1 Rewarding those who chronically do nothing is obviously a recipe for economic disaster, but our current sustem only rewards two kinds of people:

Those who already have the financial resources to acquire education for themselves and their children, to make investments in their future, and to maintain a lifestyle that allows enough free time to participate in and influence the decision making process. (If you're established, you stay established.)

Those who possess the entreprenurial skill to begin with very little and turn an idea into a fortune. (A tiny minority of people.)

No one else, regardless of how hard working or moral they are seems to matter. This system sends a clear message to young people who fall into neither favored group and are now being tempted by the rewards of criminal behavior.

2 I don't buy that. Although it's more difficult than ever today, thanks to useless social programs, hard work still can pay off. And if the rewards for criminal behavior are higher than the potential punishments (which they clearly are), then there is no disincentive to criminal behavior.

I know of what I speak for at one time I had literally nothing but the clothes on my back. I had no house, no vehicle, nothing. I CHOSE not to engage in criminal activities, but instead decided to work. And no, it's wasn't entreprenurial skill, it started as working nights cleaning up a 7-11.

3 The media and popular culture tends to focus upon motive whenever someone commits a media worthy act. The nut who murdered those Amish school girls is a good example. Everyone will strain their imaginations trying to figure out why he targeted what has to be the most outwardly harmless demographic group in America. They should not waste their time on such things.

I've frequently emphasized the absence of inhibition (See Lesson V) as the most important element in any crime, particularly the absence of empathy. Belonging to a society and an economic system that treats individuals like disposable labor units maintains a culture where it becomes normal to think of everyone you simple dislike or find inconvenient in the same context. We emphasize the rhetoric of the Golden Rule, but our most powerful institutions practice the precise opposite. A society where the disposability of people is normal is a society where abortion and assisted suicide become painless, unembarrassing concepts.

4 That's an...interesting point of view you have. Based on what you've said here, it appears that you believe there is no such thing as objective reality. Do you believe that? Is everything relative, or is there such thing as an absolute truth?

5 WOD-
I disagree with you. Way back, I didn't even have a HS diploma. I was 16, a very recently recovered heroin addict, a new Mom...on my own. I got a job at a factory, working nights at first so my family could watch my baby. It was hard brutal work, with a lot of rules. I neeeeded that job though, so I never once broke the rules. Many around me did though and whined when they got called on it.

I went back to school, got my HS diploma and went to college for a nursing degree. It was extremely difficult to do this: Work full time, take care of a very young child,and go to classes 5 nights a week AND study (nursing is very hard). I depended upon NO one to help me. I took no grants and other free for alls from my government. I wanted to make my effort MINE, and when you do that, you tend to value your work and job a little more.

One doesn't have to be rich to get on in this country. And one doesn't have to have an entreprenurial spirit to get by either.

All that is needed is the will to do the best you can, and to work hard to get what you want in life.

6 WOMD said:
"Belonging to a society and an economic system that treats individuals like disposable labor units maintains a culture where it becomes normal to think of everyone you simple dislike or find inconvenient in the same context. We emphasize the rhetoric of the Golden Rule, but our most powerful institutions practice the precise opposite."

Where did this come from?? I am confused. The Golden rule?

No business can afford to be SO nice to it's employees that the business suffers loss of customers and therefore revenue. Employees have enough rights in this country too- more than enough in my opinion.

The relationship between a boss and a subordinate is business in nature. While everyone expects the boss to be polite and YES, follow the Golden rules, the boss has the obligation to make sure his employees are doing their jobs correctly-- this includes making sure their attendance isn't bad. Like it or not, there has to be some rules. Or chaos will rule.
Businesses have an obligation to weed out those who are not interested in working. It's simple.

We cannot be a nation of too many dogooders. Even socialism would collapse under such ideas as the anti Wal Mart crowd aspires to.

7 Ogre,

My philosophy of existence is very simple.

The universe is a logical, structured place which appears to follow laws of physics that do not conveniently change to suit the needs of whoever's in charge of the government or the predominant religion this week. It's not unreasonable to assume that whatever created the universe is also a logical entity with a sense of purpose. I don't believe that there's an all powerful deity micromanaging everyone's lives and deciding who to punish. That's where religion crosses the line into politics. Our creator established the laws of physics, set the initial conditions, and simply allowed the universe run its course, hoping for a particular outcome.

One of the more obvious processes going on in the universe is the tendency for simple structures, systems, and processes to evolve into more complex ones. This is not restricted to clouds of hydrogen turning into stars. Simple forms of life become more complex over time and we are the current end result. What the end result is supposed to be in a few thousand years remains to be seen, but it's not a wild leap of faith to assume that our creator would like civilization to actually work, become more stable, and more complex. Given the human tendency to accumulate knowledge as a means to becoming more powerful and more survivable, one could speculate that we really are the children of God, and that it's up to us to find our own way to maturity.

But, there's a problem. It's the problem that I described in my August, 2005 post, "How to rationalize domestic terrorism."

We are developing technology, and subsequently developing our ability to cause harm faster than we are conditioning each new generation to feel empathy for others. I predict that within a few decades; 30 years was the time I used in my post, some individual with the right technical knowledge is going to give the insurance industry a really bad day.

And what does this have to do with Wal-Mart?

As I stated in a previous comment above, "the absence of inhibition (See Lesson V in my weblog.) is the most important element in any crime, particularly the absence of empathy." Motive is not important. There's always a motive to harm others. There's always something to gain. Allowing large, powerful institutions like Wal-Mart to "reduce labor costs" by firing American workers and subcontracting to slave labor firms overseas is an example of intentionally causing harm to others in pursuit of one's objective. How difficult will it be 30 years from now for some technophile at MIT to follow the same line of reasoning when he decides that the earth is just too damned overpopulated?

If I had the opportunity to step into a time machine and travel a century or so into the future, I'd be very shocked to find an intact civilization here. I think we're screwed and I can't find anyone who feels comfortable even admitting that there's a problem.

8 WOMD-
You're totally weird. And off base. ALlowing powerful institutions like Wal Mart to reduce labor costs?? Since when is holding staff accountable to policies a bad thing? What do you say to the hospitals and nursing homes who have even stricter attendance policies than Wal Mart? What will you say to the patients who have no nurses at work on any given shift, because the powerful hospital had to relax it's policies so as nt to offend those who like to call out a lot?

I work in nursing and I have never seen a policy as lax as Wal Marts. Get a grip and-- go live on your Utopia wherever it may be.

9 Raven,

If I blindly devote my life to ancient scripture, writings that have been translated multiple times and could easily have been created by flawed, corruptable men, then I am a devout follower, someone to be respected.

If I choose to find meaning in the structure of the universe, something that corruptable men have no influence over and only God could have created, I am "totally weird."

Thank you for reinforcing my beliefs.

10 I find it interesting that you, WMD, believe in a theory that is supposedly based on facts and logic, but in fact, to actually exist, has to have no actual logical chance of existing.

I am sure you do think that we're causing harm faster than we feel empathy. I'm quite sure when the bow and arrow was invented the same thought was felt by many. Ditto the catapult, gunpowder, and the atomic bomb. We're still here.

And it is quite a strange and different point of view to claim that people should only be viewed objects that should not be harmed in any manner, at any time, by any one. I'm not sure how you can connect that view with any sort of reality that's ever existed. As Raven has suggested, perhaps you're imagining some strange utopia that has never, nor will ever exist on this world. It will, however, exist somewhere else -- a place that you strangely seem to have absolutely zero desire in going. Yes, what a strange view to have for a supposedly rational person.

11 The bow and arrow, the catapult, and gunpowder can be manufactured and employed by an individual determined to cause harm. But none of these weapons can be employed to cause harm to society on a statistically significant scale.

Nuclear (nukular) weapons can be employed to cause statistically significant harm to entire societies, but they are expensive, difficult to obtain, and generally in the hands of complex and disciplined groups of people, none of whom have anything of significance to gain from mass murder.

I'm predicting that well before this century ends, our biotechnology industry will mature to the point where a single individual will acquire the ability to undermine the accuracy of the actuarial tables. He will be able to precipitate sudden, economically significant changes of behavior in large portions of our population. Large industries depend upon the predictability of aggregate populations in order to maintain economies of scale. And I'm not the only person who forsees this type of scenario.

The January/February, 1998 edition of Foreign Affairs featured an article titled, The New Threat of Mass Destruction by Richard K. Betts, Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and Professor of Political Science and Director of the Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. His article included a catchy subtitle: What if McVeigh had used anthrax?

I've been called worse names than wierdo or irrational before, but I'm not the only one who sees a problem.

12 Two different points in the thread here.

The first is that you're saying the universe is logical and only works according to known, man-defined, laws of physics. To do so, however, is simply impossible when mathematics is applied to the theory.

The second is the idea of mass destruction. No, no one thinks it's not a threat (well, except Democrats). But notice the dire predictions from 1998 hasn't happened yet. But that's the point of the current war on terror and international affairs -- the insane leader of Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, because HE WILL use them because he is irrational. The US has them, but is currently rational enough NOT to use them.