on our MONEY>'IN GOD WE TRUST' he wouldn,t let us suffer? we obey his commands-we don,t LIE[sysops] we don,t flame & de-fame individuals[sysops]-we HONOR HIS SON-we delete HIS WORD-we are fair????

-- flamed & de-famed. (dogs@zianet.com), September 28, 1999

Answers

al-d! Welcome to Humpty Dumpty! Going for a record as to how many places you can get run out of? LOL.

-- Bokonon (bokonon@my-Deja.com), September 28, 1999.

Not sure just what "flamed" was getting at in his post, but I thought it was interesting that just this morning I was waving a $1 bill in front of my 8 children and telling them a little bit about "In God we trust."

My argument was as follows:

1.The "God" of "In God we trust" (whether it's politically correct or not), was and is the God of the Bible-- Jehovah, the covenant keeping God. 2. A very large quantity of American currency resides overseas. (I had no trouble spending greenbacks when in Turkey or Greece.)

3. To the foreigners reading U.S. currency, America is thought of as a "Christian" nation (just as we consider Iran, Iraq, and Saudia Arabia as "Muslim" nations and just as we think of India as a Hindu nation and just as we think of North Korea as an atheistic nation.

4. America has abandoned the ethical standard of the Bible, and therefore no longer "honors" the God in whom we proport to trust.

5. Whenever this happens, the God of the Bible inevitably brings judgment. He is very jealous for his name and his reputation, which for him, is intimately wrapped up in the lifestyles of the people(s) who call upon his name.

6. Jehovah's judgments (as recorded in the Bible) take on many forms (eg. floods, fire & bromstone), but often includes "confusion."

7. Y2K will bring on MUCH confusion.

8. It sure looks like we ought to be preparing for judgment!!!

What has this to do with putting Humpty back together again? As UN- P.C. as it may be, we can't do it and expect our efforts to last (and to me that means doing it in such a way that the God in whom we trust puts his hands of blessings on it) apart from conforming to the ethical standards God has established (i.e. His moral law).

And that, by the way, is why I think G.North is on to something very big. He is a "re-constructionist," and has been calling himself that for a very long time. He says, and I agree, you can't build something with nothing, so what are we to use?

We must begin with the understanding that the God we proport to trust is a "covenant-keeping" God, that our foremost priority as his creatures is to enter and maintain covenant relationship with him.

From there we realize that covenants are at the core of our family, social, civil government relationships. We must learn what that means and be willing to live according to the terms of our covenants if we are to have any hope of putting Humpty back together.

The foundation must be sound if the superstructure is to stand!

Interested in feedback. I'm not a flaming fundamentalist, but I do think that we are missing something VERY crucial if we ignore our covenant relationships on horizonatal plain, but we can't get those right unless the covenant relationship on the vertical is operational. And THAT is why I am a Christian.

-- B. Webert (webert01@hotmail.com), September 29, 1999.

Ed, any idea how many folks monitor these discussions? I am frankly amazed by how little traffic there is here. Maybe there are a lot more readers than posters. Ihope so.

Thank you for monitoring it and contributing appropriate comments.

-- B. Webert (webert01@hotmail.com), September 29, 1999.

Speaking of covenants, how about the covenant that use to exist between employer and employee in large corporations? It use to be that if you worked hard for a corporation then the corporation valued you and you had a home there. With downsizing, job hopping, and temporary employment becoming the norm, most companies have become nothing more than a temporary association of independant contractors. Why would most people care if the organization they are in is Y2K compliant or not, odds are they won't be at that company very long anyway. I would imagine this is one that will change post-rollover, the shareholders and the market will demand it.

-- Stanley Lucas (StanleyLucas@WebTv.net), September 29, 1999.

Stanley, the question you ask here is, to me, a good example of "covenant" thinking applied to the issue of putting Humpty Dumpty back together. Where did we go wrong? Well, we trashed the (implicit)covenant between workers/employers. One "covenantal" paradigm (a biblical one) has a host of things to say about employer/employee relationships and the responsibilities incumbent upon both parties the to the relationship.

-- B. Webert (webert01@hotmail.com), September 29, 1999.

Interesting thoughts, B. I've been pondering lately how arrogant we pieces of clay are, having been so sure that we invented our own wealth, knowledge, computer brilliance, etc. Meanwhile, the potter is sitting back, letting us brag as small children are wont to do, and waiting to let us have the natural consequences of our actions. Certainly, Y2K qualifies as "natural consequences" of poor decision-making. I'm just thankful that our Heavenly "Daddy" ("Abba", literally) isn't taking His hands off His children, and He's not pacing back and forth worrying about Y2K or anything else. He's keeping His covenant with His people. I wonder how many of His people are attuned to how the play is currently being worked out on the stage?

-- Ann M. (hismckids@aol.com), September 29, 1999.

Covenants are just exchanges of promises (implied, formal or otherwise). They form a basis for life as we know it.

I work in exchange for the promise that my employer will pay me.

I accept money (and checks) that (it is promised) will be usable to trade for items of value to me.

I put money in a bank in exchange for the promise that I can take it out.

I help my neighbor put up his barn in exchange for the implied promise that he will help me when mine is due to be put up. (Or I may just help him...)

I send my offspring to school in exchange for implied promise that they will learn something useful there.

If many of these covenants are abrogated (not honored), we have a TEOTWAWKI situation...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), September 29, 1999.

As for employers - once upon a time, I worked for a very large corporation that has its home office on Madison Ave, NYC. At the time I began working for them, they still served "free hot lunches" to their employees every day. They had a large dining area with really great food. At the time, I was single and it was my main meal of the day. I believe they started this practice during the Great Depression. After several years, they discontinued the practice and gave everyone a bit extra pay.

When I went to work there, retirements after life-long service were not uncommon. Slowly, the "family" atmosphere began to fade away. Then they shipped out one line of business to the suburbs and another to another state where labor was cheaper. Employees became a mere "input" and were used to the max until burned out - then discarded for new and younger blood. Management style was focussed only upon performance - either ya cut it or ya didn't. No excuses. "We hire your productivity, not you." I worked there 15 years, then left in disgust.

I wonder if y2k will bring a resurgence of the "family" type approach - perhaps a pendulum swing back away from agressive competitive style to considerations of the human beings employed and the part loyalty plays in retaining company stability.

-- anon (anon@anon.calm), September 29, 1999.

My .02 ... I'ma Lurker...

To rebuild the "Current" system is ludicrous.

There are some good parts to be recycled, but many should be left to rust.

Lack of RESPONSIBILITY is a major problem we face today...

No More Large Corporations (power corrupts / size corrupts)

Corporate America must be judged by the same Judicial System as individuals... if the Company participates in fraud...everyone invested in the company goes to JAIL...board members/ employees/ shareholders.

The current system allows everyone participating in a venture to be immune to RESPONSIBILITY, yet reap the benefits of "a little dirty water here" and "a little slave labor" there.

I'm not against capatalism. Just against the "curtain" of protection it promotes, because it's good for everyone.

The FAMILY business is the cornerstone of capitalism. Everyone involved in a corporation should have FULL knowledge of it's business practices. In the new system, if your company commits a crime...YOU go to jail (community work farm). Every shareholder MUST take responsibility.

This is where our system has failed. It has allowed basically everyone to hide behind a veil from responsibility.

You should work with people you trust....trade with people you trust...live with people you trust. These people would be responsible.

Anyone out there invested in a company that would rather pay a fine for polluting rather than fix the pollution problem because it's MORE ECONOMICAL???????? RAPE...you go to jail.

Maybe is wasn't economical to make that software Y2k compliant...but it sure was irresponsible.

RESPONSIBILITY must be the rock the future is built on.

-- Nailbender (why_rebuild_this@rollover.net), September 30, 1999.

JESUS said I AM THE WAY. but man say.s no-GOD say,s ok. have it YOUR way.---that,s why he,s coming back-for those that say=YES LORD.

-- it,s so simple when>> (dogs@zianet.com), September 30, 1999.

Question fer ya nailbender on responsibility - When does individual responsibility end and public responsibility begin?

Take private property use, for example:

In America, civil society was consciously founded on the principle of the "social compact." Tucker's "Blackstone's Commentaries, View of the Constitution of the United States," defined the nature of a "compact":

"It is a compact; by which it is distinguished from a charter, or grant; which is either the act of a superior to an inferior; or is founded upon some consideration moving from one of the parties, to the other, and operates as an exchange, or sale: but here the contracting parties, whether considered as states, in their politic capacity and character; or as individuals, are all equal; nor is there any thing granted from one to another: but each stipulates to part with, and to receive the same thing, precisely, without any distinction or preference in favor of any of the parties....."

This "equitable" arrangement is further explained in the "Essex Result" of 1778, in reaction to the proposed Massachusetts constitution:

"When men form themselves into society, and erect a body politic or State, they are to be considered as one moral whole, which is in the possession of the supreme power of the State. This supreme power is composed of the powers of each individual collected together, and voluntarily parted with by him. No individual, in this case, parts with unalienable rights, the supreme power therefore cannot controul them. Each individual also surrenders the power of controuling his natural alienable rights, only when the good of the whole requires it. The supreme power therefore can do nothing but what is for the good of the whole; and when it goes beyond this line, it is a power usurped. If the individual receives an equivalent for the right of controul he has parted with, the surrender of that right is valid; if he receives no equivalent, the surrender is void, and the supreme power as it respects him is an usurper."

Under traditional English Common law, a person could do what they willed with their property as long as it did not substantially injury another (or the public) in his/its health, safety, peace or property. This was the demarked boundaries of the private property owner's responsibility and the "police powers" of government to protect health, safety, peace and property.

As was stated by the Court in the 1876 case of Munn v. State of Illinois, 94 U.S. 113:

"...When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. 'A body politic,' as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 'is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.' This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively private, Thorpe v. R. & B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143; but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. From this source come the police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Cases, 5 How. 583, 'are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty, . . . that is to say, . . . the power to govern men and things."

On the other hand, when the public set policy to advance or benefit the general good, implementation was to be done through positive incentive or "promotion." If it was necessary to "take" an individual's property, under the equity of the social compact, each man was to be made whole in his estate for such a loss. This was done to honor the equity of the compact

Today, we use regulation restricting use of private property to advance a public good. This was NEVER as intended by the founders. In such as the endangered species act, the luckless property owner is not compensated for any resultant loss in value, use or costs of applications, studies, fees and mitigations. Somehow, "responsibility" has shifted from the public to the unlucky individual. The property owner bears the disproportionate share of public policy to advance a public benefit. His property "right" becomes a privilege conditional upon satisfaction of various exthortions by the public.

If there is no "injury," these costs, by rights, should be born by the public. The original compact is broken. Please consider this when you set about assigning "responsibility."

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), September 30, 1999.

Marsh...

Thanks for the lesson and the precedants (sp?).

Personally, one of the most thought provoking responses I've read on any thread.

I agree, the work of our Founding Fathers has been added to, spun, tweaked, and is basically unrecognizable... all in the name of "it's good for US, the economy, the children, whatever".

Regarding your closing suggestion: I do not think "responsibility" should be "assigned", I feel it should be "taken" by individuals in their actions. I realize this is a major "mind set" change from what we have today. ie: the bottom line is one of the most important "things" today.

Look at the pre US American Indians for example: They couldn't even comprehend the act of "owning" land. Does this make them fools or enlightened?

The desire for Power and Wealth is THE driving force behing today's society. Sure these are the "good old days", but are they really?

Nuclear Waste, Toxic Chemicals, over use of the land, pavement, terminator seeds, fossil fuel pollution.... sound good to you eh?

My IRA is screaming... but at what long term price? This price will be paid by future generations. Responsible?

In regards to your question: "When does individual responsibility end and public responsibility begin?"

It doesn't...there is no line.

Responsibility comes from the individual, from within.

What we have here today is a set of priorities that has failed. The System is Broken... it means more than computer code.

An individuals #1 responsibility should be to Mother Earth.

The Public's #1 responsibility should be to Mother Earth.

An individuals #2 responsibility shouold be to consider his/her own needs equally to others needs.

I believe the rest comes very naturally...

-- Nailbender (why_rebuild_this@rollover.net), October 01, 1999.

You said: "Look at the pre US American Indians for example: They couldn't even comprehend the act of "owning" land. Does this make them fools or enlightened?"

The concept of private property varies in every major culture, but they all do have it. Typically, nomadic tribes did not value real estate on the individual level, but did seasonally "own" territory communally as hunting grounds. As an agricultural culture, the English settlers' "notion" of the possessory act of real estate was enclosure and cultivation. Their culture was incompatible with the "Indian" cultural notion of tribal ownership of a large spans of uncultivated landscape. The two cultures were bound to clash.

Some less nomadic tribes did have family ownership of agricultural plots and resources such as fishing or gathering spots (Karuk, Yurok.) The notion of ownership was more a practical function of what was valuable in terms of their lifestyle than in any moral stance.

I do disagree with you as to an individual's basic "responsibility." Under traditional "Christian" notions, a man's responsibility was to his God, country and family. As a female, mine is to my family, God and country. It is EXTREMELY un-natural for me to put my responsibility to "mother earth" ahead of my children's immediate needs and welfare, my neighbor's needs and welfare or my small community's needs or welfare. People I know and love come first before plants and animals. Nature is much more resillient than you think.

I do have a responsibility for "stewardship" of my land. Stewardship does not and has never meant "preservation" of my land or management as a caretaker for society or "future generations." "Stewardship" is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1974 edition, as: "The individual's responsibility to manage his life and property with proper respect to the rights of others."

It is also important to deliminate a private person's legal responsibility from the notion of "moral" responsibility. The precepts of our law are inherited from the traditions of English Common law and property, as well as Christian notions of morality. These do not embrace the pantheistic concept of "Mother" earth in the sacred sense.

The law is generally based on the concept of "tort" or responsibility for injury to humans or their property. This also constitutes the notion of the "police powers" of government (to protect public health, safety, peace or property.) Even the notion of "Environmental Justice" is based on the notion of injury. This has just been expanded from injury to human's and human property to the "alien" notion of injury to "mother earth."

Having worked professionally in the field of the regulation of resource management for many years, I personally do not believe that man currently has the intelligence, knowledge or understanding to manage his actions as affects the intricate relations of the natural world.

For example, after the 1960 floods, the Forest Service went through and removed all sinkers, logs, etc. from our rivers as they had caused damage. Now they say "lack of woody debris" is a major factor in salmon decline. For almost a century, federal agencies have surpressed fire. Now they have determined that light periodic fires play a role in creating a mosaic of openings in the forest and evoking certain regenerative processes. On the other hand, the current policy of "let it burn" creates confulgrations that sterilize the soil and precipitate mass erosion and siltation of streams.

I also note, on a personal level, that his attempts to do so under the guise of the junk science embodied in the "meme's" of "ecosystem management" and "sustainability" are screwing things up really, really badly. Man has just begun to scratch the surface on knowing the natural world. Crafting laws to strictly regulate our relationship to that world is a very dangerous and arrogant path at this point. IMHO. Sorry, Nailbender, I do not agree with you.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), October 01, 1999.

Nailbender, requiring all shareholders to be knowledgable, or at least liable for corporate actions is admirable, but ultimately unworkable (how could you ever know enough to invest in a chemical company, for example?).

How about this: corporation X issues 100 shares of stock. Individual Y purchases 1 share (essentially 1% of the company's current assets and potential assets). Why not hold Y responsible for 1% of the company's future and potential liabilities?

Very soon the free market would offer "stock liability insurance" to cover Y for potential losses exceeding the value of Y's shares. The insurance premium, however, would directly reflect the risks associated with the enterprise. As the premium would be considered part of the cost of the share's purchase price, dangerous, poorly run ventures would find it impossible to raise capital.

Like you, I believe we need to reinstill personal responsibility (spontaneously occurring where there is liability). Removing the artificial protection granted to shareholders might accomplish this -- and remove a few layers of well-intentioned but counterproductive government regulation as well. Your thoughts?

-- DaveW (dwood@southwind.net), October 01, 1999.