since the '60s.

>BTW, I didn't say "criminalized," I said when did it become crime, which is
>an expression and not meant to be taken literally. Most people wouldn't,
>anyway.

Maybe they should.  Might lead to clearer communication.

>I guess it's just different in Texas. But everywhere else I've been people
>appreciate being treated with kindness and respect. Far too few salespeople
>do that. I set out in the beginning to avoid that at all costs.
>
>I am in fact doing good. Not only am I recycling, but I bring enjoyment and
>appreciation of Art to people.

True, good customer service is also an asset.

>> do want to make more money can do so by developing a product or service
>> people want, and the more useful the product is the more they'll make for
>> it. If they find such a thing, we are all the better for it.
>
>I suppose, but it would sit better if they did it for the good of the people.

Soviet Russia tried 70 years of making people work for the good of the
people. You'll recall the result.

>> Now you could say the world would be better if everyone were wealthy enough
>> to spend their time on hobbies, and I'd agree, but it's not and just
>> because you can afford to do so isn't a basis for claiming a higher moral
>> ground than those who can't or choose not to.
>
>That's twisting what I said completely! I never said I was wealthy.

You may not think of it as wealthy.  Due to your attitude toward money, you
might never wish to apply that description to yourself, but if you truly
think you could make more money from your business and don't feel that you
have to, then baby you're a rich man.

>> I find it more than a little discouraging that you assume that a conclusion
>> contrary to your own beliefs is based on bias.
>
>Uh...did you READ the title of the book?

Well yes...the question is, are the contents true, not how strongly worded
the title is.

>> that they weren't.  What are the dues for your "CREDIT Clinton for
>> everything" book club?
>
>As I said, I don't push that side either.

That's good to hear.

>> Hopefully at least some others reading this will learn from it.
>
>That's more than a little arrogant. It doesn't become you.

Thanks.  As I mentioned in my private e-mail, I consider this a debate in
front of an audience.  Not meant to be arrogant.

Cheers,

Alan

"Never never hesitate, communicate, communicate..." --Pete Townshend