right vs benefit

[Trishntek]

Radical Self-Reliance is one of Burning Man's principles. What does this mean to you who think we deserve anything and everything under the sun? It is presumed to be an exercise of humanity thriving in a harsh environment. Or is it just a game for a week or two to make you feel like "da man"?

Gifting is another principle. Does that mean we should expect everyone to give us whatever we think we deserve? Does that mean we are compelled to give everyone we interact with whatever they want? Or is it just a game for a week or two to make you feel like the great benefactor philanthropist?

Burning Man is a great example of exercising natural rights (sans law enforcement). It is also a great place to realize the rewards in the pursuit of happiness and penalties for irresponsibility. It is humanity in all its glory.

The benefits? Creativity, ingenuity, community and generosity are demonstrated without much in the way of expecting from others or demanding privileges. We interact to share, learn, develop and grow while celebrating our unique gifts, goods and abilities.

[ygmir]

people have the right to speak, but, not, to be heard........

[Elderberry]

When someone is "undeserving" and unable to contribute to society, it then falls upon the community whether that individual will receive the gracious (unearned) gift of that community. NONE OF US DESERVE ANYTHING!

We begin to die immediately after we are born. All of us have abilities and resources to some degree. If we choose not to exercise those abilities and contribute those resources, that is our choice to make. But the consequences of that choice are directly related to the community's responsibility to you as an individual. It is granted that some individuals cannot survive without aid from the community. That individual does not deserve it. In fact, that individual should not expect it, demand it nor be comfortable receiving it.

The grace of the community provides for these individuals and that person should be nothing but GRATEFUL and HUMBLE. To demand such things as a "right" is utter nonsense.

As for the helmet and seat belt thing, that is part of the "Pursuit of Happiness" thing. When we make choices which cause failure, we must be allowed to suffer those consequences. That is how society learns and grows. Mandating common sense simply caters to the lowest common denominator and treats us all like children. Do I ride a motorcycle without a helmet? No! Do I drive without a seatbelt? No! Do I run with scissors? No, and it is not mandated by law.

OK then, here's a solution you should like...Euthanasia.

It could save us a lot of money and we wouldn't have to worry about the disabled, people with birth defects, handicaps, stupid people, old people, people that you just don't think are "Deserving"--just euthanize them all.

There. Problem solved.

Now we don't even have to worry about distinguishing a right from a privilege.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything else in the thread.

JK

[Trishntek]

All of you take this "undeserving" comment out of context! None of us deserve aid from anyone! I said it then and I repeat,,,, IT IS UP TO THE COMMUNITY TO DECIDE!" The federal gubmint should have nothing to do with it. I did not say we do not help the undeserving,,,, I AM saying NONE of us deserve anything from anyone!

[ygmir]

I get it.........and, as stated, agree.

[can't sit still]

Apparently, some GOVs in Eastern Europe have seized pensions. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-A ... e-pensions
Argentina did this also. It's only a postponement. D.C. has already talked forcing people to put pension money into GOV instruments. Here's something to think about from the Daily Reckoning;
"10,000 boomers will reach age 65 every day for the next 19 years. "
Sooner or later, Y'all are going to get well acquainted with radical self-reliance.


BASIC MATH SAYS WE'RE TOAST
Carl F. Worden
January 3, 2011

So the Tea Party is here to reverse the spending mistakes of the past fifty years, eh? I don't see how they expect to accomplish any such thing, given the basic math involved.

We have a $13 TRILLION dollar debt that is generating an additional $4 billion dollars in interest every single day of the year, so $4b X 365 days a year equals $1.460 TRILLION dollars more in debt each year, and the last time I checked that was more than all annual government income sources combined.

[Simon of the Playa]

let ME DECIDE who stays and who goes....






are you comfortable with that? should you be?\

it makes me sick if you cannot understand that we all need to eat, sleep, drink, fuck, shit and be merry.

help your fellow man who cannot help himself, otherwise, you may one day be on the receiving end of someone else's cruel decisions.

karma is funny like that.

[ygmir]

I struggle with:

people helping people

vs

gov. helping everyone

[Simon of the Playa]

i know that it seems to run contrary to radical self reliance, but actually it does not.

the only way you can survive the coming "troubles" is through COMMUNITY or tribe, as the pomo hipsters like to call it.

the lone wolf paradigm WILL NOT SURVIVE.

so you better start thinking holistically, a la Rudy Steiner, or the cancer you ignore will eventually eat you.

[ygmir]

yup, get that......and agree........"community", to me, is "people helping people", more direct, better is many ways, IMHO.

helping others, directly, builds trust, and love, between them.


IMHO:

a "robber baron" (read large anonymous government agency) taking from one, and giving to the other, to me, builds resentment on the part of the "contributors" and, a feeling of loyalty to the "robber baron", or more specifically, a feeling of dependence, on same.
As well as at times, an attitude of "entitlement" on the part of some of the recipients. not all, but many.

As opposed to the feeling of gratitude and community, if handled on a more local level.


spelling edit.

[Simon of the Playa]

i fully understand Ygmir, and agree, the Government is NOT your Mother, and so therefore you better clean up this mess yourselves...

people helping people in a very local way is the answer, however, we cannot turn our back on our fellow man, for then we turn our back on ourselves, and no one has that nice of an ass.

the government can help those that for no reason other than simply "the will of god' cannot help themselves.

the charity we dole out to big business which is proportionally MUCH HIGHER THAN ALL SOCIAL SERVICES COSTS COMBINED should be re-evaluated, not the peanuts that go to Joe Blow who lost his job and his house because of a Medical Condition that was untreated because he was Uninsured.

Health Care may not be a Right, But it SHOULD BE.

[ygmir]

I very much agree.........it may just be semantics, but, the connection that takes place, when someone is in need, and another helps, strengthens us all.
Why, instead of taking from one, to give to another (and taking credit for the gift, thereby increasing dependence), is it not thinkable, that, if our "fellow man" is in need, we'd band together, and help?

I would bet, if Katrina had happened, and, no fed. gov. agency stepped in, and, people were suffering, "we the people" would have rallied. and, probably better and more efficiently.

But, no one wants to take/give, that chance to/with, us.

we see these circumstances, (or the example you give), and, say "oh, the gov. will take care of them, why should we?"


That's the sad part, to me.

And, I'm with ya on corporate welfare.......free market, is free market........let 'em sink or swim, but, alone.

[Simon of the Playa]

an Unhealthy Population equals an Unhealthy Nation.

we have some serious issues that need addressing, and i'm afraid a federal standard of a Minimum, Modicum, whatever you want to label it must be established before it is too late for the patient.

i would prefer that everyone work together to solve these issues instead of the partisan bullshit that we currently are being subjected to.

it is crucial. We are the ONLY industrialized First World Nation without comprehensive health care.

why?

one answer....Money, and the Greed that drives it's acquisition.

when they start charging us for water and air, oh wait....nevermind, they already do...


we're fucked.

[ygmir]

an Unhealthy Population equals an Unhealthy Nation.

we have some serious issues that need addressing, and i'm afraid a federal standard of a Minimum, Modicum, whatever you want to label it must be established before it is too late for the patient.

i would prefer that everyone work together to solve these issues instead of the partisan bullshit that we currently are being subjected to.

it is crucial. We are the ONLY industrialized First World Nation without comprehensive health care.

why?

one answer....Money, and the Greed that drives it's acquisition.

when they start charging us for water and air, oh wait....nevermind, they already do...


we're fucked.

+100


and, ergo we have humanity.........in the end, the problems always stem from money and greed, IMHO. I so agree.
Mans love, for his fellow (not trying to be gender exclusive, but, I don't know how else to phrase this), has been lost.
So much of humanity is "get what you can, as much as you can, while you can, and screw the others).

It's sad

I, for one, will stand to help others, I do not want a receipt, for my taxes, I will do it, because, it needs doing, and, I have the ability, and the will.


*that's my statement for the day, *

[lucky.bastard]

to me it's not a matter of IF we have the resources; it is more a situation of how we use OUR resources...,

can we ( the good ol' US of A ) afford to provide higher education and health care for our community? sure

can we do that and pay down the debt? sure

are we willing to make the sacrifices it would take ( cut the deffense budget way the fuck back, raise taxes, ect.. ) ? to me that is the heart of it.., an unwillingness to do that which needs to be done

right v/s benefit? not sure,,, more important to me is action v/s rhetoric

[maryanimal]

I still see education and healthcare as a benefit.......the benefit of living where we do......and, for some, the benefit of others hard work/taxes....but, still, a benefit. Not so much deserved, as, available, or offered.

"We" may say something is a "right", when, really, we just feel it's a benefit all should be able to avail themselves of.
and, that may differ from an "oblitgation", ie: mandatory k-12 education.
still, not a right, but, if you're compelled, then, it's on the "public dime".

your last question is a good one.
I'd say no, you don't deserve to go to college, because someone else got a degree. I think it should be available, to those who can't afford it, and, only if they have the ability, or will, to make use of it. not like:

Athletes, going all the way through college, full ride scholarships, but, know nothing when they leave.
People going to college, just to collect some other sort of money, that they can only get if enrolled in school.
things like that.

As a society, it is in our best interest to educate all we can. But, not to waste money on those who will not make use of it anyway.

the helmet/seatbelt thing is a sticky wicket, for me, anyway.....
I totally agree, it's a persons "right" not to use them. But, I feel, if that choice is made, medical care, may be prioritized according to availability for others not suffering from the result of a free choice.
Sure, no ones going to look in the wallet of a down motorcyclist to see what they have, before treating for emergency. But, long term care and such, may well be denied, including other free services provided the public.
Seems spartan, I know, but, at a point, you rolls the dice, and, takes your chances.

so much of it comes to personal responsibility........if you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, well, you might die.
you might die anyway, though.
I see so many folks, that, run to the doctor, every time they get a scratch, or headache.......and, if it's "free", I bet that increases.......
and so, we all pay, for people that won't take care of themselves.

But, we can make a choice, as a society, to fund that, or any, benefit. I don't judge that choice, but, I don't call it a "right".

Very well said yggy.

[ygmir]

Thanks MA:)

to me it's not a matter of IF we have the resources; it is more a situation of how we use OUR resources...,

can we ( the good ol' US of A ) afford to provide higher education and health care for our community? sure

can we do that and pay down the debt? sure

are we willing to make the sacrifices it would take ( cut the deffense budget way the fuck back, raise taxes, ect.. ) ? to me that is the heart of it.., an unwillingness to do that which needs to be done

right v/s benefit? not sure,,, more important to me is action v/s rhetoric

well, I think "right vs benefit" strikes at the heart of it.

not that I'm against cutting the defense budget, but, how much do you really think that'd help?
What percentage of total expenditures, is "defense"?
How much is necessary, at a minimum?
and, will cutting the defense budget, by whatever percentage, make much difference?

I don't see most citizens as favoring raising taxes.
I don't see most politicians, favoring cutting spending.

To me, therein lies the dilemma.
We've spent way to much, for way to long, on stupid stuff.
Yes, "stupid stuff" can be is moot, but, I'm sure there is much we can all agree on.
and, we've over spent, on things necessary, I think.

It will take a lot of time, to get things in balance. And, it's debatable if we ever will, or even should.
Some economic theory says gov. should run somewhat of a deficit.
I disagree, but, then again, I've not gone to college.

As you state above, those things are possible, IF, "we" decide to sacrifice.
The question, to me, is where is the balance, between promoting wasteful spending practices, and, "paying the piper" for what has gone on for way to long.

[Eric]

not that I'm against cutting the defense budget, but, how much do you really think that'd help?
What percentage of total expenditures, is "defense"?

"The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues." Wikipedia

Us counts for nearly 40% of total world arms spending- in other word, we spend almost as much as every other country in the world combined on weapons. Including ones the DOD doesn't want.

Not getting in the rest of the discussion. My response would take pages.

[ygmir]

not that I'm against cutting the defense budget, but, how much do you really think that'd help?
What percentage of total expenditures, is "defense"?

"The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues." Wikipedia

Us counts for nearly 40% of total world arms spending- in other word, we spend almost as much as every other country in the world combined on weapons. Including ones the DOD doesn't want.

Not getting in the rest of the discussion. My response would take pages.

my only point there was, if we say defense accounts for 33% of the federal budget (if I read that right, and, understand it), and we cut 33% of the defense budget (which, I'd think, would be huge), we've saved roughly 10%.
Not a huge thing, I'd think, as compares to the deficit, let alone "national debt".
Again, not that I don't think we should cut. I'm just sayin' using "defense" as the huge black hole of spending, does not address, the bigger over all picture of out of control and "pork barrel" spending in other areas.


Eric:

Speaking for myself, what you have to say, is always of interest.
If, the only reason you don't want to respond, is the pages it would take, (again, speaking only for me), Post On!!
you've enlightened me to many an issue.

[Elderberry]

I very much agree.........it may just be semantics, but, the connection that takes place, when someone is in need, and another helps, strengthens us all.
Why, instead of taking from one, to give to another (and taking credit for the gift, thereby increasing dependence), is it not thinkable, that, if our "fellow man" is in need, we'd band together, and help?

I would bet, if Katrina had happened, and, no fed. gov. agency stepped in, and, people were suffering, "we the people" would have rallied. and, probably better and more efficiently.

But, no one wants to take/give, that chance to/with, us.

we see these circumstances, (or the example you give), and, say "oh, the gov. will take care of them, why should we?"


That's the sad part, to me.

And, I'm with ya on corporate welfare.......free market, is free market........let 'em sink or swim, but, alone.

No, not really. It didn't happen on the state level, although you could say this was government, but still getting closer to home, and the people in the areas effected were in no position to do anything to "help".

Same with Haiti...their government was not in a position to help and "we the people" of the world gave tons of money and the country is still in ruin.

It is ONLY the federal government that can handle disasters of large magnitude...including administering social programs on a large scale.

So, acknowledging that, we need to work on tweaking and fixing the delivery system, not demonize it into being even more dysfunctional than it already is. Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

JK

[mdmf007]

IMHO,
1. Pay off our national debt.

2. A flat tax, Proportionate taxes are by no means fair. So I make more than my neighbor so he pays nothing, and I pay 40% wheres the balance in that?http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802372/posts

3. Pay foreign aid to those whom really need it, and not just as a blank check. We employ Americans and locals in said country only to help them out.

4. Realize that our kids are fucked when it comes to oil in their futures. Militarize it now and take it from those with it, or get used to paying many times what we pay now for petrol.

5. Burningman was always better last year - It will one day be commercialized. "Pepsi brings you BMAN 2020!!!"

[Elderberry]

IMHO,
1. Pay off our national debt.

2. A flat tax, Proportionate taxes are by no means fair. So I make more than my neighbor so he pays nothing, and I pay 40% wheres the balance in that?http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802372/posts

3. Pay foreign aid to those whom really need it, and not just as a blank check. We employ Americans and locals in said country only to help them out.

4. Realize that our kids are fucked when it comes to oil in their futures. Militarize it now and take it from those with it, or get used to paying many times what we pay now for petrol.

5. Burningman was always better last year - It will one day be commercialized. "Pepsi brings you BMAN 2020!!!"

1. Agree completely.

2. Proportionate (progressive) tax was never meant to be fair...it's the cost of the of being able to earns lots of money from the opportunity our country provides. The only people that really complain about this system are people in the middle that are worried they will have to pay such a large percent of all the money they are hoping (without hope) to earn when they finally realize the American Dream for themselves. Those that are already earning in the top 1 or 2 percent don't have a problem paying (or hiding) their fair share for this opportunity. Some, even give the extra money away...Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the first that come to mind. (as an aside, Buffet just made $6 Billion last week.)

Might be willing to consider a Flat Tax in combination with a Luxury tax and a War Tax.

3. Yes, maybe. There are lots of reasons we offer foreign aid. A case can be made that paying up-front prevents lots of bigger and more expensive problems down the road. But, with our own budget deficit being what it is, I think you will notice that the US is not going to be doling out near as much in foreign aid in the future.

4. Right assumption, wrong solution. The correct answer is to transition away from fossil fuels altogether.

5. Really don't have any comment on point five.

JK

[Eric]

Okay. I'm going to regret this, but, what the hell. I'm going to try to tackle a few different issues, in short bursts. I don't think I went overboard.

I also know people are going to read this like I'm a raging socialist- sorry kids. I'm only a screaming liberal when it comes to social policy, for money I'm actually an old school fiscal conservative, not one of the new breed who only pays lip service to it while running up the debt so their rich buddies get richer. I would vote for a return to Reagan's 1980 tax structure in a heartbeat. It might actually do the economy some good.

people helping people

vs

gov. helping everyone

This is a false dichotomy that has been repeated for so long (starting with the Civil Rights Era, crystalized in Reagan's "Government is the Problem" quote) that people have forgotten one fact:

The government is the people- imperfectly, yes, but still the people. We elect them, we keep them in office through re-elections or replace them by electing someone else. Is it a flawed system? In my opinion, it's completely flawed- unlike every other major industrialized nation we have a two party system instead of some form of porportional representation, which means that the roughly 30% who don't identify with either party are SOL and those who only belong to a major party because they don't think they have another choice are also SOL. Unless we can elect people willing to change it (or can start changing it at the state level- a more likely option), we're stuck with what we have.

Why is this important? Well, think about just "regular" people vs. government people in this scenario:

There are over 300,000,000 people in the US and unemployment is at 9.8% as of last November. That's roughly 30 million people- please tell me how "people' are going to keep 30 million Americans fed, housed, clothed....

The government is the only entity, for better or worse, that can handle large scale problems. Period.

Lets look at issue #2, which was also discussed here, to clarify that statement: Hurricane Katrina.

There's been a lot said on this board that it would be great if the people who lived in New Orleans were assisted in doing the clean-up themselves, or that neighbors should help neighbors in a situation like this.

This is the area physically affected by Katrina:



It's not just New Orleans, it's an entire region. The economic impact goes far beyond what is shown on here- some of the major economic engines of the region were crippled. That means people have no houses, no food, no jobs... who is supposed to help them when their neighbors, all of them, are in the same boat. When their entire region is in the same boat.

Who's supposed to fix the plumbing, rebuild the roads, rewire the electricity, fix the sewage, repair the bridges, get hospitals open... neighbors? Do they have the technical skills, the heavy equipments, the funds to pay for the work? Highly unlikely- the government is needed for this. Again, they're the only entity big enough to handle the job.

It's one thing when one or a few neighbors have issues- say a house fire. The neighbors can help with that situation. When a region or an urban area is impacted it's way beyond the scale of "neighbors".

Issue #3: schools.
We live in an international world, like it or not our competitors are not the kid down the block or that guy who looks different running the convenience store; our competitors are other countries. Countries with growing economies and mandatory schooling. Countries who's kids are kicking our kids butts. The rich don't care about public schools- their kids go to private schools, they're part of the global economy and already plugged in. Its the poor who are left out, with no jobs, no options, and nothing to do but try to get money however they can.

There's a reason that our prison population is growing while our school budgets are shrinking. If we leave people with no way to get ahead in life, they won't. Educating the poorest among us (which is rural as well as urban, "white" as well as "ethnic") gives our entire country a chance to use their talents. Leaving them to rot doesn't serve the rest of us at all, except to make us vulnerable when someone with nothing to lose decides what we have is worth taking.

This isn't as "to the point" as I prefer, more of a ramble over some of the things I've seen brought up in this thread.

[Elderberry]

Nothing left for me to say other than I agree with Eric.

JK

[theCryptofishist]

Nothing left for me to say other than I agree with Eric.

JK

Yeah, he pretty much nailed it.

[knowmad]

Nice thread content here, things to chew on fer sure.
I was once developing a fictional character who's main interpersonal struggle was coming to grips with her antisocial behavior and actions and her "moral right" to do them. It was a rather empty persona and I failed/scraped her. But I did learn; The dichotomy between Rights and Benefit's are subjective when viewed trans culturally, and objective when viewed by the individual. Wherein; Subjectivity is within itself the only truth despite assumptions about subjective "truths" we make. The creation of philosophies is within itself subjective, along with the concept of discovery or creation of ideas. This term contrasts with objectivity, which is used to describe humans as "seeing" the universe exactly for what it is from a standpoint free from human perception and its influences, human cultural interventions, past experience and expectation of the result.

We all see ourselves so differently, and wholly differently than we see the differences.

Perhaps for others the debate takes a more personal aspect when they relize that the benefits they enjoy are different and disproportional than those enjoyed by others, and the further discovery that their actions and practices are being upheld as rights used to justify their means to benefits.
or differently;
Washington state does not allow for the marriage between same sexed adults, it does offer the right of social union and limited mutual benefits offered therein. In contrast to the benefits granted Heterosexual marrage.

[FIGJAM]

Nice thread content here, things to chew on fer sure.
I was once developing a fictional character who's main interpersonal struggle was coming to grips with her antisocial behavior and actions and her "moral right" to do them. It was a rather empty persona and I failed/scraped her. But I did learn; The dichotomy between Rights and Benefit's are subjective when viewed trans culturally, and objective when viewed by the individual. Wherein; Subjectivity is within itself the only truth despite assumptions about subjective "truths" we make. The creation of philosophies is within itself subjective, along with the concept of discovery or creation of ideas. This term contrasts with objectivity, which is used to describe humans as "seeing" the universe exactly for what it is from a standpoint free from human perception and its influences, human cultural interventions, past experience and expectation of the result.
We all see ourselves so differently, and wholly differently than we see the differences.

Perhaps for others the debate takes a more personal aspect when they relize that the benefits they enjoy are different and disproportional than those enjoyed by others, and the further discovery that their actions and practices are being upheld as rights used to justify their means to benefits.
or differently;
Washington state does not allow for the marriage between same sexed adults, it does offer the right of social union and limited mutual benefits offered therein. In contrast to the benefits granted Heterosexual marrage.

Short version: We form our own realities.

[knowmad]

Nice thread content here, things to chew on fer sure.
I was once developing a fictional character who's main interpersonal struggle was coming to grips with her antisocial behavior and actions and her "moral right" to do them. It was a rather empty persona and I failed/scraped her. But I did learn; The dichotomy between Rights and Benefit's are subjective when viewed trans culturally, and objective when viewed by the individual. Wherein; Subjectivity is within itself the only truth despite assumptions about subjective "truths" we make. The creation of philosophies is within itself subjective, along with the concept of discovery or creation of ideas. This term contrasts with objectivity, which is used to describe humans as "seeing" the universe exactly for what it is from a standpoint free from human perception and its influences, human cultural interventions, past experience and expectation of the result.
We all see ourselves so differently, and wholly differently than we see the differences.

Perhaps for others the debate takes a more personal aspect when they relize that the benefits they enjoy are different and disproportional than those enjoyed by others, and the further discovery that their actions and practices are being upheld as rights used to justify their means to benefits.
or differently;
Washington state does not allow for the marriage between same sexed adults, it does offer the right of social union and limited mutual benefits offered therein. In contrast to the benefits granted Heterosexual marrage.

Short version: We form our own realities.

And they overlap.

[can't sit still]

This is fucking amazing. The military owes a ton of money to soldiers. They say that they can not find 35,000 soldiers. The Pentagon also claims that they are not allowed to use IRS data to find them. You can bet your ass that they could find them if they owed the money back to GOV
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2 ... 7_ST_N.htm

[Trishntek]

This is fucking amazing. The military owes a ton of money to soldiers. They say that they can not find 35,000 soldiers. The Pentagon also claims that they are not allowed to use IRS data to find them. You can bet your ass that they could find them if they owed the money back to GOV
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2 ... 7_ST_N.htm

Makes me wonder,,,,, just a wonderment!!!!! Maybe those soldiers do not want to be found. I've often wondered about our military veterans of the 21st century. I would LIKE to think some great leaders may rise from their midst. But I also believe they know very well what the gov is capable of doing and want nothing more to do with it.

Eric wrote:

It's not just New Orleans, it's an entire region. The economic impact goes far beyond what is shown on here- some of the major economic engines of the region were crippled. That means people have no houses, no food, no jobs... who is supposed to help them when their neighbors, all of them, are in the same boat. When their entire region is in the same boat.

Boy, we've come a long way since those pilgrims at Plymouth Rock haven't we?