impersonal and moral?

[Athena]

I am about to take an apartment manager position, and I am having second thoughts about the wisdom of this choice.

In the past, the head of the household was the person held responsible, and this person could make all the decisions regarding who was in the home. This is no longer true. That freedom and liberty has been taken from the head of the house, by property owners who hold autocratic values as property owners. They have the legal right to determine who may live with the head of the household and who may not. Beyond this their decision making is completely impersonal, and therefore, can be completely immoral. By immoral I mean, having no relation to human values. In fact, I question of democracy can tolerate modern renter law.

My job is to be nosey and pry into people's personal business, and report anyone who is doing drugs or has someone living in the apartment who is not on the lease, or in some other way causes a problem. I have no problem getting rid of people who are making life unpleasant for others, but the drug thing is perhaps pushing this judgement too far, and I am really opposed to a person being evicted simply because someone is living there without being on the contract when no one is being hurt. I have sheltered many people over the years, and don't like someone preventing me from doing this.

What makes the difference between thinking it is okay to shelter someone, or completely justified to evict someone who is sheltering someone not on the lease, is the quality of the relationships. Property managers have stopped personally caring about the people renting from them. Their decisions are no longer based on the relationships and their hearts. The decisions is set in a policy and is completely impersonal, and therefore completely immoral. Germany accepted this immorality and then they accepted the persecution of Jews. I think the two go together, being impersonal and immoral.

[Mayberry]

These guys are in business to make money. Period. Why would they care about anyone? They don't want people not on the lease living there because next thing you know, you have 7 or 8 people living in a 2 bedroom and trashing the place. You also can't do background checks on people you don't know about. Then what happens when the tenant on the lease moves out, but 3 or 4 of these "other people" don't? Now you've got a real problem. And as everyone is well aware, the laws are written in favor of the tenant, meaning these "other people" will wind up living rent free for 6 months before they can be evicted, costing the property owner thousands in lost revinue and legal fees, plus the inevitable cleanup and remodeling of the now trashed unit. As far as reporting drug use, illegal activity, etc.. the property owner wants to keep his property nice, increasing it's value. Allowing it to run down into a drug and crime infested ghetto is not within his interest. Your job as property manager is to maintain the property and maximize the return on the owner's investment.

[BoogyMan]

What makes the difference between thinking it is okay to shelter someone, or completely justified to evict someone who is sheltering someone not on the lease, is the quality of the relationships. Property managers have stopped personally caring about the people renting from them. Their decisions are no longer based on the relationships and their hearts. The decisions is set in a policy and is completely impersonal, and therefore completely immoral. Germany accepted this immorality and then they accepted the persecution of Jews. I think the two go together, being impersonal and immoral.

To compare this hogwash to the holocaust shows a disgusting lack of respect for the seriousness of the event in history. This is why people despise the left!

[Athena]

What makes the difference between thinking it is okay to shelter someone, or completely justified to evict someone who is sheltering someone not on the lease, is the quality of the relationships. Property managers have stopped personally caring about the people renting from them. Their decisions are no longer based on the relationships and their hearts. The decisions is set in a policy and is completely impersonal, and therefore completely immoral. Germany accepted this immorality and then they accepted the persecution of Jews. I think the two go together, being impersonal and immoral.

To compare this hogwash to the holocaust shows a disgusting lack of respect for the seriousness of the event in history.Â*Â*This is why people despise the left!


It is not hogwash, and the US is headed in the same direction. The problem begins with applying Prussian military bureaucracy to the public, and then educating for technology for military and industrial purpose, and in only 50 years, you get a society that has no problem putting material values above human values, and insulting people who say something is wrong this. I am history, and I know things were not always like this. I know in the US public education transmitted a culture that put human values first, until the USSR successfully orbited the earth with Sputnik, and Eisenhower asked congress for the National Defense Education Act. I could provide a lot of information about this, but it is difficult to discuss things people who do not understand the rules of debate, and express opinions that have nothing to do with facts.

[Athena]

These guys are in business to make money. Period. Why would they care about anyone? They don't want people not on the lease living there because next thing you know, you have 7 or 8 people living in a 2 bedroom and trashing the place. You also can't do background checks on people you don't know about. Then what happens when the tenant on the lease moves out, but 3 or 4 of these "other people" don't? Now you've got a real problem. And as everyone is well aware, the laws are written in favor of the tenant, meaning these "other people" will wind up living rent free for 6 months before they can be evicted, costing the property owner thousands in lost revinue and legal fees, plus the inevitable cleanup and remodeling of the now trashed unit. As far as reporting drug use, illegal activity, etc.. the property owner wants to keep his property nice, increasing it's value. Allowing it to run down into a drug and crime infested ghetto is not within his interest. Your job as property manager is to maintain the property and maximize the return on the owner's investment.


I am glad someone is speaking in favor of evicting illegal drug users, because up to now, I have only seen objections to my opinion that alcohol is a dangerous substance and we do need to discourage the consumption of alcohol, and completely prohibit its use by Americans in countries were alcohol is illegal. I have seen what alcohol and illegal drugs can do to people's lives, and rather be on the side of preventing this trouble, than making a profit off alcohol or drugs.

However, about putting material values over human values, I do not think this is a good thing for society. It is not something I want to be a part of. In this special case it is a non profit, religious charity that owns the low income housing, and its primary goal is assumed to be humanitarian. However, I think there are governmental bureaucratics involved, because government subsidizes the housing, and is the problem as I see it. Let me use a quote used to discribe our enemy when we mobilized for the first world war.

"Whatever their effeciency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power."

As for who is responsible for damages? By the old fashioned rules, the head of the house hold who is on the contract is responsible for all problems caused by self or quest. Also it is very easy to evict the people in a rental when someone is living there without being on the contract. Unless people are protected by a lease, they can be evicted in 30 days for no reason at all other than the owner of the property tells the people to move.

Eviction Notices You may receive a 24-hour eviction notice if you have intentionally ... A 72-hour (or 144-hour) notice for not paying rent is considered to be served on the ...
www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1253.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages


In most kinds of housing, a landlord of a month-to-month tenancy may also attempt to evict you with a 72-hour notice for not paying your rent. This may happen if you have not paid rent within 7 days of its due date.

You may receive a 24-hour eviction notice if you have intentionally injured someone other than a member of the your household, intentionally damaged the property, or committed an act that is 'outrageous in the extreme.' An act outrageous in the extreme is not specifically defined by law, but does include prostitution or promotion of prostitution, violence, manufacture or delivery of drugs, intimidation, and burglary. A landlord may not use a 24-hour notice or otherwise attempt to evict someone for being the victim of a crime such as domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault, however. The landlord may give a 24-hour notice to any person living in a house where the tenant had a written rental agreement that prohibits sub-leasing. This is enforceable if the landlord has not taken rent from the person who is not covered by the rental agreement. A tenant who lied about criminal convictions on a rental application may, under limited conditions, get a 24-hour notice.

The only rule that really concerns me is the one about who lives in a house. For example my 19 year old granddaughter can not move back in with her mother, without going through a 2 month process and by then terrible things could happen to her. I don't think we should have laws that prevent people from protecting members of their family. Nor laws that prevent us housing very ill people when I a doctor can say shelter is necessary for the person's health. I just sometimes human circumstances demand a bending of rules, and I think it is harmful to society as a whole when this not possible. But also appreciate the reasoning that reinforces what my duties would be if I accept the position. Like sometimes a doctor has to cut off a person's leg to save the person. Sometimes we have to do hard things, because this the most right thing to do.

[Mayberry]

Sometimes we have to do hard things, because this the most right thing to do. And there you have it. Good luck with your job!

[Mayberry]

I am glad someone is speaking in favor of evicting illegal drug users, because up to now, I have only seen objections to my opinion that alcohol is a dangerous substance and we do need to discourage the consumption of alcohol, and completely prohibit its use by Americans in countries were alcohol is illegal What did my reply have to do with alcohol? I said nothing about it. Alcohol is fine in moderation. And I'm tired of Americans having to bend over backwards to please everyone else, when here in the good old USA, foreigners won't honor our customs and way of life. Americans are in the middle east to do a job, usually in enclosed compounds, and what goes on in those enclosed compounds is our business. We're there to help them, and should be allowed a little latitude. I'd like to buy every serviceman over there a cold beer. They deserve it, and more.

[Nathan Brazil]

The apartment manager is the agent of the owner. Period. He's not free. He's paid to do a job, and if you can't do the job you shouldn't agree to do it. If you're concerned about the ethics of the situation there it is.

As for the rest, a property owner should have the right to establish the conditions upon which others may use his property. No one else should be able to define those for him. That, unfortunately, isn't the case in America today.

There was a time when a landlord could refuse to rent to unmarried couples, to same-sex couples, or to persons of questionable background, or, even, if he wished, to people who weren't the precise tint of green to match the grass, if that's what he wanted. It's his business, after all, and no one has a right to intrude on a man's private decisions.

Today, however, one's choice to prefer hot-beef enema's overrides the landlord's loathing of the practice, and you can sue him for housing discrmination for even asking about it. Not married? T'ain't no one's business but yours and the IRS, landlords, butt out.

Alchohol isn't any more dangerous than many other drugs, but fools don't understand moderation, the word's been co-opted to mean a liberal Republican, after all, and nothing's more immoderate than one of those.

But why shouldn't a landlord refuse occupancy to a drunkard or a smoker? Heck, smoking is a leading cause of fires, right? Think of the drop in his insurance if he can refuse tenancy to smokers.

All the other stuff? It's all the same. The landlord is trying to run a business, and this business requires knowing who's in the apartments, and some idea of what they're doing, to protect the property and the landlord himself. His agent on the premises is getting paid to protect him. That's the bottom line.

Anyone that can't abide by the landlord's rules should rent there or work there.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I only read the first post. But I've always been in favor of taking things like this. Your concern for the tenants will likely result in fairer treatment, as your replacement may not have similar issues with kicking people out.

It may make you feel dirty, but remember, your replacement will be harsher.

[BoogyMan]

If you are hired to do the job and don't do it because of some strange idea of morality you are stealing your wages and your word is of little value, as you obviously would not have taken a job that your scruples would not allow you to perform as expected.

[Athena]

"The apartment manager is the agent of the owner. Period. He's not free. He's paid to do a job, and if you can't do the job you shouldn't agree to do it. If you're concerned about the ethics of the situation there it is".

Blow my mind!Â*Â*This is getting more interesting than I expected.Â*Â*What of liberty and freedom?Â*Â*Are we now so materialistic that the only thing that matters is material values?Â*Â*Of what value is life then?Â*Â*Why in blazes are we fighting expensive wars in the name of democracy, when we totally disrespect liberty and freedom and believe everyone is rightly subject to authority?Â*Â*No!Â*Â*I will be no man's slave,Â*Â*for any reason!!!Â*Â*There isn't enough money in the world.Â*Â*I can do a good job and still be true to myself.Â*Â*If my reasoning differs from my employer and my employer sees fit to fire me, so be it.Â*Â*I answer to God and so does he, and we live in a country where this is suppose to matter.

Can we push this discussion a little further?Â*Â*Labrooca, thought I was contradicting myself when I said individual authority is a good thing, and we should think of others.Â*Â*The idea is that thinking of others is equal to having authority over them.Â*Â*This authority over others is something that concerns me, because it is unAmerican.Â*Â*How far are we going to let this go without question?Â*Â* As valuable as property is, our liberty and freedom is even more valuable.Â*Â* Justice should not denied because I could mean loosing a job.

We are law abiding people, and should obey our laws. If we think our laws are wrong, we should attempt to change them. What matters most is public opinion! I am afraid the majority in the US today will sell out for personal gain, and see nothing wrong with this. I had a college professor who told the class my answer to his question was wrong, and that one should never question the higher ups, because this would be a bad career move. Yes, that it could be, but our liberty and freedom a hollow words if we are afraid to stand for what is right.

[Nathan Brazil]

If you want liberty and freedom, either buy your own apartment building or don't sign on to become someone's agent.Â*Â*When you sign a contract you're agreeing to perform services in a certain way.Â*Â*Any deviation from that is dishonest and certainly just cause for the employer to fire you, if not sue you.

It's not a matter of doing a good job and being true to yourself.Â*Â*It's a matter of fulfilling the terms of the contract.Â*Â*This is black and white, just like the ink and paper of your contract.Â*Â*If you value your liberty and freedom more than someone else's property, don't work for him.

Just in case you haven't noticed, you're not subject to the landlord's authority until you, yourself, VOLUNTEER to be subservient.Â*Â*That's an aspect of true freedom.Â*Â*If you choose to be independent, choose to find another job.

[Athena]

I only read the first post. But I've always been in favor of taking things like this. Your concern for the tenants will likely result in fairer treatment, as your replacement may not have similar issues with kicking people out.

It may make you feel dirty, but remember, your replacement will be harsher.


:D For sure my perspective is different from the man who is above me.
I asked him if were possible to put in a dumb waiter, and his first concern was children might cause some damage. Later I asked if a complete bare yard was an acceptable play area, and he said it was suppose to be. Well hey, fellow up in a picnic table and something for the children play with. My point being, his concern is avoiding problems children might cause, and my concern is the children and mothers having the things that make their lives good. I am going to have move slowly to make the changes I want to make.

I may totally fail, because I am working with some wild ideas of what democracy and human nature is all about. It is okay if I fail. And if I don't fail, well then my success will be more than the average. I really want to know what can happen when an apartment manager is personal and willing to interact with everyone, and do things like get a picnic table and something for the children to play with, and put in a garden. Can socializing prevent problems? These are low income people, so the chances of trouble are high.

[Athena]

If you want liberty and freedom, either buy your own apartment building or don't sign on to become someone's agent.Â*Â*When you sign a contract you're agreeing to perform services in a certain way.Â*Â*Any deviation from that is dishonest and certainly just cause for the employer to fire you, if not sue you.

It's not a matter of doing a good job and being true to yourself.Â*Â*It's a matter of fulfilling the terms of the contract.Â*Â*This is black and white, just like the ink and paper of your contract.Â*Â*If you value your liberty and freedom more than someone else's property, don't work for him.

Just in case you haven't noticed, you're not subject to the landlord's authority until you, yourself, VOLUNTEER to be subservient.Â*Â*That's an aspect of true freedom.Â*Â*If you choose to be independent, choose to find another job.


Do you realize you are expressing autocratic values?Â*Â*The US modeled its industry after England's autocracy, and then entered WWI crying "Democracy and autocracy can not co exist".Â*Â*They co existed in the US from the beginning of the industrial age, and when we stopped educating for democracy, we unleashed autocracy with no restriants. Like isn't even acceptable to question the rightness of things?!

Does this quote mean anything to you?
"Whatever their effeciency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power."

I will accept the conditions of the job, but for God's sake that doesn't mean I will stop questioning things I think might be wrong. Socrates drank the hemlock because he so loved his democracy and rule by law. He also warned with his death, Athens would die and it did. This is not about just my one little job, but the changes in our nation that may not be healthy. Can we be completely impersonal and moral?

[Athena]

Nathan, I woke this morning obsessing over what you said. If people must own property to have liberty and freedom, we have a class divided society that is far from the ideal of what the US is all about. We might expect social problems to emerge from this, not so different from the social problems that spin out of racism.

If the propertied class is to deny the non propertied class, liberty and freedom, might not we expect the non propertied class to deny the propertied class its property?

[Mayberry]

OK Athena, let's have a lesson in individual liberty 101 as it applies to this scenario. You don't like the apartment owners rules, policies, etc... Don't work for him! That's your right. As Nathan wrote, you are signing on to work for this guy on HIS terms. He is the owner of the property and can do with it what he wishes. These low income people are lucky to have a roof, much less than a playground. And from what I've seen of low income housing it's a full time job just to keep the place presentable, much less improve it. So I sympathize with the owner. If you don't like it, work somewhere else.

Lesson 2, if these people don't like this apartment complex, they don't have to live there, it's their choice! If they want pools and playgrounds and picnic tables, they can find a better job, get off welfare, and buy their own place, or rent a better one.

To summarize, We are all free to do what we choose. You are choosing to work for someone, therefore you have to abide by their rules. I work on boats a lot at my job. We are required to wear life jackets while on the boat. I hate life jackets, and won't wear them. Besides, most of the time, we're only in 2 feet of water, so if you fell overboard, you could stand up and walk! But since I wish to continue my employment, I wear my life jacket. I won't wear it on my own boat, as is my choice (for now).

[Nathan Brazil]

I asked him if were possible to put in a dumb waiter, and his first concern was children might cause some damage.

My concern would be that the children get killed. Dumb-waiter = dumb idea.

Â*Later I asked if a complete bare yard was an acceptable play area, and he said it was suppose to be.Â*Â*Well hey, fellow up in a picnic table and something for the children play with.Â*Â*My point being, his concern is avoiding problems children might cause, and my concern is the children and mothers having the things that make their lives good.Â*Â*I am going to have move slowly to make the changes I want to make.Â*Â*

The owner of the place has some insurance. Are you willing to both pay the extra premiums for taking matters into your own hands and assuming all other liabilities that would arise if any of the precious tenants are damaged on the equipment you want to install?

Kid falls of picnic table, breaks neck. Parents sue owner of property (not you) for unsafe equipment provided by ownership (you did it without athorization, but you're still their agent). Owners lose lawsuit and five million dollars.

if you can't follow orders, expect to be fired.

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan, I woke this morning obsessing over what you said.Â*Â*If people must own property to have liberty and freedom, we have a class divided society that is far from the ideal of what the US is all about.Â*Â*We might expect social problems to emerge from this, not so different from the social problems that spin out of racism.Â*Â*

If the propertied class is to deny the non propertied class, liberty and freedom, might not we expect the non propertied class to deny the propertied class its property?Â*Â*


What, some Marxist revolution from the proles? Since the proles are invariably stupid, all that ever happens is that they merely get themselves killed to put in different masters. Not that this is an issue in the United States, we are a free country, not some silly proto-industrial late-feudalist society like the Europeans that inspired Marx.

You don't have to have property to be free, but when you chose to become an employee, you're expecteed to obey the employer. At least, that's what mature adults recognize, anyway.

You're apparently confusing the concept of freedom with that of anarchy.

[Nathan Brazil]

Do you realize you are expressing autocratic values?

No, I'm not. If you don't want to work for a company, don't. That's freedom. If you chose to work for a company, you obey their rules. That's called honesty.

Does this quote mean anything to you?
"Whatever their effeciency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power."

Nope. Did those employees get drafted?

I will accept the conditions of the job, but for God's sake that doesn't mean I will stop questioning things I think might be wrong.

Oh, you can question all you want. It's the actions that matter.

Can we be completely impersonal and moral?

A better question is can we be deceitful and moral? That's what you're claiming when you say you're going to take a job and then subvert the employer's wishes.

[Athena]

Do you realize you are expressing autocratic values?

No, I'm not.Â*Â*If you don't want to work for a company, don't.Â*Â*That's freedom.Â*Â* If you chose to work for a company, you obey their rules.Â*Â*That's called honesty.

Does this quote mean anything to you?
"Whatever their effeciency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power."

Nope.Â*Â*Did those employees get drafted?

I will accept the conditions of the job, but for God's sake that doesn't mean I will stop questioning things I think might be wrong.

Oh, you can question all you want.Â*Â*It's the actions that matter.



Can we be completely impersonal and moral?

A better question is can we be deceitful and moral?Â*Â*That's what you're claiming when you say you're going to take a job and then subvert the employer's wishes.


Perhaps I should say, I have a lovely home and income, and do not need the job. I don't believe their is a better person for the job, because I am not doing it for the money, but because I want to test my ideas about people and avoiding problems. I am sought out the job, because I have a lot to give. Personally, I am not for sell, and that kind of changes the rule.

The quote I gave discribed Germany as we mobilized for the first world war. I have said this before. I have a lot to say about how the US imitated Germany and now fits the discription of what She defended Herself against. These internet discussions are very interesting. I didn't realize how serious the problem is, until getting involved with these discussions. It is a cultural matter. The culture of the US today, is not the one defended in two world wars. It is the one of the enemy of our democracy, and I think you are standing on the wrong side.

[Athena]

This is delightful.Â*Â*It is becoming much more conversation than I expected.Â*Â*

OK Athena, let's have a lesson in individual liberty 101 as it applies to this scenario. You don't like the apartment owners rules, policies, etc... Don't work for him! That's your right. As Nathan wrote, you are signing on to work for this guy on HIS terms. He is the owner of the property and can do with it what he wishes. These low income people are lucky to have a roof, much less than a playground. And from what I've seen of low income housing it's a full time job just to keep the place presentable, much less improve it. So I sympathize with the owner. If you don't like it, work somewhere else.

No I am not agreeing to sell out to the property owner.Â*Â*I thank God I don't have to sell out to anyone!Â*Â*Unfortunately, most people do have to sell out and this has so corrupted our morality.Â*Â*Really, how is the situation different from slavery?Â*Â*Unless I am free to do decide what is the right thing and act on it, I do not have liberty and freedom.Â*Â*There was a time when I had to work, and I had to give up my liberty and freedom.Â*Â*I was horrified!Â*Â*I didn't realize how bad our nation has become, until I had to sell my labor for an income.Â*Â*It was a short time before I went into business for myself, and that was SO MUCH BETTER!Â*Â*

You are wrong to think poor people don't deserve the benefits our society.Â*Â*Old text stressed how this is a country for everyone.Â*Â*That doesn't mean people living off the system without making a contribution.
That would be immoral and if people understood democracy that would be understood.Â*Â*However, we must have low wage workers.Â*Â*Things just wouldn't work if everyone got paid $30,000 a year.Â*Â*We thought of low income workers as the back bone of our country, instead of paying taxes, they pay in labor for all the benefits of our society. We taxed all people and shared a few things in common.Â*Â*This is civilized.Â*Â*I sometimes think others have a rather barbaric perspective.Â*Â*

One reason for providing a well equipped play area, is good socialization of children gets good results, and bad socialization of children gets bad results.Â*Â*Democracy is rule by reason.Â*Â*We do things because it gets good results.

Besides, did you miss the point that I will be working for a charitable organization.Â*Â*This is a catholic organization and I will be functioning like nun.Â*Â*Do you have a concept of why a nun does things?Â*Â*Â*Â*It is not for the money.

[Athena]

"A better question is can we be deceitful and moral? That's what you're claiming when you say you're going to take a job and then subvert the employer's wishes."

Did you get Socrates drank the hemlock?Â*Â*He could have escaped and lived, but he so respected the democracy of Athens and rule by law, he followed through with his peers decision that he kill himself.Â*Â* This began with him refusing to stop questioning the Gods.Â*Â*He had to question the Gods, and I have to question authority.Â*Â*That does not mean being decietful or disrespecting the law.Â*Â*

I have no intent of decieving anyone.Â*Â*I will do what I have to do, but if I think something is wrong, I will say so.Â*Â*I think policy set by bureaucrats and applied to everyone with no discretion, is the evil we stood against when we entered two world wars.Â*Â*I think if our decisions are moral decisions they must be personal decisions, based on individual circumstances.Â*Â*Notice the quote mentions impersonalness completely "crushes individual liberty and power"?Â*Â* Can you expand your understanding of what I am talking about a little?Â*Â*We are no longer the democracy we defended in two world wars.Â*Â*

[Nathan Brazil]

No I am not agreeing to sell out to the property owner.Â*Â*I thank God I don't have to sell out to anyone!Â*Â*Unfortunately, most people do have to sell out and this has so corrupted our morality.Â*Â*Really, how is the situation different from slavery?Â*Â*Unless I am free to do decide what is the right thing and act on it, I do not have liberty and freedom.Â*Â*There was a time when I had to work, and I had to give up my liberty and freedom.Â*Â*I was horrified!Â*Â*I didn't realize how bad our nation has become, until I had to sell my labor for an income.Â*Â*It was a short time before I went into business for myself, and that was SO MUCH BETTER!

You didn't have to go work for someone else, you could have starved if that was your choice.

Â*Â*
You are wrong to think poor people don't deserve the benefits our society.Â*Â*Old text stressed how this is a country for everyone.Â*Â*That doesn't mean people living off the system without making a contribution.

But people don't "deserve" the benefits of this society. If such benefits can be had for cash, they earn them. But that isn't the true benefit of living here. The real benefit is that they're guaranteed to be treated equally before the law, and they have the freedom to do as they wish. If their choices in using that freedom lead them to the poorhouse, well, they made bad choices. That doesn't mean they "deserve" differently, they earned their spot.

That would be immoral and if people understood democracy that would beÂ*Â*understood.Â*Â*However, we must have low wage workers.Â*Â*Things just wouldn't work if everyone got paid $30,000 a year.Â*Â*We thought of low income workers as the back bone of our country, instead of paying taxes, they pay in labor for all the benefits of our society.Â*Â*We taxed all people and shared a few things in common.Â*Â*This is civilized.Â*Â*I sometimes think others have a rather barbaric perspective.

Who's "we"? I don't expect people to pay for services with their labor, that's called "slavery" in honest societies. I expect a person to earn a wage and make choices about what to buy with them.

Civilized? If civilization means rationalizing dishonesty because you don't like what your employer is doing, we don't need it. The honorable thing to do if your employer orders you to do something against your conscience is to resign.

Even more honorable is for someone who knows they won't do what their future employer expects is for that person to not take the job in the first place.

One reason for providing a well equipped play area, is good socialization of children gets good results, and bad socialization of children gets bad results.

Results? The results the land lord expects to see are full occupancy with 100% on time rent payment and minimal damage to the property. He's not a social agency, he's running a for-profit business.

Oh, and he doesn't want to be sued, either.

Democracy is rule by reason.

The no nation, no society, on whatever scale, has ever been democratic. 999 out of a thousand feel their glands are their brains.

We do things because it gets good results.

I do things because I get paid. So does most of the rest of America. That's why this country is so successful.

Besides, did you miss the point that I will be working for a charitable organization.Â*Â*This is a catholic organization and I will be functioning like nun.Â*Â*Do you have a concept of why a nun does things?Â*Â*Â*Â*It is not for the money.


No, most nuns are suppressed lesbians or other refugees from the real world.

[Nathan Brazil]

Did you get Socrates drank the hemlock?Â*Â*He could have escaped and lived, but he so respected the democracy of Athens and rule by law, he followed through with his peers decision that he kill himself.Â*Â* This began with him refusing to stop questioning the Gods.Â*Â*He had to question the Gods, and I have to question authority.Â*Â*That does not mean being decietful or disrespecting the law.

Socrates was old, and he knew his enemies would keep on trying to get him, so he gave up.

I have no intent of decieving anyone.Â*Â*I will do what I have to do, but if I think something is wrong, I will say so.Â*Â*I think policy set by bureaucrats and applied to everyone with no discretion, is the evil we stood against when we entered two world wars.Â*Â*I think if our decisions are moral decisions they must be personal decisions, based on individual circumstances.Â*Â*Notice the quote mentions impersonalness completely "crushes individual liberty and power"?Â*Â* Can you expand your understanding of what I am talking about a little?Â*Â*We are no longer the democracy we defended in two world wars.p

Can you expand your understanding to the point where the concept of private property enters into the picture? A bureaucrat is a government flunky, with little or no interest in the issue before him, but concerned with covering his ass with enough paper to make him bullet proof if things go wrong. It's never the bureaucrat's money getting wasted.

A landlord is your boss, and he has a direct interest in how your job is performed. It is his money.

[Athena]

Socrates was old, and he knew his enemies would keep on trying to get him, so he gave up.Â*Â*

Can you expand your understanding to the point where the concept of private property enters into the picture?Â*Â*A bureaucrat is a government flunky, with little or no interest in the issue before him, but concerned with covering his ass with enough paper to make him bullet proof if things go wrong.Â*Â* It's never the bureaucrat's money getting wasted.

A landlord isÂ*Â*your boss, and he has a direct interest in how your job is performed.Â*Â*It is his money.



I don't think you read the discussion Socrates had with friends who wanted him to leave town. I suggest you read it, before forming an opinion of what happened and what could have happened. No one would have chased him down. They wanted to win this last debate with him, and if he left town they would have won. What Socrates was all about was much more important than an individual life.

In another thread, I explained the mass exodus of older women from jobs they held for many years, when a new bureaucratic power began restricting how they did their jobs. You are either very young, or were out of touch with what was happening, when this bureaucratic change came down. The US is no longer the democracy it defended, and our liberty is nothing as it once was, neither do we value people as we once did. The past was not perfect, but we defended our life in two world wars, and now we are as our enemy. I think you need to examine how you value people. I am not for sell, and I don't think you should be arguing we are all nothing more than products for industry to use as it sees fit.