@SteveSoCal wrote:
The more of the world one see, the greater your understanding of national values v.s human values may become.
We as a nation are in a rather unique space because our freedom allows us to experiment and try new things yet have the rest of the world to gauge our relative success or failure against. In a greater sense, our freedom is limited by precepts common to all civilizations as defining the ground rules that allow us to live together without constant conflict. Think of the Ten Commandments and leave out those specifically related to a God/man relationship and you have the basic ground rules for all civilizations: respect for those under the same roof, avoidance of murder, theft, lying and jealousy. Of course there are expansions on each of these, but they are the expression of the common basic "moral" or "ethical" behaviors. Most civilizations also have added clauses to help those less able to help themselves as an expansion of our "roof" and respect concepts.
Under the same roof the husband wants to use the $X resources for a ___________ while the wife wants to spend them for a _____________ and the kids would really like ___________________. Respectfully a compromise must be worked out if you are to honor all those under the roof. What would be disrespectful and immoral would be for one party to snatch the resources because they are bigger or stronger or more entitled and only get what they want.
When we look at politicians we would expect similar types of respectful compromise because constituencies around the country have different needs. Nebraska does not need hurricane protections and Florida does not need snow removal assistance. 'Horse trading' votes for snow removal in exchange for votes for hurricane protections just makes sense. What we are seeing goes far beyond 'horse trading' to tantrums and pure obstruction which is, no surprise, met by tantrums and pure obstruction. We have gone from 50 states and the territories vying with civil discourse to have the needs of their constituents met to two political parties who would be damned before they would give their 'opponents' an inch. In my view, that is immoral.
I view the Ruth's Chris and Shake Shack et al folly as an extension of 'sticking it to them' between the political parties rather than respectfully attempting to help those less able to help themselves. So while it is 'good business' for Shake Shack et al to grab what they have become "entitled to", it reflects directly on immoral and amoral behavior by elected officials.