What to do about a Dutch barber Jul 12, 2015 6:05:26 GMT -5
Post by ahinton on Jul 12, 2015 6:05:26 GMT -5
That so-called "point" is "missed" only because it is quite invalid.
To you, perhaps - and possibly to a handful of others - but not to most people, including me; someone always has to pay, otherwise nothing gets achieved, produced or distributed. With no money (or some universal and viable alternative thereto), how and on what do you suppose anyone would live?
It might be more "respectful" were "we" identify themselves before making such - or indeed any - suggestions; having said that, however, this member has no anarcho-syndicalism and, in any case, even your average anarcho-syndicalist (a concept as arcane as it has long since became archaic) does not advocate the wholesale abolition of "money", "nations" or "work-forces" or the making of mere mention of them illegal, nor indeed the abolition of all kinds of "marriage" as "an unmentionable shame of the uncivilized past", as you put it in your initial post, let alone the deportation to some island of unspecified size and location of all those found (by whom and on what grounds?) to have contravened these "rules" of your evidently over-fertile invention.
These concerns are, on the contrary, raised by you and merely responded to by me.
We at once note do we not the expressions "equality", "money-tainted", and "no one owned any one else." Do these not convey a thrill to our members' innermost, even? Do not his concerns simply evaporate? Will not the little man one day bring his grocery orders without need of a silly signature?
The wilfully and persistently unidentified "we" is getting rather tiresome.
As to the rest, these expressions seem not to convey anything at all to "our members", since only one such has responed to you on this.
There are indeed certain human equalities that are broadly achievable and desirable, but humanity itself places obvious practical limits on the attainment of both in order to distinguish what is commendable and possible from what is mere illogical pie in the sky.
I've no idea what you mean about these grocery orders, but the groceries ordered will have to be paid for, as will the grocer's staff, its distributor and the growers from whom the distributors obtain the food supplies among those groceries.
Orwell is all very well, but the kind of social (dis)order that you seek to prescribe and advocate is another matter altogether.
Nothing is or need be "money-tainted" unless such taint is wilfully introduced as such, which of course it does not have to be.
The reference to "no one owned by anyone else" seems effectively to refer to the notion of slavery and, whilst this despicable phenomenon is by no means as defunct today as some might like to think, it's mercifully no longer as widespread as once it was and the opposition to it is vastly more widespread and vociferous than it used to be.
Somehow, I suspect that very little of what you appear to propose and commend would cut much ice with the wise, forthright and courageous Pope Francis any more than it appears to do with the tiny membership here...
Enough said, methinks - not least because no other member here has yet participated in this exchange (I wonder why? - or at least I might do so if I could be bothered)...