//I tried to sell them some weeds @ only $ 1.99 but I was hunted off, back to the western suburbs.//

I doubt it was the weeds that were your problem: they may not have been particularly digestible to humans, but that's never stopped vegans before. Given that they are highly gullible and appear to lack the sense of taste, I suspect that one could sell them deadly nightshade as a trendy salad vegetable with relative ease. Not that I would, of course...

Clearly your problem is marketing. Tell them that your product is consumed by some obscure tribal group, invent some wondrous health-enhancing properties but word them vaguely so you don't have to prove them, and jack the price up to $2.99. If you do that, you shouldn't have any trouble flogging off your grass clippings to idiot hippies as the latest superfood.

.

Dear Sells,

.

Commenting on Don Aitkin’s article, “The moral basis of the Left”, you note :

« Missing in his appraisal of the Left is two thousand years of Christianity with its focus on the neighbor »
.

Like the proverbial fool, I can’t help looking at your finger as you point to the "neighbor". I see Christianity focusing on the “self”, not on the “neighbor”. I see it delving deep into the inner life of the “self”, scrutinizing every nook and cranny of its intimacy and holding it to account.

I see it intruding into the life of the family and the society at large, imposing its dogma and world view, on pain of incurring divine wrath.

Christianity and democracy have had a long and often troubled relationship. The monolithic god figure is not exactly a symbol of democracy.

As to the left or right political affiliation of Christianity, it seems to me that it’s a mixed bag with the scales slightly but clearly tilting to the conservative right.

I think that even my good friend, Runner, would hesitate qualifying Christianity as “progressive”.

.

Hi Toni,

Grass clippings - with all that cat dudu, all finely chopped ? Okay, I'll give it a go, maybe in the $ 4 - $ 5 range. Kikuyu and Buffalo a bit more, because more fibre.

Hi Banjo,

Yeah, probably. But Christianity does have the Good Samaritan, someone helping someone else who is not even from the same group. That does it for me. Other religions would have advised that Good Samaritan to 'pass by on the other side', after all, it was the victim's karma to die in a gutter. And Muslims would help the victim only if he was Muslim, as in most tribal societies.

So what is the moral basis of the self-styled Left these days ? It does seem that their primary principle (if one could laughingly say that the Left has principles) is anti-Americanism, including anti-capitalism, anti-globalisation, anti-growth and anti-consumerism.

They don't seem to realise that the most reactionary (i.e. extreme right-wing) ideologies currently around the world are all of those things, with a lot of racism and misogyny thrown in. No names :)

So the self-styled Left finds itself, as it has done many times over the past century, in bed with the most backward, extreme-conservative and, let's face it, fascist, groups, and face-down.

Since the fall of communism, pretty much forever, the 'Left' has had nothing to latch onto and accordingly, have turned towards nihilism and, ironically, consumerism for themselves while they would deny it to others. Hence, kale, quinoa, fashion bags, up-market restaurants and coffee-shops, the latest serious play, annual and bi-annual holidays overseas, while they rail against GW, population growth (Where ? Amongst themselves ? Oh, no, more like Africa and India) and of course, Everything That the US Represents.

But a question: Which Left, given that it is a very broad and sect-ridden church ? The moral basis of which Left ?

Joe

Here's a research topic for somebody:

- poll all those inner-suburbs kale-munchers on their attitude to the US - AND ask them if they have been there. Of course, many times, they'll say, sort of proudly.

- And where would they like to migrate to if they were offered a tenured position ? Anywhere in Africa ? Asia ? The Middle East ? NW Europe or Canada, perhaps ? Maybe even the US ? If they were honest, even with themselves .....

As for the Genuine, Critical, Left: what are some of the sources of its moral basis ? I would suggest that yes, parts of the Sumero-Judeo-Hellenic-Christian tradition, the separation of church and state, the magna Carta and its recognition of individual rights, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Marx, perhaps Bernstein and Liebnicht (Wilhelm), Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper. Currently Nick Cohen, Pascal Bruckner, Alain Finkielkraut, Paul Berman and a few others.

What are its principles ? A critical analysis of social forces, based on the assumption that nothing has ever been, is or ever will be perfect, that you therefore criticise your friends even more than your enemies, a universalism that assumes that every African or Indian has the same rights to comfort as kale-munchers, and to remain ever-sceptical of anything that smells like Utopian notions.

Thanks, Don, for the opportunity, and the impulsion, to grope towards systematising one's ideas and inadequately express them.

Cheers,

Joe Lane
Adelaide

Dear Aidan,

Allowing nature to take its course could be seen as cruel unless you have faith in the balance of actions and results. Regardless, this would then be nature's cruelty, not yours.

You may be fascinated to learn that Exodus 30:11-16 actually ordains the collection of a tax. Accordingly, this collection is stated to be the only valid way to conduct a census: counting people was forbidden, so instead, every person had to give a half-shekel coin, then the coins were counted instead. If, however, you consider this book as a source of morality, then that same book which calls for tax-raising also commands (Exodus 22:18): "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Jesus indeed said nothing against taxation because there is nothing morally wrong about being on the giving end, only on the receiving end; and that too, only if the givers (or at least one among them) did not do so voluntarily.

«I'm curious as to whether you consider it immoral to accept assistance from a state that's only partly funded by taxation?»

There is no problem with taxation itself - the problem is when tax is taken without the payer's consent. If you benefit from such money, wholly or partially, then to that extent you take part in theft/robbery.

Once tax is made voluntary, there will be no longer a problem in benefiting from the state's coffers. Obviously, those who choose not to pay tax should also, to any practical extent, be barred from receiving state-benefits and privileges. Even more specifically, in order to encourage the big-end-of-town to pay their tax, one who chooses not to pay their share of tax, should not have their business recognised as an incorporated company or have their real-estate properties formally registered as theirs.

.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

.

That seems to me to be a fairly perspicacious analysis of the various shades of left. If that’s what we choose to call it.

Though just about everything I am seems to have a left and right to it, including my brain and my heart, I guess my thoughts and feelings follow the same pattern. The only obvious difference seems to be that the right side of the heart is slightly smaller than the left side. I understand that this is because the right side of the heart only sends blood to the pulmonary circuit, whereas the left side sends blood out to the whole body.

As a result, perhaps it could be said that the left side of the heart is a little more generous than the right side and works harder.

Basically, what I want to achieve in life is the best for my family, self and friends and for mankind in general. I place a high value on individual freedom and autonomy (of thought, opinion and action) and have a visceral detestation of injustice in all its forms.

However, I accept to play by the rules, even if some of them are unjust, provided they apply equally and indiscriminately to everybody – until such time as they are changed.

Though I find myself mellowing with age and becoming more tolerant, I continue to consider that some people forfeit their right to life by their failure to respect the right to life of others and should be euthanized as peacefully and painlessly as modern science can allow.

I recognize no god and have difficulty accepting any form of hierarchy not based on demonstrated superiority or democratic selection.

Both left and right co-exist harmoniously in me. I am right-handed and right-footed for most things but left-handed and left-footed for others. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

As for the Good Samaritan you mention, I understand that the Samaritans are considered to be the smallest and oldest sect in the world today. Total population was 777 in 2015 (http://www.thesamaritanupdate.com/) – hopefully, all good !

.