I turned on the TV this break and "Gun Smoke", a Western, was on. There was a Miss Kitty at a saloon. Six FLags may have copied their Miss Kitty Saloon from this. There was an episode "Innocent... something.. Casualty" maybe. There was a loner guy traveling around who liked to tell stories. Everyone was moving out of the valley and a girl he told stories to looked sadly and said she couldn't come out an listen to stories anymore.

At this sad news, he walked into the town. He hadn't been to such a large town before. He asked a random man who was loading sacks or boxes onto a wagon if he could help him in exchange for food and a place to stay. The man said not at this time. They talked, and the man gave the young man (let's call him Billy... oh his name is Billy) a coin and said to use it to buy breakfast. Billy wouldn't accept it saying he didn't work for it.

-Is it good to accept things you do not earn? In our Midwestern American culture, we sometimes give gifts as an exchange for something. Housewarming gifts were brought over by my parents' generation as a way of saying thank you for your hospitality. My generation doesn't seem to do that so much. Sometimes, when remembered, we may bring snacks - usually chips. I don't like the idea of eating chips. I associate them with an obese America as chips are portrayed the food of couch potatoes and teenage/ young women as something to eat in relation to gossip

How ma

Billy lived in an ideal fantasy land somehow. When a mean guy was abusing a kitten, Billy didn't know how to properly respond because he had not been exposed to such treatment. So he pushed the bad man into a water trough where the man hit his head. Billy was convicted as a criminal. Did he do something wrong? What should he have done? Is this where moral guidelines, such as the ten commandments, as well as community laws come into place. How would a law against animal abuse be enforced? Is the simple existence of the law enough? How do the people know that the laws are? I don;t know where the law book is for my neighborhood, though i know it exists and has punishable regulations including acceptable grass height, no tree houses in front yards (because they are unsightly), and other things as well.

2 ideas. Idea 1. People may need to be exposed to the realities of the world they live in so that they do not fall for the tricks that have hurt people in the past. Sheltering people can not really work in the age we have now. Television, the Internet, magazines and radio transfer commercials of people often times looking to make money, sometimes without regard to the long-term needs of the consumer. Without exposure, people may be tricked into bad decisions that impact their life and the lives of the families... this hurts children who had no input to the decision. If a parent does not properly feed their children, the children will likely become sick or have lower bone density... at whose expense? The taxpayer? If the parent does not raise the child in way that the child values things deemed proper in the society they are expected to live in? It's OK to get pregnant and have several kids because the government will pay for it and you can make money be selling the story to news media so you don't need to earn calculus. While perhaps not a prominent philosophy, if the idea that this is OK is instilled, although there are better options, this may be an acceptable fallback... in theory. Should there be controls on parenting? What should be done for children that parents are unable to control their children? What should be done to parents that bring up their children with bad (I suppose that is relative) principles of conduct?



Idea 2. I suppose in my ideal land, based in reality and taking into consideration incentives, laziness, and tendencies of people (unlike other peoples' utopia.. several people seem to have a version of their own)...

1. Laws would be few, visible, and accessable (Well, few may not be always possible if there are people that constantly were harming the community within the written law.... Well, maybe there should be some main general laws, and then explanations and interpretations of the laws would be added under them. This would be created in an online database so everyone would be able to view them. The explanations would have expiration dates when they were created in order to reduce the length of the rulebook over time. Upon expiration, the laws would be voted on and eliminated, amended, or extended for an another set period of time.

For example, there would be a general law, agreed upon by the community... or by leaders who have a desire to shape the town in a way residents agree upon. Government is for the people. Each city would have its own laws visible and people could choose where they want to live based upon the vision of the city as determined by the laws. I don't know if laws is the appropriate term to be said here. But it wold be set up like this:

Definitions
* Appropriate manner - different situations require different methods of execution. If there was a proposed law that said, "Excessive income by residents in the top 20% of the community should be taken by the government and distributed to the people in the lower 80%" would have a good chance of being passed if left to popular vote. But it is not in the best interest of the community as determined by *city coordinators. Popular vote is not an appropriate method in this case.

1. The public health of the community must be encouraged.
1.1A Tax money will be used to provide the community with free (this may be later amended to "subsidized" if the community decides on this because of mismanagement of funds) athletic facilities determined by public voting, petitions or donations from private entities donated to the *city if approved by the community (can be amended). 1.1AI If a playground wants to be erected by a local business in a city park, it should be allowed if the community decides upon it in an *appropriate manner.

Patents should only be granted to entities that will use them, not sit on them. If a patent is not going to be used because it is a threat to a major industry, a few things could happen. In the case of the electric car plans supposedly bought by car companies and put in a vault because it would compete with the existing infrastructure of gas powered vehicles and would (in poor theory) cause many people to loose jobs. From an economics viewpoint, the jobs displaced would be recreated in the new production of electric cars.

If you throw something sticky in the trash can, like peanut butter, wrap in in something so it does not get the trash can sticky.