Regulation Analogy

[dogman_1234]

A man has three loaves of bread.


He give one loaf to a child. He tells the child," Give this bread in pieces evenly according to your family.

He give another loaf to another child. He tells the child," Give this bread to your family according to how much they work. If they work harder, give them more than the rest. If they work less, give them less. That way, each gets what they deserve under the rules. There rules help them reach agreement to what is justified."

He give the last loaf to the last child. He tells the child," Give the bread according to your wishes."


The day goes by. By tomorrow, the old man returns to hear what the children each did with the bread.


The first one gave bread according to the mans rules. The child said, " I gave according to the equal share, but my family whom worked longer was still hunger and grew angry." The old man replied," Son, here is your chance to show that he who works according to the rules of right must also understand the rules of prosperity" The child left.

The second child approached. " Sir, I gave the bread according to the rules of the law to give to those who worked harder. Those who worked to their level of specific time and task received what they deserved, according to the law. Everyone was satisfied." The old man replied," Let this be known to you that regulation according to what is need, rather than what is said, is what helps feed your family." The child left.

The last child approached. The old man asked.," What did you do with your bread?" The child relied," I ate all of it and my family died of hunger." The old man replied," You should know that eating the bread yourself would starve your family. Like a king who starves his kingdom; he has no more kingdom. the king should starve himself."

Regulation.


Now to understand where I am getting, let us assume that there are specific ideas to follow. Do not argue over the legitimacy of this analogy.

The old man is the economy who give to the business of each person.

The first child( business) is placed under socialized regulation. This, in the end, did not satisfy the family(citizens). Therefor, they did not accept socialized regulation.

The second child( business) is placed under capitalistic regulation. This enables the business to give according to work done by employees, while it still grant them control over the bread,( money). They get to eat what they think they deserve, and still support their family(citizens). Also, they are directed to give and to not consume. Still, they allow to make what is what they feel is justified.

The last child is free-market capitalism. They can do whatever they feel needed to their power. In most cases, they consumer most of the bread, and the family starves.



I hope you coudl take this into consideration that regulation can be god, and bad, depending on:

Who regulates who
What is regulated
Where it is regulated
When it is regulated
Why it is regulated
and How it is regulated

How is the one most law makers skip, because how it works can determine its effectiveness.

 

[badge]

A high fiber loaf or the lack of determines it's effectivness.

High Fiber diets. The minuses of not having one.

 

[jsc]

Beavers have a high fiber diet. Just sayin'.

Do not argue over the legitimacy of this analogy.

Why not?

Allowing you to set the rules of the debate means you have already won. This is like the liberals arguing for lifting the debt ceiling. As soon as the conservatives start arguing how much and under what conditions, they have lost.

 

[dogman_1234]

^ Nice.

Tell that to an Atheist, they scream at you. Many say our country was never found on freedom or religion. It was, including other freedoms: Speech, action, and thought. We can do anything here in the US as long as it does not hurt anyone.

Remember, we are a Christian nation, but christian in heart. You may not have to be called a Christian, but the Christ-like actions you do constitute as Christianity resonating from your county. Show all those other guys who means business.

But, let us not go into religion...stray within regulation.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Freedom of speech is also freedom of actions
If 1 gives a huge amount to help others, but that amount is a paltry sum compared to others who have great riches, takes away from the many who can when they scoff at these contributions
Also, to deny someone who has done well, or take his incentives away, is not only wrong, but denies future generations of such achievement, generations of people who may decide to contribute much
Lesson here is, the freedom of choice/business/speech/ideas etc, tho sometimes found ungodly, is always able to be turned into something good no matter what
When we stop this, and say enough, we want ours now, we are merely acting like the ones being portrayed as evil capitalists, yet alot of these same people dont contribute, and have given up, and claim their voice, their vote, their actions by themselves are pointless....what a waste, and shame on those who prey on these people

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

To me, its addressing things at its core, without any true beliefs
IOW, citizens. They have rights, they have power, but only when the rotten leaders chooses to push the button of incentives, or, more freebies.
Most dont vote, apathy abounds, and adding incentives, seen here as freebies addresses this apathy.
But, at no time, unlike JFK, who said, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, today, the same group preys upon those sheep with the exact opposite, in incentive form, ala Obama and his wealth distro, do they say or ask for those citizens responsibilities, and instead cloud it in terms such as a village raising a child, all the while reducing parental rights, creating an even more tighter circle of socialistic need and supposed incentive, all of which plays into their hands, and again, shame on them

 

[Reynod]

This topic has been closed by Reynod