Ultimately Why We Work

Yes, this is not scholarly. I have no sources, and have done no research. It's not even original. It's just what I've been thinking about on the way home... from work.

We work, though, because we, somewhat, fear what idleness can do. I'm certain when we all didn't work, when we meandered and thought, socialized and did whatever else idle humans do, we got into trouble. We see sometimes how children behave when they can do whatever they want, and I suppose even adults may do the same. We'd found we could do things, construct things, put things together, and went with that.

Someone worked, and then eventually more worked. Then we'd started deciding things had relative worth, and that we could trade one thing for another. We got the idea of fairness, because this person shouldn't have to work harder than someone else and not get more out of it than that someone else.

We began having an ethos of gaining things, wealth. Our populations expanded, meaning we had to make sure resources lasted, even though people with more wealth could buy as many resources as they wanted, leaving others without. Or they would sell those resources to gain more wealth. We created governments as we'd learnt about power and resource apportioning, including that governments could raise funds from land just as individuals found they could.

People who don't want anything to do with the regular scheme of things -- working for pay, having a mortgage, living in a proper house, creating more humans -- don't propagate the system humanity has created. Other human beings sometimes look at those who would take what they have and go out on their own with some amazement and some jealousy. "Why does he get to not work? I don't want to work." The person striking out on his own would have a time trying to do that, though, because the system wants everyone to pay for land.

The system has budgeted that so many people who make money will put a certain amount of that towards the system to keep it going. Having less people doing so undoes the system. People can't have tiny tracts of land for tiny houses because the system wouldn't make enough to sustain itself, so they'd set rather large minimum plot sizes.

Minimalism in a culture that treasures having more is a sin, something awkward and unseemly.

We work to keep ourselves busy and because it keeps the system that developed out of keeping ourselves out of idleness going.

The Digital ID "Revolution"

Estonia will hand out digital ID cards to non-residents
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/29/estonia-digital-id-for-non-residents/?ncid=rss_truncated

Every time I hear about Estonia and it's forwardness with basically all things technology and the government, it actually doesn't frighten me. I've been a person who's said "I have nothing to hide". There are things I don't talk about openly, yes, but for things especially regarding government laws and rules, I just don't play.

I've talked about/ranted about people not obeying traffic rules, and things like that in what people may call "government overreach" I see as perhaps people just not wanting the government to catch them doing what they should not be.

This is, at least, some of the time.

I'm actually thinking about getting a one of these digital IDs, partly for the sake of being a giant nerd, and partly just to make the point people make out "privacy" to be so much more of a big deal than it really should be.

Tax Day Honesty

I'd seen this weeks ago, but it's only appropriate to post this today, being the United States' Tax Day.

I'd discovered Pearls Before Swine through my My Yahoo! page and it's been quite giggleful, actually. This one made me think, though, because a lot of people kind of have this mindset: "me make lots monee" but "guvmint you no geet any".

Yes, there are cases of government overreach, mismanagement, and perhaps at times overregulation. People don't seem to realize the things they take for granted their taxes pay for, though…

So, pay your taxes, and vote to make sure management of taxes happens properly.

Should You Have a Gun?

Partial reference: http://goo.gl/0x79DV

As soon as I'd heard the words "shouldn't have had a gun," I'd wanted to go desperately to Facebook and pull out another gun control debate aspect, but I think everyone's kind of gunned out. Still, I need to get this out.

As you may or may not know, I believe in controlling guns. I believe there are certain guns for certain occasions, and not everyone should have the most powerful and modern out there just because they want to.

Hearing, though, that someone who has had criminal convictions in the past, and who therefore should not have a gun, makes me wonder why people want to make it so easy to obtain one?

People seem to be most against the easy transfer of guns between family members. It just takes one relative who feels that the offending relative "isn't a criminal" and that "everyone is against him" to give that offending relative - who may be trying to falsely ingratiate himself to the family member - a gun.

Then Hell could break loose.

Why don't we have background checks again?

Government Intervention

Now, I can understand why some people are suspicious of the government. We've seen historically what can happen when one entity has too much power and/or control over a group.

Pogroms might occur, slaughters could happen, oppression can ensue, and sadness may run rampant. There could be little, if any, higher regulation or co-regulation.

It doesn't have to be that way, however, if we do it correctly.

What sparked this rant-of-sorts was me hearing on our local news station a few people expressing their gripes about the City of Atlanta possibly banning smoking in public parks. Some said, among other things, that the government is too big, that it should be smaller, and has no right to "meddle" or "infringe" in/on the affairs of the general populace's "right" to do as they choose with their lives.

My take is this:

Certainly, there are elements one most likely can govern by oneself.

The government doesn't need to tell you when you eat, if you eat, if you exercise, if you watch television, if you decide to dye your hair purple… This is because these are personal decisions affecting only you. If you eat sporadically throughout the day, that's your choice. If you decide to not eat because it's Ramadān, trendy, or you don't feel like it, that's your decision influencing solely your physical/mental(/spiritual) health and well-being in general.

If you don't eat and you're pregnant, however, that's different. You are willingly - though it may or not be wittingly - influencing another's life. This may bring in the debate on when that clump of mitotic cells becomes a cute bundle of joy, but that's another debate.

The point is, you're influencing another life.

Speed limits, traffic signs, signals, and regulations, and lots of other governmental interventions in these regards exist because somewhere along historically the "powers that be" left us to make "common-sense" decisions, we'd failed at it — perhaps killing someone in our devices-leaving — and so they left it *again* to us as a voting population, or those we'd entrusted to have our best interests at heart, to protect the majority of us from those who made the life-canceling (and, me judgmentally saying, stupid) decisions.

So, I think they should ban the smoking in public parks. People have been in the presence of smokers and have asked them to stop, and some graciously do or move to prevent further offense. From what I've witnessed, though, there is a strong, vocal subsection of smokers who believe they should smoke wherever they choose, and that those who don't smoke and feel uncomfortable around smoke should be the ones to move.

This insensitivity influences others. It's your personal right to smoke or not, because you are affecting your own life. You can smoke among other smokers because you each are willing participants unbothered that others are smoking around you. Smoking around non-smokers who do not wish smoke in their breathing space does affect someone else.

There is a half-joke in Loganville that the City and Gwinnett/Walton County doesn't do anything until someone dies. This seems to be true, because traffic light referenda don't seem to happen until someone dies. Special Local-Option Sales Taxes (SpLOSTs) don't go to ballot until there's a death, it seems.

Even one death.

If there is one person who feels the personal right to live healthfully is under threat because of another, and that other does not respect the first person's personal right — and that continues despite the sense of dignity/deference to all healthy personal rights, (quanti-/quali-)fiable over time — the government should intervene.

God knows, the petulant children harming others for their own comfort aren't making the right decisions themselves…

CNN Breaking News: 11 June 2011, 14:01

From: "CNN Breaking News"

Date: June 11, 2011 14:01:08

Subject: CNN Breaking News

‘The head of the Democratic National Committee is calling for the resignation of U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, who has been under fire after admitting to inappropriate communications with women online.

"It is with great disappointment that I call on Representative Anthony Weiner to resign," DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement Saturday. "The behavior he has exhibited is indefensible and Representative Weiner's continued service in Congress is untenable.

This sordid affair has become an unacceptable distraction for Representative Weiner, his family, his constituents and the House -- and for the good of all, he should step aside and address those things that should be most important -- his and his family's well-being."

And House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Steve Israel have told Weiner he should resign, a Democratic source with k nowledge of the conversations told CNN. Both released statements also demanding his resignation Saturday.’

Ferchrissakes, I don't get this country most of the time. They speak of personal freedom, of individuality. They want people to be themselves and to err as humans do. I suppose I'm continuing the cycle by opining on this myself, and even forwarding this on, but people should just leave him alone on this. Whatever: he erred!

I suppose this is one of the many shreds of idealism I still have remaining, but I find it stupid that people who work in politics expect everyone "representing the people" to be perfect and to never err. I find it further stupid that people base their electoral decisions on things like this, and whether the candidate is a Christian, or was ever divorced, or even if the candidate is a he.

Do people expect that every politician/people-representative step down every time the err in their personal lives? I had in mind Japan, which has had a prime minister every year for the last five, when it's supposed to be one for at least err four. The prime ministers decided they erred in their decisions as prime minister (with two, I think, stepping down because of personal scandals) and decided they should no longer be prime minister.

Silvio Berlusconi has his teenage dancer scandal, but is he giving up his seat? No! Vladimir Putin may have been maritally infidel multiple times, but he's probably going to run for president again. These men have a separation of the "mistakes" they make in their personal lives from what they do in their offices as world leaders.

Their personal decisions - Weiner, Berlusconi, Putin - have not cost people their lives. They have not done things others have not done ever, and people shouldn't base hiring and firing of leaders based on personal mistakes that have no influence on their official capacities.

Judge them as humans on the human court. Don't judge them in official courts and question their official capacities based on personal mistakes. If they've made official errors, that's up to debate, not "oooh, he texted!"

Whatever.