In a message dated 5/20/00 12:59:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> Issodhos:
>  > But in doing so, the individual is not
>  > expected to become a burden to the group.  In short she carries her own
>  > weight.  This is the principled norm, but for those who are unable to
meet
>  > this standard, the community assumes the unfulfilled obligations of that
>  > individual.  It should be considered the exception -- not the norm and
>  > certainly not a 'right'.
>
>  I can't think of a single example in any society where the individual
>  carries there own weight. In the absence of any examples it then comes down
>  to where the line is to be drawn - near to the 'you're on your own chum'
end
>  of the scale, in which case 'society' ceases to have any meaning for the
>  individual so isolated, and the individual ceases to have any meaning to
>  'society', or near the full-on expression of mutual aid (or, arguably,
>  beyond that where the individual ceases to exist). So this 'principled
norm'
>  has no basis in reality, and 'exceptions' are just shades of difference
>  around some generally accepted, or imposed, point. Perhaps you can provide
>  an example of the individual who carries their own weight... as the 'norm'.

   "Carrying ones own weight" refers back to comments I made relative to
being economically productive.  I did not attempt to apply it to the extreme
and I assume you are not doing so now in order to have a straw man to knock
down.  Placed back into the context in which it was used, it means those
adults who do not need to rely on the financial assistance of others to feed,
cloth, shelter, and care for themselves and their family.  So, in many
countries the examples you seek are a majority of the population.  But you
are right -- it is a matter of where the line is drawn by the members of any
given group that determines the responsibilities of the individual and the
collective responsibilities of the group.
Yours,
Issodhos