TREASON!
I hereby bring before the High Court of Blogdom, one Schnocone, charged with the crime of treason.
What did he do, you ask...well, in the course of the evening quite a lot, but let's start with the treason.
As I related last week, I got fired under extremely ridiculous circumstances (Schnocone agrees to this point). As a show of solidarity, he quit the same job the next morning. So that updates us to yesterday morning when Schnocone returns to Ellsworth's to continue working. The Reason: Schnocone felt bad for Ellsworth because he's been working on this project since February and Schnocone wants to see it through to the end. True, he got me this job, and it pulled me out of the throes of poverty. Regardless, you do not quit a job to show your loyalty to a friend only to start the job again within a week. What a betrayal of friendship! Schnocone also says that he quit only because it was awkward once I got fired. Is it not more awkward now that he already quit and decided to return a week later. That, I say, is far more awkward. So here we are now. In an act of appeasement, I got a free margarita tonight, which if I may say so, was not that strong. I think it's not so much to ask for a free drink every night that he works, which amounts to less than five dollars out of the sixty dollars earned a day. That's certainly the cheapest price I've heard for a betrayal of friendhsip, but apparently it's not enough for economics-major-Schnocone.
Which brings me to my next point. If you weren't with me on the last one, you're sure to be with me on this one. Schnocone thinks that there was nothing wrong with the Civil War era draft where the rich could pay someone poorer than them to take their place place in the battlefield. When Bighead and I tried to argue that this was fucking crazy...an idea that they threw out in the 19th Century, he argued that there were no victims in the case, and that we were trying to deprive poor people of the free choice to earn money by replacing rich people on the battlefield. He actually accused us of being against poor people through what he hinted was condescending patronage...He actually believes this!
Bighead and I exhausted all avenues of debate, but it wasn't enough for the economics major who believes that everything has a price and the contract entered into should be honored as pure free will of all individuals involved. Sure, we tried to say that certain things shouldn't be given a money value, and one shouldn't be able to buy themselves out of their obligation to their society, but he said that they were fulfilling their obligation through their monetary payoff to the poor person.
Even when we tried to argue that one shouldn't be able to buy oneself out of a social contract it wasn't enough. Apparently I'm depriving poor people of money that they may need. We also tried saying that a society should hold that certain things do not have a cash value, because there are certain things that are beyond the realm of money, but once again we were accused of depriving the poor of their free will. Is it just me or is this insane? Tim said that his argument was in the spirit of the social contract that the rich are fulfilling their obligation to defend their society in time of war while we said that the social contract is above financial matters. But again, Bighead and I were depriving the poor and not making sense, grabbing at abstract, ethereal values in a concrete world. I can't explain my frustration. Maybe Schnocone can explain it better, but am I the only one disturbed by this?
By the way, this whole argument started over whether or not scouts should be able to pay someone to do their police call garbage pickup for them.
P.S.--I really want comments on this one, because it was a huge argument and I'm eager to know whether or not one of us is crazy. So if you read this, please comment.