Venture Cattle
Saturday, November 14th, 2009Author Tony DeMaio
Once upon a time in a land far far away, there was a small village. Life in the village was not hard, but it was not easy either.
The villagers worked hard in their fields to grow food for themselves and their cow, which supplied them with milk. Each year, they bred their cow and butchered the calf for winter meat. Additionally they did some hunting. They worked about six hours in the field and six hours caring for their cow(s) and hunting.
One year, Sam thought, “If I DON’T butcher my calf this year, I can breed it next year and have FOUR cows.
Sam did not butcher his calf that year. Instead, he worked extra hard in the fields to grow more food for himself and the TWO cows, and spent every spare moment hunting to supplement his food supply. The neighbors scoffed and laughed at him. The told him that it was stupid to feed two cows when one of them should be feeding HIM. Sam said little; he just worked 16 hours a day. Times were hard for Sam.
The next year, Sam had FOUR cows. He butchered one of them, so he didn’t have to hunt so much, but he still had to work in the fields to feed THREE cows and his family. He only had to work fourteen hours a day. The other villagers still scoffed and laughed at Sam. They pointed and called him a fool. Even his wife appeared to have doubts about the situation. Sam said little; he just worked harder.
The next year, Sam had SIX cows. He butchered one of them for his family, and offered to butcher another for his neighbor, IF his neighbor would give him a supply of feed for the remaining FOUR cows. The neighbor thought, “It will take me four hours a day to care for and feed my calf; yet it will only take me three hours a day to expand my efforts in my fields to provide the food. Yes, I’ll do it.” The bargain was made.
Sam still had to work in the fields to provide for his family and he still had to care for his herd of FOUR cows, but he was working “only” thirteen hours a day. Most of the neighbors still scoffed and laughed at him. They said, “What did it get you? You worked all those extra hours, and now you’re still working more than us. You just wasted two years. Why don’t you butcher three of those cows, freeze the meat and take it easy for the next three years?” Some of the villagers said nothing; they just looked very thoughtful.
The next year, Sam had EIGHT cows. He butchered one cow for his family and made the same deal as before with his neighbor, but also included another neighbor to provide food for FIVE cows AND his family. That year, Sam needed to work only eight hours a day to care for his herd of FIVE cows and do some hunting. The neighbors provided his crop food in exchange for a butchered cow.
The next year, Sam had TEN cows. He made the same bargains as before, but made bargains with THREE neighbors. Since the extra amount needed was so small, the third neighbor also agreed to care for the herd. Sam did not have to work at all, except for sport hunting and overseeing his agreements.
This continued for several years. At the end of that time, Sam had a herd of fifty cows, and agreements with six neighbors. One of the neighbors simply oversaw Sam’s agreements. The next year Sam had NINETY cows.
The villagers found that they could obtain beef quite cheaply, and few chose to raise and butcher their own calf. They found that they could perform a few chores for Sam and obtain as much beef as they desired. What used to take four hours a day now took only two hours a week. The villagers worked an average of seven hours a day and ate beef five times a week instead of twice a week.
It occurred to the villagers that while they were working seven hours a day, Sam was not working at all. The villagers began complaining and mumbling among themselves. “Why doesn’t HE work?” they began to ask. “Why do WE have to work so hard?” they complained. “This isn’t FAIR!” they screamed.
They began to mutter and grumble amongst themselves as to how the “distribution of wealth wasn’t fair”. They discussed a “tax on the rich”—those with more than ten cattle. Sam attempted to point out to them how they were working less than before and eating more beef than ever—to no avail. “You OWE US!” they shrieked; “You could not have done it without our labor. Without US, you could not have raised and cared for more than three or four cows.”
QUESTION: What is it that Sam “owes” the villagers?
Zooks says:
November 15th, 2009
3:16 pm
Owe no man anything but love…
Don Bodell says:
November 15th, 2009
5:00 pm
Looks like all boats rose with the economic tide. But, some appear to believe they deserve more than others and Sam is the object as to why they don’t have more. Same “owes” part of his success to them. Just like an actor who stars in a movie that makes alot of money. What does the actor “owe” his audience? His gratitude for recognizing how well he could do his job of acting. He can’t “give” the audience his talent to make THEM more talented. He can only display his talent for their appreciation. Which means that Sam actually could make sure others did receive something more than appreciation of his talent. Something more than a good show. Sam’s skills made others prosper as well as making him, Sam, prosper. And, he wasn’t acting! He really meant it! All profited beyond appreciation of the fine job that Sam did. I believe what Sam owes is paid. In fact, it seems to me that alot of locals owe, at least, a debt of gratitude that Sam stayed in their village and helped everyone out, while helping himself. Yes, yes he made “money” from it all. But, he didn’t seem to have a problem with others making it, too. And, yes, they helped him make money. Oh, and did Sam contribute anything to the local charities and churches? I’m guessing that he did.
The villagers sound like a bunch of whiney-assed leftwingers. Probably university graduates. Got trained in marxism (I don’t capitalize it any more–that mid-19th century “philosopher who has been the cause of so many deaths doesn’t deserve it). I’m beginning to think we could re-apply Mao the Dong’s ideas. Send all university students to agricultural universities. Make them work on corporate farms! Learn something about growing food and commercial animals! See the damage done by high taxes!!
John Lum says:
November 16th, 2009
2:27 am
Maybe lots of the Sams of the world got favorable tax breaks, or favorable gubberment treatments, or profited from questionable practices, or benefited from lax gubbermint oversight — all at the expense of the masses of non Sams.
John Lum says:
November 16th, 2009
2:33 am
Maybe lots of the Sams of the world got favorable tax breaks (often through unequal access to law makers), or other govenment breaks, or profited from questionable prfactices and manuevers, or from lax or non-existent government oversight — all at the expense of the masses of the non Sams?
linda brady traynham says:
November 19th, 2009
9:58 pm
John, when we’re writing on Whiskey & Gunpowder we are scrupulously polite and pull our punches. Over here, while still respecting Marquis of Queensbury rules, we say what we think plainly.
The point of the fable is that a man chose to defer pleasure to build wealth, during the course of which he raised the standards of his entire village and was turned on by those who could not have accomplished what he did. Sam’s sacrifice and thought improved the lives of all the villagers, but their envy, avarice, and laziness rejected the value he had and produced. They could not understand why he deserved his reward, any more than you appear to be able to. Certainly, American government as now structured is full of corruption and insider deals, but that is not a fault of a free market (which no one has) or Jeffersonian agrarian republicanism. Sam harmed no one and benefited all.
linda brady traynham says:
November 19th, 2009
10:01 pm
Dear Don: Well said, and happy laughter. I hope you will comment frequently! Regards, Linda
Ernie says:
November 21st, 2009
12:22 pm
I really hate to disagree with some of the finest folks on the web- this parable is true and well stated, but it somewhat misses the point. We in the west have worked for hundreds of years and especially for the last few decades to create a world where less work is required. We had the industrial revolution, then the mass production revolution, then the computer/automation revolution. All of this was aimed at making the stuff of life cheaper and more accessible. We have succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors.
Unfortunately, the inverse of this is that we have decreased the value of labor exponentially- but through the machinations of the greedy and the power hungry (inflation, taxes, and laws, laws, laws), we haven’t decreased the prices accordingly. Thus, Americans been working longer hours for decades to maintain our lifestyle. And yes, it is our lifestyle and we did earn it and our ancestors earned it. That is the crux of the problem.
Navel gazing and preaching to the choir are pleasant enough, but nobody on any side wants to grapple with these issues. Absolutely a man has a right to his property, but you always have to remember that man is a fallen creature and if you allow yourself to become ostentatiously wealthy while your neighbors are struggling and losing ground, eventually you’ll be a fat juicy feast for the dehumanized mob.
The American founders (Franklin, among others I believe) had a very good and seldom spoken term for it- enlightened self interest. As opposed to naked self interest- greed. When the richest decided that they were better than their peers and had a right to all the gains- that was the beginning of the end. Another way of putting it is “noblesse oblige” does exist and is an important concept.
There are consequences to these imbalances- the incapable nevertheless have a right to live. To live they need food, clothing, and shelter. In 1800 with no substantial division of labor in the economy, the lowest American could homestead some land, build a cabin, farm, hunt, and generally provide for himself. With all the property and resources owned, this is no longer possible. So we work for others. And they owe us respect and sustenance.
It is in the ultimate best interests of the achievers to (I really can’t believe I’m saying this and I hate it) spread their wealth around. No man has the right to tell you to, certainly not a commie government, but this obligation is nonetheless incumbent upon us all. If you’re smart enough to become very wealthy, you need to understand that your blessings and your fortune came from God and the golden rule must guide you.
Best to all-
EP
Tony says:
November 22nd, 2009
12:13 pm
I really hate to disagree with some of the finest folks on the web- this parable is true and well stated, but it somewhat misses the point.
First of all, a couple of points:
1. We are not some of the finest folks on the web–we are THE finest folks on the web.
2. It is understandable you would not like to disagree with us–nobody likes to be wrong.
But, enuff humor.
====================================================
Unfortunately, the inverse of this is that we have decreased the value of labor exponentially- ……….. Thus, Americans been working longer hours for decades to maintain our lifestyle.
Simply not true. In 1960 minimum wage was $1/hr. Today it is $7.50/hr. According to the web, inflation is 6.93:1–pretty close. However, today, we enjoy not only cheaper products, but many MORE products (e.g. computers).
Consider gasoline: I pumped gas in 1960 for $1/hr. Gas cost 33 cents; a candy bar cost 10 cents. That means that in 1960 I had to work 20 minutes to buy a gallon of gas, and 6 minutes to buy a candy bar. Today, a gallon of gas cost about $2.50 and a candy bar about 75 cents. That means that a minimum wage person has to work about 20 minutes for a gallon of gas and 6 minutes for a candy bar.
However, if you think about it, you don’t care how much gas cost–you care about how much it costs to drive. In 1960 I had a beat up Ford that got 16 mpg. New cars were getting 10-12 mpg. Today, I have a beat up Ford that gets 24 mpg.
In 1970 I joined the “computer revolution” with an IBM 7090 computer. It cost over a million bucks. Today I can buy more computing power at Good Will for fifty bucks. Costs of a telephone call to New York?? Don’t make me laff.
If you think in terms of cost as “hours needed to work at minimum wage”, you get a different picture.
=======================================================
Navel gazing and preaching to the choir are pleasant enough, ………. your neighbors are struggling and losing ground, eventually you’ll be a fat juicy feast for the dehumanized mob.
Neighbors are not struggling and losing ground. Neighbors have been TOLD they are struggling and losing ground. (When a welfare recipient shows up at the emergency room wearing $150 tennis shoes and whips out an expensive cell phone, something is wrong.) Our welfare recipients live better than the middle class in most countries.
It is both interesting and disturbing that some folks believe they will “take a year off and live off unemployment insurance.”
Others have made the same prophecy–have you noticed the increased sales of guns and ammunition? Some folks are stoking up envy and hatred for their own purposes. Many of us that have something to steal will be ready to defend it.
=====================================================
The American founders (Franklin, among others I believe) had a very good and seldom spoken term for it- enlightened self interest. ……… Another way of putting it is “noblesse oblige” does exist and is an important concept.
I suggest to you that when Sam elected to raise cattle and hire folks to work for him, he did the community far more good than cutting off a steak from his (one) cow and throwing it to a “beggar”. The whole community benefited by working fewer hours and getting more beef. If there was “naked greed” or “envy” involved, it was on the part of the populace that wanted more by taking it away from Sam. May I direct you to the web site “Whiskey and Gunpowder” and the posts, “Please Don’t Feed the Animals” and “Sharing the Wealth”.
I believe you have seen what “sharing the wealth” did for/to GM and Chrysler.
=======================================================
There are consequences to these imbalances- the incapable nevertheless have a right to live. To live they need food, clothing, and shelter. ….., the lowest American could homestead some land, build a cabin, farm, hunt, and generally provide for himself.
While I agree that the “incapable have a “right to live”, I reject the notion that they have a right to live at MY expense. Such a viewpoint make me their slave–I work for them without choice of compensation.
I suggest that you are omitting that in order to homestead, the homesteaders worked 16 hours a day and died at 40. Today, poverty is defined at $14,000 for a family of four, but does not count subsidies such as food stamps, free medical, etc. At a minimum wage of $7.50/hr, a person would have to work less than two and a half days a week to live in poverty. This is considerably less than the 60 hour (6 days, 10 hours/day) work week of our forefathers. Today our “poor” have air conditioning, computers, telephones, dishwashers, washers, dryers, cars, class “A” medical care (which YOU cannot afford), are buying houses, and eat quite well. I don’t quite know what “sharing the wealth” means to YOU, but I’ve shared enough. With state and local taxes included, the average citizen is paying over 70%.
====================================================
It is in the ultimate best interests of the achievers to (I really can’t believe I’m saying this and I hate it) spread their wealth around. No man has the right to tell you to, certainly not a commie government, but this obligation is nonetheless incumbent upon us all. If you’re smart enough to become very wealthy, you need to understand that your blessings and your fortune came from God and the golden rule must guide you.
I DO try to live my life by the golden rule–I leave others alone and hope they leave me alone. I suggest to you that Bill Gates did more for the world by “inventing” the computer than all the money he has contributed to all the various charities.
When someone invents a product, people have a choice of “to buy“, or “not to buy” (Government excepted). If someone “buys”, he does so because he believes it “betters” his life somehow. The fact that it betters the inventor’s life is (or should be) irrelevant. If a person chooses NOT to buy, he is no worse off. If the person wishes to buy, but cannot afford to, he is no worse off. A fundamental question is:
If a person invents a product and makes many people better off and no one worse off, why is he obligated to “give” to those who may be totally uninvolved with the whole process?
Why is someone’s misfortune a claim on my prosperity? They are questions I’ve asked of many people over many years and have yet to obtain a satisfactory answer. (As I sed, I pumped gas in 1960. THAT should give you some idea of how many times I’ve asked this question.)
rebel without a job
tony
Ernie says:
November 23rd, 2009
7:51 am
Hi, Tony.
When I wrote this on TTR I wasn’t looking for a fight- but I was hoping someone might help me to see if there is an error in my thought. I wanted some intellectual challenge- having said that, you’ve defended the wrong positions.
I’ll try again: As to losing ground, my timeline starts around 1980 so as for yours starting in 1960, perhaps there is a perception issue? Sadly, I don’t even remember what gas cost in 1980 but I agree that gasoline and candy have remained relatively stable in purchasing cost. And I absolutely resent the hordes of welfare cases in their overpriced shoes and clothes, running to the emergency room so that others have to pay for their medical wants (NOT needs). Absolutely, technology has enriched our lives- computers can fit on a single chip and are in every cell phone and you could easily control a moonshot with free obsolete surplus hardware. Technology is my business- I know it well. I’m not so sure on the price of a house or on rental costs though. Food is cheap, for the moment. As is clothing.
Of course, as the costs have dropped, the quality has also. You can no longer buy a washing machine which will last 30 years. Cheap clothing is thin and wears out quickly. Houses are made of chipboard. And as for our beat up Fords, while modern machining tolerances are remarkable and if cared for will last several hundred thousand miles, they have more and cheaper plastic, and the parts are replaceable, not repairable, so that they economically require replacement more frequently. I would contend that on balance, basics like food, and fuel are somewhat stable in inflation adjusted price, but overall costs are up substantially. Kind of the reverse of the Fed’s hedonics arguments- price may be down but costs are up.
But we are also losing ground due to technology- the Chinese have also lost hundreds of thousands of jobs due to automation. I believe that right now we have substantially understated unemployment (at U6 around 17%) due to the fact that so very many Americans are on the government payroll- from overpaid traffic cops in 4wd limousines (call the Yukon what you will, I find them sumptuously luxurious and not really a utility vehicle) to TSA goons to “social workers” to paper “engineers” to feminist studies professors to….
Remember, I didn’t disagree with the parable- no I don’t believe that Sam should have cut a steak off one of his steers and given it to a lowlife. What I disagree with is American companies cutting off their nose to spite their face- laying off 10000 people who earned their keep and were good American customers, to hire 20000 foreigners and to add insult, not cutting the price of their good or service proportionately. The analogy would be Sam requiring his neighbors to work not 16 hours a day, but 18-20 and requiring them to piss in a cup so that he could make even more wealth- siphoning off their surplus to his own ends.
I agree with you on the tax burden except that 70% may be low- the true source of most of our problems.
I am a regular reader of W&G, Lew Rockwell, WorldnetDaily, and an assortment of other conservative and libertarian sources. Unfortunately- I’m a news junkie and the web is a constant challenge to me- so many urls so little time!
“I believe you have seen what “sharing the wealth” did for/to GM and Chrysler.” I would have a hard time picking a better example- GM is a failure all around- unions being greedy, management being selfish (give the peasants most of what they want, raise prices, when it all comes apart I’ll be cashed out- let’s go search someone’s car…) and government being involved everywhere.
I’ve really rambled here but my point is that we have to constantly challenge our own premises to make sure we’re not simply being greedy and shortsighted also. This is how the commies have won so much- creating and exploiting weaknesses. Do we disagree?
Best
EP
Tony says:
November 23rd, 2009
7:21 pm
Hi, Tony.
When I wrote this on TTR I wasn’t looking for a fight- but I was hoping someone might help me to see if there is an error in my thought. I wanted some intellectual challenge- having said that, you’ve defended the wrong positions.
I’m glad you’re not looking for a fight. I’m too old to slug it out and too fat to run. I don’t mean to come across as antagonistic, but at my age I don’t really have time to be subtle
. ‘sides, the problem with being subtle is you never know if you were understood or not.
===========================================
I’ll try again: As to losing ground, my timeline starts around 1980 so as for yours starting in 1960, perhaps there is a perception issue? Sadly, I don’t even remember what gas cost in 1980 but I agree that gasoline and candy have remained relatively stable in purchasing cost. And I absolutely resent the hordes of welfare cases in their overpriced shoes and clothes, running to the emergency room so that others have to pay for their medical wants (NOT needs). Absolutely, technology has enriched our lives- computers can fit on a single chip and are in every cell phone and you could easily control a moonshot with free obsolete surplus hardware. Technology is my business- I know it well. I’m not so sure on the price of a house or on rental costs though. Food is cheap, for the moment. As is clothing.
If technology is your business, you’ve probably come across the term “regression to the mean”. It DO happen. Sure, sometimes you gets some “outliers” or “bubbles”, but they regress. (If you want a good stock picking model, try one based upon this concept.)
The federal minimum wage in 1980 $3.10. Minimum wage today is about $7.25, yielding a ration of 2.3. An inflation calculator shows inflation to be about 2.5–fairly close.
In 1960 I purchased my first house for $11,000. I sold it in 1975 for $30,000, and purchased a house for $52,500–which later sold for $85,000. I purchased another house in 1983 for $52,000 (it was a bit of a wreck) and sold it in 1992 for $150,000. I purchased a house in 1992 for $150,000 and sold it for $500,000 in 2002. Except for the last house (bubble housing economy), the one thing that all those purchases/sales had in common was that if you allow a trend line of 6% compounded, they are ALL just about on that trend line. (That last house is now on the market for $300,000–below trend.)
The doctors visit that you used to get where he checks you over and turns you loose, now consists of blood work, x-rays, MRIs, CATSCANs, stress tests, etc. Of COURSE medical care has gone up–it’s a different product.
========================================================
Of course, as the costs have dropped, the quality has also. You can no longer buy a washing machine which will last 30 years. Cheap clothing is thin and wears out quickly. Houses are made of chipboard. And as for our beat up Fords, while modern machining tolerances are remarkable and if cared for will last several hundred thousand miles, they have more and cheaper plastic, and the parts are replaceable, not repairable, so that they economically require replacement more frequently. I would contend that on balance, basics like food, and fuel are somewhat stable in inflation adjusted price, but overall costs are up substantially. Kind of the reverse of the Fed’s hedonics arguments- price may be down but costs are up.
Gots to disagree. First of all, many folks throw away clothing as out of style long before it gets worn out. If you don’t believe me, go to Good Will. In the sixties, cars were figured to be good for three years or 30,000 miles–50,000 miles if you took care of them. Lube/oil change every 1,000 miles. The plastic makes them lighter, better design makes them stronger. The car of the sixties came with optional radio and heater. Today, I don’t have space to list all the extras. Seat belts and air bags make them safer. In the seventies, about 50k folks died in car accidents; today it is less than 40k. Like the gallon of gas I bought in 1960 for 33 cents that took me 16 miles, that same gallon now takes me 24 miles.
I have yet to replace a washing machine, dishwasher, dryer, refrigerator, or other major appliance due to being broken beyond repair–for the most part, there have been no repairs. If I DO have to replace it, I can go to Good Will and get one for $25. (I once moved into a house on a temporary–1 year–basis. I purchased a used washer, dryer, and refrigerator for $100–total. That was 3 years ago.
There is no question that costs are going up–the question is whether or not the wages have kept pace. Sho ‘nuff, you wanna buy top of the line, you may have some problems doing so with minimum wage. If you ever get into such a situation, check with the welfare folk–they seem to know how to do it.
====================================================
But we are also losing ground due to technology- the Chinese have also lost hundreds of thousands of jobs due to automation. I believe that right now we have substantially understated unemployment (at U6 around 17%) due to the fact that so very many Americans are on the government payroll- from overpaid traffic cops in 4wd limousines (call the Yukon what you will, I find them sumptuously luxurious and not really a utility vehicle) to TSA goons to “social workers” to paper “engineers” to feminist studies professors to….
Personally, I believe that the U-6 number is also understated–but that’s another story. Of course we lose jobs to technology. What would you have done to “save” the jobs of all those telephone operators that lost their jobs when computers took over the switching duties? SHOULD YOU have done anything?
==================================================
Remember, I didn’t disagree with the parable- no I don’t believe that Sam should have cut a steak off one of his steers and given it to a lowlife. What I disagree with is American companies cutting off their nose to spite their face- laying off 10000 people who earned their keep and were good American customers, to hire 20000 foreigners and to add insult, not cutting the price of their good or service proportionately. The analogy would be Sam requiring his neighbors to work not 16 hours a day, but 18-20 and requiring them to piss in a cup so that he could make even more wealth- siphoning off their surplus to his own ends.
First of all, those people had no “claim” to those jobs. There is a parable/fable about the “goose that laid the golden egg” I think you should read. The classic case, of course, is GM/Chrysler. You can only kick your employer in the ass so much before they find alternatives. The Mexican worker will work for a hovel and a couple of cans of beans. The American worker will work for 12 holidays, 12 sick days, 15 days vacation, a health insurance plan, a grievance procedure, life insurance, social security, medicare, a retirement plan, and anything else the union can bleed out of the company. American industry took it for quite a while, much longer than I thought they would. Finally, they rebelled. They rebelled against the higher taxes, the restrictions (safety, environmental), the law suits, the strikes, the insane laws, and the rest of the “package”. NOW, folks complain about the loss of jobs. Fascinating!!!!
======================================================
I agree with you on the tax burden except that 70% may be low- the true source of most of our problems.
I thought I said “over 70%. If not, I should have.
==============================================
I am a regular reader of W&G, Lew Rockwell, WorldnetDaily, and an assortment of other conservative and libertarian sources. Unfortunately- I’m a news junkie and the web is a constant challenge to me- so many urls so little time!
Quit your job, go on welfare, and surf the net 16 hours a day.
===========================================
“I believe you have seen what “sharing the wealth” did for/to GM and Chrysler.” I would have a hard time picking a better example- GM is a failure all around- unions being greedy, management being selfish (give the peasants most of what they want, raise prices, when it all comes apart I’ll be cashed out- let’s go search someone’s car…) and government being involved everywhere.
Aktually, in many ways you cannot blame GM. It takes about three years to produce a car from start to finish. When they were designing the larger SUVs, they were selling well. The crunch came when it was too late to stop production.
================================================
I’ve really rambled here but my point is that we have to constantly challenge our own premises to make sure we’re not simply being greedy and shortsighted also. This is how the commies have won so much- creating and exploiting weaknesses. Do we disagree?
Best
EP
I’m afraid we do not agree. First of all, I know of no society that runs on anything other than greed. The only question is, “Who is being greedy? And how?” To the person that seeks to improve his own life while trading with his fellow man, I say, “Kudos”. To the person that would seek to loot and plunder his fellow man to improve his own life, I say, “Shame.” To those that would organize and vote to steal from their fellow citizen, I say, “You are the most vicious of parasites and leeches.” To those who would steal from one citizen in order to give to another, I say, “You are a busybody. Mind your own business.”
In terms of being “shortsighted”, that is definitely a blessing in government. Progress is made in short steps in the “right” direction. It is quite effective. Things which could not be accomplished in a single step can easily be accomplished in 10 steps. At each step, the bureaucrat “takes his profits”, then pushes on to the next step. Sometimes you get aggressive, sometimes you wait patiently. When the “stimulus” bill went by, the file drawers opened, and every pet project that had been lying dormant was attached to it.
linda brady traynham says:
November 24th, 2009
1:43 pm
Gosh, fellows, the only thing wrong with that conversation is that I wasn’t lucky enough to be a part of it! Polite, lively, cheerful, intelligent debate…I love it. ALL discussions are academic in our house. You two played by the rules and hurrah for both of you.
I would not call a government or an individual who played Robin Hood “a busybody who should mind his own business.” I call them thugs. It doesn’t matter who is doing it or what the motives, using force to take private property IS thuggery.
The Ring is young, but we’re growing at an amazing rate. Exchanges like those above are “good for business!” It isn’t a business, of course, it is a labor of love among half a dozen friends. Ernie, if you want to submit an article, send it to me and/or publisher Michael Rough. (Aargh, I hate being stuffed in a small box without rich text.) We’re always interested in working out philosophies.
Tony, got a subject for a fable for you, one about the cost of being “kind.” A friend who is a landman and accustomed to making $350-400/day for over two decades has been virtually unemployed most of the year, and the instance of “reasonable kindness” has grown to the point where I’m feeling like Thidwicke the Big-hearted Moose before he had the sense to shed his antlers. In a sense the situation is like that victims of con artists find themselves in, not knowing how. They never did anything clearly “wrong,” but each step was just a little bit “not right” or pushing the boundaries.
We have been appealed to over, and over, and over again. It is neither kind nor Christian not to offer her the use of one of the many spare motor homes since her electricity has been cut off. It isn’t much to feed her every day. We cannot harden our hearts when she wants to borrow vehicles and “pawn” things with us. Have I ever sounded like a pawnbroker?
At long last she has a job–at least four hundred miles away. The engine on her SUV went out early in all of this, and she and her former boyfriend (who works for us; they just broke up exceptionally vitriolically for at least the dozenth time, this time we all hope for good. That, of course, has involved listening to her wail about how much she loves him, while taking pot shots at him. I finally had the sense to say “I will not listen to any more of this.”) managed to abuse the SUV which was his for ranch use until it would cost a thousand dollars to put it back on the road. Naturally, she expects US to provide her with a car “until she gets back on her feet!” Yes, this is ridiculous–but if we can get rid of her by doing so, it is probably worth what it will cost. MDC is off now, because we’ll be damned before she can have either of the two vehicles we keep registered. Do people never THINK? In order to “lend” her a vehicle I don’t expect to see back for at least six months, we have to have one registered, inspected, and insured–and filled with gas, of course–specifically for her use. This has all gotten wildly out of hand, we’re feeling taken advantage of, and she’s the sort to indulge in emotional blackmail, wanting constant reassurances that we’re glad to help her. SHE feels that she is underappreciated for pitching in with the chores occasionally–although I will give her that she has done a lot more the last week or ten days.
Remember the tale of the Good Samaritan? He did the easy, obvious kindness. He picked the stranger up out of the ditch, patched him up with his first aid kit, and took him to Motel 6 where he paid for a couple of night’s lodging and some delivery pizza and Chinese. He did NOT take the victim on to raise. He did NOT send the man’s children to college. He solved the immediate problem and went his way.
Is this tale not instructive of the mess the USA is in, other than that no one gave us any choice whether or not to pay for other people’s “kindness?” I was interrupted with another scene and she KNOWS I dislike loud, emotional voices and self-justification. While MDC was getting ready to go to town to take care of HER needs, not ours, she asked if she could run over to her house to get a document she needed. Again, one can scarcely refuse. I told her to take the truck. She took the Cherokee, annoying Charles who is almost impossible to upset…and when I mentioned it she said nastily, “I didn’t know that.” What is not to know about “Take the truck?” That is exactly what I said when she asked.
When we are “too kind” to others not only do they take us for granted but they feel they have a right–an entitlement, if we must–to what is ours. In this case, not only does she take and take and take, but she feels as though she earns her way and abuses me emotionally.
Put that way, perhaps the better part of a thousand dollars for insurance, registration, inspection, and to fill the tank is a good bargain. I am assured nobly that she will share a room with some one or another of landmen she knows who have also been hired, and how she eats can damn’ well be her problem. The milk of human kindness is well and truly curdled.
So, wise gentlemen…at what point would YOU have said “No more!” if you ever did? MDC and I came as close as we ever have to getting into an argument this morning because he said “YOU said she could have a car.” I said no such thing! I knew we’d be asked for it, I knew there was no decent way to refuse since it will be at least three weeks before she is paid, but I did NOT volunteer.
Ah, Tony…put it in perspective for me, please! Hugs, Linda
linda brady traynham says:
November 24th, 2009
1:53 pm
I didn’t say, but what Charles and I decided on was a Mercedes, and a diesel, the better of our two, at that! Although I did not tell her that. Did I hear any “Blessings upon you?!” No. She feels she has a “right” to what is ours, obviously, because we have enabled her to think so. And what I just got was “Why do you hate me? Why aren’t we friends? Why don’t you ever smile at me?” Is it unChristian to pray that she will take our lovely little 240-D and just go away?! How could I be dumb enough to do in my private life what I disapprove of in government affairs? And I call myself a philosopher. Contritely, Linda