A Tale of Two Cows

[WillowTree]

Well, I suppose if I were the govenor I would buy 4 cows from the owner of the cows and give them to the guy who has no cows. Then I would make the guy whom I just gave four cows to provide my family with milk until the dows were paid for. But, No the govenor cannot take the cows, He can buy the cows but he cannot take the cows.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow and he did everything honorably necessary to one day own a herd of hundreds of fine cows.

Pauvre started out with one cow. Pauvre enjoyed life to the fullest and the cow was something of an inconvenience to his chosen lifestyle So he butchered his cow to provide a feast for his friends and drink and make merry. But the meat and the gratitude of his friends would not last forever and one day he was poor and dissatisfied.

And he noticed that Riche had many cows while he had none. He demanded that the governor give him some of Riche's cows as it was unfair that Riche had so many while he had none.

What gives Pauve the right to any of Riche’s cows?

How should the governor respond to Pauvre’s demand?

The governor should ignore Pauvre's demand.
At most he should recomend that he ask Riche for a job.

but nothing, absolutly nothing else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's BAD BBD. Bad. Bad. BAD.

So if you're the governor, does Pauvre get a cow?

In "The Hamlet," by Faulkner, Ike Snopes sneaks down to the pond early every morning to surreptitiously watch the love of his life bathe- naked- until he finally gets up the nerve to make his move.
Only later do we learn that his 'love' is a cow.....

...my question: for what purpose does Pauvre covet the cow?

That story is perverted. Cows are filthy animals and never bathe.

But, outside of that........

 

[signelect]

Pauvre gets nothing, he made his choice

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I suppose if I were the govenor I would buy 4 cows from the owner of the cows and give them to the guy who has no cows. Then I would make the guy whom I just gave four cows to provide my family with milk until the dows were paid for. But, No the govenor cannot take the cows, He can buy the cows but he cannot take the cows.

Ah but where will the governor acquire the funds to buy Riche's cows? If it is from the taxes Riche pays in support of the government, then how is that any different than just taking the cows in the first place?

I do like the idea of loaning Pauvre a cow or cows with the condition that he pay for their value. That's getting closer to what I'm shooting for here.

 

[saveliberty]

Clearly cows are not a good match for our bovine challenged friend. Perhaps the governor should diversify and educate the farmer on pigs.

 

[Foxfyre]

Pauvre gets nothing, he made his choice

But, say the 'compassionate' people. Pauvre is suffering in poverty. How can the governor turn a deaf ear to his pitiful cries? How can you (the governor) allow Riche to have so many cows and leave Pauvre with none?

You don't want to look like a prick. So you give them a reasoned answer. What ethical reason can you give them to explain the principle involved?

 

[Foxfyre]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow and he did everything honorably necessary to one day own a herd of hundreds of fine cows.

Pauvre started out with one cow. Pauvre enjoyed life to the fullest and the cow was something of an inconvenience to his chosen lifestyle So he butchered his cow to provide a feast for his friends and drink and make merry. But the meat and the gratitude of his friends would not last forever and one day he was poor and dissatisfied.

And he noticed that Riche had many cows while he had none. He demanded that the governor give him some of Riche's cows as it was unfair that Riche had so many while he had none.

What gives Pauve the right to any of Riche’s cows?

How should the governor respond to Pauvre’s demand?

The governor should ignore Pauvre's demand.
At most he should recomend that he ask Riche for a job.

but nothing, absolutly nothing else.

Good answer as several others have given.

But why?

 

[dilloduck]

Pauvre gets nothing, he made his choice

But, say the 'compassionate' people. Pauvre is suffering in poverty. How can the governor turn a deaf ear to his pitiful cries? How can you (the governor) allow Riche to have so many cows and leave Pauvre with none?

You don't want to look like a prick. So you give them a reasoned answer. What ethical reason can you give them to explain the principle involved?

The governor is a politician. He can't be bothered with the pitiful cries of one person. If he is bothered then he has no business being a governor.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. But Riche should do what any human being should do and if his neighbor is starving, give him something to eat, etc.

But the question is not what we are morally motivated to do because we feel it is the 'right thing' or because of whatever compassion we feel for our neighbor. Such is a voluntary act and fully within our power to do or not as we choose.

The question is whether the govenor can require Riche to give a cow or cows to Pauvre or take Riche's cows and transfer them to Pauvre.

If you are the governor with the ability to do that, would you? And what rationale would you use to justify it?

Edit: Noting that Fuelrod did say "no" which I presumes that if he was governor he would not take Riche's cows nor require Riche to give a cow or cows to Pouvre. So Kudos.

We now have I think three people who have answered the question though none have yet provided a rationale for their answers.

I can go into more detail I suppose.
Call this a Christian nation or not but we are a nation of Faith. Faith without works is nothing.
Just as the Government can not legislate moralty it can not legislate compassion.

But the government CAN administer justice.

There are some among us who say that justice demands that one person not have so many cows when another has none.

Still another says that he who works for the cows deserves the cows and he who squanders his opportunity must do without.

Which is right? Or wrong? Why?

 

[Foxfyre]

Pauvre gets nothing, he made his choice

But, say the 'compassionate' people. Pauvre is suffering in poverty. How can the governor turn a deaf ear to his pitiful cries? How can you (the governor) allow Riche to have so many cows and leave Pauvre with none?

You don't want to look like a prick. So you give them a reasoned answer. What ethical reason can you give them to explain the principle involved?

The governor is a politician. He can't be bothered with the pitiful cries of one person. If he is bothered then he has no business being a governor.

I say the role of the governor, among other things, is to promote the general welfare. How does he do that, or not do that, in his policy re Riche and Pauvre and the matter of the cows?

 

[dilloduck]

But the question is not what we are morally motivated to do because we feel it is the 'right thing' or because of whatever compassion we feel for our neighbor. Such is a voluntary act and fully within our power to do or not as we choose.

The question is whether the govenor can require Riche to give a cow or cows to Pauvre or take Riche's cows and transfer them to Pauvre.

If you are the governor with the ability to do that, would you? And what rationale would you use to justify it?

Edit: Noting that Fuelrod did say "no" which I presumes that if he was governor he would not take Riche's cows nor require Riche to give a cow or cows to Pouvre. So Kudos.

We now have I think three people who have answered the question though none have yet provided a rationale for their answers.

I can go into more detail I suppose.
Call this a Christian nation or not but we are a nation of Faith. Faith without works is nothing.
Just as the Government can not legislate moralty it can not legislate compassion.

But the government CAN administer justice.

There are some among us who say that justice demands that one person not have so many cows when another has none.

Still another says that he who works for the cows deserves the cows and he who squanders his opportunity must do without.

Which is right? Or wrong? Why?

There is no right or wrong--we have a governor, a happy guy with a lot of cows and a hungry guy with no cows.

 

[dilloduck]

But, say the 'compassionate' people. Pauvre is suffering in poverty. How can the governor turn a deaf ear to his pitiful cries? How can you (the governor) allow Riche to have so many cows and leave Pauvre with none?

You don't want to look like a prick. So you give them a reasoned answer. What ethical reason can you give them to explain the principle involved?

The governor is a politician. He can't be bothered with the pitiful cries of one person. If he is bothered then he has no business being a governor.

I say the role of the governor, among other things, is to promote the general welfare. How does he do that, or not do that, in his policy re Riche and Pauvre and the matter of the cows?

He did promote it==he gave away cows-----is it his job to maintain it too ?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow and he did everything honorably necessary to one day own a herd of hundreds of fine cows.

Pauvre started out with one cow. Pauvre enjoyed life to the fullest and the cow was something of an inconvenience to his chosen lifestyle So he butchered his cow to provide a feast for his friends and drink and make merry. But the meat and the gratitude of his friends would not last forever and one day he was poor and dissatisfied.

And he noticed that Riche had many cows while he had none. He demanded that the governor give him some of Riche's cows as it was unfair that Riche had so many while he had none.

What gives Pauve the right to any of Riche’s cows?

How should the governor respond to Pauvre’s demand?

The governor should make Riche butcher all of his cows, and have a grand feast for the entire territory, so all can make merry.

Then Riche and Pauve will be equal, with no cows at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow and he did everything honorably necessary to one day own a herd of hundreds of fine cows.

Pauvre started out with one cow. Pauvre enjoyed life to the fullest and the cow was something of an inconvenience to his chosen lifestyle So he butchered his cow to provide a feast for his friends and drink and make merry. But the meat and the gratitude of his friends would not last forever and one day he was poor and dissatisfied.

And he noticed that Riche had many cows while he had none. He demanded that the governor give him some of Riche's cows as it was unfair that Riche had so many while he had none.

What gives Pauve the right to any of Riche’s cows?

How should the governor respond to Pauvre’s demand?

The governor should make Riche butcher all of his cows, and have a grand feast for the entire territory, so all can make merry.

Then Riche and Pauve will be equal, with no cows at all.

Marx would be proud.

 

[Ravi]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow and he did everything honorably necessary to one day own a herd of hundreds of fine cows.

Pauvre started out with one cow. Pauvre enjoyed life to the fullest and the cow was something of an inconvenience to his chosen lifestyle So he butchered his cow to provide a feast for his friends and drink and make merry. But the meat and the gratitude of his friends would not last forever and one day he was poor and dissatisfied.

And he noticed that Riche had many cows while he had none. He demanded that the governor give him some of Riche's cows as it was unfair that Riche had so many while he had none.

What gives Pauve the right to any of Riche’s cows?

How should the governor respond to Pauvre’s demand?

The governor should make Riche butcher all of his cows, and have a grand feast for the entire territory, so all can make merry.

Then Riche and Pauve will be equal, with no cows at all.

Marx would be proud.

He'd be proud of you, too, oh supporter of taxing people that aren't you.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can go into more detail I suppose.
Call this a Christian nation or not but we are a nation of Faith. Faith without works is nothing.
Just as the Government can not legislate moralty it can not legislate compassion.

But the government CAN administer justice.

There are some among us who say that justice demands that one person not have so many cows when another has none.

Still another says that he who works for the cows deserves the cows and he who squanders his opportunity must do without.

Which is right? Or wrong? Why?

There is no right or wrong--we have a governor, a happy guy with a lot of cows and a hungry guy with no cows.

Not sure that there isn't a right or wrong. I would like to think Riche would do what most of us would do and contribute at least some little something to feed a hungry man.

But I agree that it is not the role of the governor to require Riche to share his dinner with Pauvre, much less give Pauvre a cow.

Several of us seem to agree with that at this point.

But so far, I haven't seen a rationale for why that should be the governor's position.

And of course, some among us probably do not agree that the governor should keep hands off of the situation.

 

[saveliberty]

You seem to be the most political here Foxfyre. Perhaps you would care to share your answer.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow and he did everything honorably necessary to one day own a herd of hundreds of fine cows.

Pauvre started out with one cow. Pauvre enjoyed life to the fullest and the cow was something of an inconvenience to his chosen lifestyle So he butchered his cow to provide a feast for his friends and drink and make merry. But the meat and the gratitude of his friends would not last forever and one day he was poor and dissatisfied.

And he noticed that Riche had many cows while he had none. He demanded that the governor give him some of Riche's cows as it was unfair that Riche had so many while he had none.

What gives Pauve the right to any of Riche’s cows?

How should the governor respond to Pauvre’s demand?

The governor should make Riche butcher all of his cows, and have a grand feast for the entire territory, so all can make merry.

Then Riche and Pauve will be equal, with no cows at all.

Marx would be proud.

Mark would probably be the first one in line, screaming for a porterhouse.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow and he did everything honorably necessary to one day own a herd of hundreds of fine cows.

Pauvre started out with one cow. Pauvre enjoyed life to the fullest and the cow was something of an inconvenience to his chosen lifestyle So he butchered his cow to provide a feast for his friends and drink and make merry. But the meat and the gratitude of his friends would not last forever and one day he was poor and dissatisfied.

And he noticed that Riche had many cows while he had none. He demanded that the governor give him some of Riche's cows as it was unfair that Riche had so many while he had none.

What gives Pauve the right to any of Riche’s cows?

How should the governor respond to Pauvre’s demand?

The governor should ignore Pauvre's demand.
At most he should recomend that he ask Riche for a job.

but nothing, absolutly nothing else.

Good answer as several others have given.

But why?

Riche earned all he has, it was not given too him. so the cows have both value and meaning, that he will pass on to his family.

To Pauve it means nothing. so even if the gov to 2 from R and gave the to P, there is no reason to expect that P will care for the cows since P won't even care for himself.

so once P eats both cows, he knows he can go to the Gov and get more taken from R, and the Gov will have to, b/c he set the standard that it was OK to do so.

Then P's friends will notice that P is getting free cows and demand they get some. Eventually it will get to the point R is outta cows, or tired of having his taken away, and will demand the Gov give him cows from somewhere, or he will take what cows he has left and leave the region to live where cows are not taken, but bought and sold, like should happen.

P won't starve if he is not given a cow. Hunger is a great motivator and he will find some kind of work to feed himself.