Re: Can you *believe* this guy? (AGGGHHH!!!)

Graeme Bacque (
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 14:49:38 -0400

At 02:29 PM 6/14/98 -0500, you wrote:

>There is also another point of view: the responsibility point of view, a 
>view that is neither endorsed by the medical model or the so-called "social
>work" model.  The responsibility point of view states that if someone wants 
>to have the same rights and priveleges as do other citizens in a community,

>they need to accept the same responsibilities and obligations as others.  
>That means, no free housing, no government hand-outs (solely on the basis 
>one is "mentally ill"), and no special rights, such as the right to commit
>crimes and not face any punishment for them.

Oh......?  Since these are necessities of life rather than luxuries, I feel
they should be considered unconditional rights. Certainly no human being
has any right to prevent access to such or to demand someone 'earn' these
things from  them. This idea is nothing but a massive ego trip coupled with
blind unreasoning greed. It is also in itself an act of violence.

>I find it ideologically inconsistent to call for human rights and
>non-infringements of civil liberties, while at the same time, calling for 
>greater government intervention and thus, less responsibility for the
>individual themselves, to better themselves.

Are you saying that persons who aren't (for whatever reasons) assisting in
the corporate goals of maximizing profits at any cost not entitled to their
liberty or the basic needs of life?  Its hard, if not impossible, for
anyone to 'better themselves' in a climate where basic needs are almost
impossible to meet, and you face constant blaming and other abuse for
situations beyond your control. It is neo-conservative polititicians, the
corporations who give them their marching orders - and people like yourself
who are apologists for this ongoing violence - who are irresponsible; not
those who are struggling to survive on a daily basis. 

Provision of needs is an obligation in any society which insists on a
centralized governing structure - and it shouldn't involve intervention in
personal lives; merely listening to identified needs and ensuring the
availability of necessary respources.  The smarmy false moralizing  and
massive social control which accompanies the meagre resources actually made
available  is unnecessary and unacceptable. And personally I long for the
day when people reclaim their own lives to a degree where the bosees,
politicians, and their apologists like yourself get tossed out on their fat
and useless asses. But in the meantime, we're stuck with you leeches. May
as well make the best of a bad situation until we can create something better.

Graeme Bacque
(#2226799 on ICQ)
++Question and challenge *all* human 'authority'++