I see we can agree on one thing at least Ojnab, these ridiculous fireworks.

We are bombarded with state government advertising about the banning of smoking near schools, I presume due to some bull about the danger of passive smoking tobacco, but meanwhile we approve the pumping of hundreds of tons of heavy metal carcinogens into our air on a regular basis.

Surely people realise these metals are really dangerous, compared to a bit of tobacco.

Dear Joe,

<<If you have to ask what 'neglect' is, then you would never know.>>

The interests of a child cannot be all fulfilled, if nothing else, due to the fact that there are only 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week.

No parents, even be they kings and queens, can provide their child with extra enrichment lessons in all arts, all sports, all musical instruments, all martial arts, all religions, all philosophies, etc. etc., then still allow their child time to play with their friends or to simply relax.

Could they then be accused of neglecting their child by not providing this or that lesson?

"Neglect" is therefore all about priorities and the risk is for governments to accuse parents of neglect for acting on their own priorities rather than on what the government wants. If government is allowed to dictate the tennis is more important than flute, then there is the danger that it could also dictate that physical food is more important than spiritual nourishment.

<<In respect of this particular hole, people get into one either through thoughtlessness or calculation>>

Then in the first case they need to learn to be thoughtful and in the second to be less selfish.

I've never been a social-worker. I believe that my 4 points are good reasons for having welfare - unconditional except on income:

1. Misfortune and catastrophe can happen to anyone, thus a source of anxiety. Knowing that one would not be totally forsaken, cold and hungry, reduces the level of that anxiety.

2. Civilisation and its laws prevent people from living in nature without regard to money. Welfare (using money) can be seen as a form of compensation for the inability to live without it.

3. Anxiety over losing one's job can bring workers to degrade themselves and compromise their morals and health. Knowing that welfare is always there reduces that risk.

4. Hungry people tend to steal and rob as they have nothing to lose. Feeding the hungry unconditionally is cheaper than heavy locks and iron bars on all doors and windows.

Squeers,
I seem to have a knack for being unclear! I don't for a moment suggest that comfort is undesirable, merely that it is not a quintessential component of having a good life as a human being doing the things that make beings human and may actually come to be destructive of the best experiences of human natures, to the detriment of subjectively experienced well-being.

We need to be focussed on enjoyment, which is produced by doing and is a deeply satisfying hedonic experience. Far too much of our lives are driven by pleasure, the fleeting buzz of sex, or acquisition, or consumption of the fruits of someone else's work.

This extract from the reference I provided earlier might help to better understand my perspective.

"The aim of positive psychology is to begin to catalyze a
change in the focus of psychology from preoccupation only
with repairing the worst things in life to also building
positive qualities.
The field of positive psychology at the subjective level
is about valued subjective experiences: well-being, contentment,
and satisfaction (in the past); hope and optimism
(for the future); and flow and happiness (in the present). At
the individual level, it is about positive individual traits: the
capacity for love and vocation, courage, interpersonal skill,
aesthetic sensibility, perseverance, forgiveness, originality,
future mindedness, spirituality, high talent, and wisdom. At
the group level, it is about the civic virtues and the institutions
that move individuals toward better citizenship:
responsibility, nurturance, altruism, civility, moderation,
tolerance, and work ethic."

Joe, would you mind explaining your reference to Mount Olympus? Regrettably, I don't seem to be able to grasp your meaning, although in the context it seems to be intended pejoratively, which is an interesting usage. We seem to be in some agreement generally, which is encouraging.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Thank you for elaborating on what you meant earlier. But you're still barking up the wrong trees.

Of course, welfare should be available for all who need it, for as short a time as possible. It should not be a lifestyle option.

There are families around which have been - from the historical record - welfare-oriented, with no-one in regular work, for six and eight generations. Those 'families' have, more willy-nilly than by design, 'raised' their kids to expect never to work, to always be able to skive and scam the system, but in an environment of violence, boredom, injury, starvation and humiliation. The one lesson people seem to learn is: grab it while you can, so one sees fat adults and skinny kids.

So those kids are almost bound to do poorly in school, and get out of it as soon as they can: they often see nothing in it for them. So they begin the cycle of reformatory, welfare, prison, welfare, violence, hospital, child-making, welfare, prison, child-making, violence, hospital, prison, sickness, and so on, until, on average, a very early death.

We each have only one life, one life potentially well-lived. Many kids raised in a welfare culture are robbed of that. They will never know what you and I may perceive as achievement, fulfilment. As long as they have to rely on welfare, they will never know it.

So the task is to get able-bodied people off welfare as constructively and as soon as possible. The cycle has to be broken. So single mothers should be assisted to improve their work skills - yes, so that they can work like 'normal' people for forty or fifty years - through free child care services while they are studying to improve their skills, ideally with jobs already identified.

Should they expect an easy job, well-paid, interesting, clean, in an air-conditioned office ? No. One of my brothers used to get up each morning at 5 a.m. to clean toilets, to put himself through his Ph.D. You do what you have to. Like the rest of us.

Joe

Yuyutsu, thank you for your comments. They reflect a great understanding of the essential aspects of humanity.

It seems to me that all of the contributors to this discussion (including me) are to some extent groping in the dark for a lost key that will open the door to a better life. The shape of that key is in some dispute and for some, the key is not important, but finding it first is vital :).

Only a few generations ago the vast majority of humanity lived in a world defined by how far one could walk in a day (a great many still do). The vast majority of those never walked that whole distance in a straight line, so their world was smaller still: their village and perhaps the village over the hill were all they ever knew. In that world, if someone seemed to have a better share than others, it was either because they deserved it: perhaps some special talent, some special skillset, or perhaps great frugality; or they were in some way cheating their neighbours.

There was no other way to significantly exceed the group average prosperity and both have their drawbacks: the first requires hard work and perhaps some genetic luck, while the second risks a loss of status if discovered. However, if everyone fell into one of those groups, the whole group would be worse off, so most people simply did what was expected, like all group species.

However, there was a strong incentive for everybody to watch for the cheats (nothing special about that, dogs do it too) by keeping an eye on what other had and evaluating how hard they seemed to be working for it. That is what we call envy and in today's world, where the group is enormously large and where it is not readily apparent how hard anybody works, but very easy to see the outward signs of prosperity, it has become a powerfully negative force in some people's lives, even those who should, by any material measure, be satisfied with their lot.

Dear Joe,

In India there is a term for such families as you describe: they are called 'Shudras', which are the lowest of the fourfold caste system.

The Indian caste system became very unpopular today, when this crazy politically-correct idea as if "everyone is equal" reigns supreme, and is now even banned by the Indian government.

But however faulty and degenerated that caste system has become, it was based on some observable truth which no philosophical fashion can brush away.

Shudras have their respected role in the world and it is not a shame to be a shudra, but a necessary step in one's spiritual evolution. Once successfully completed, a shudra is reborn into the next caste, as a Vaishia (independent farmer, tradesperson or merchant, etc.).

The natural occupation of shudras is to perform menial work. Vaishias are defined as those who can perform a day's work without supervision, which shudras cannot. Shudras typically are not expected to live beyond the age of 50, but that's OK because they have nothing to look for once their physical strength has departed, because study is simply not in their nature.

None of this of course can be acceptable to those who believe that we only live once, then die and that's it, as you just wrote yourself: "We each have only one life, one life potentially well-lived."

Historically, prison and violence were not part of the life-cycle of shudras. In fact, if they committed a crime, the law gave them lesser sentences on the grounds that their understanding is limited. Historically they had plenty of work and were happy with that.

The problem is in the modern society, where technology substituted their natural skills thus little work remains which suits the Shudras. I repeat, study is not in their nature: while they enjoy simple work, they experience study as torture and cannot grasp why that is required from them. This may be hard for you to understand because if you [happily] participate in OLO, then you are not a shudra.

(continued...)