Poverty, Crime, Welfare and Minimum wages, Is there a Correlation?

This man believes that there is.




And then there are the words of wisdom from the man who wrote these words. Are they the words of a man who would approve of a socialistic form of a way of life as so many are clamoring for?

"For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?

On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.

St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence."

I am, your’s,
Ben Franklin

And we must not forget the words of Raul Castro;
"Cuba must stop being the only country in the world where it is not necessary to work.”

Your Tax Dollar Hard at Work (Part II)

We speak of that new millionaire who is still using food stamps but we can't blame him for it. He is using them in accordance to the laws in regards to food stamps. We also cannot blame the State of Michigan either for the State is only following the guidelines of the federal government out of whose treasury the money comes for food stamps.

You and I may consider what he is doing as being unethical and the man is without scruples for abusing the system outside of its intent and purpose. But if we acknowledge that laws can influence the way a man thinks and feels then we must ask ourselves one question. Is it just man who is at fault or is it the law itself that can be blamed for his feelings?

One more thought that people should consider. This man was using food stamps prior to winning the lottery. That means he must have had enough money to buy lottery tickets with. If the man was so needy and was getting welfare to provide for his needs then where did he get the extra money necessary to buy those tickets?  The only answer that I can come up with is that he used your tax dollars to buy the tickets.

I have to admit I still remember a time when people felt shame for taking a government handout of any kind. But then again there was a time when a poor person was not looked upon as being someone deserving of pity either nor did that person appreciate being shown pity. Those were the times when a man knew that if he was to make it in this world he had only himself to depend upon. Those were the times when self-respect was more important than having a dollar in your pocket.

We are a nation of laws or at least we promote ourselves as this kind of nation to the world. It is by laws that allow our government to serve the people or at least we promote that principle of government. Laws are enacted so as to benefit the people or at least we are taught that in our schools. There is one thing about laws that isn't mentioned though.

Laws can also be taken advantaged of for the intent and purpose of self-gain. And it doesn't matter what type of laws we speak of whether they be criminal laws or civil laws. In criminal law this is recognized by the axiom of “Tis better that one hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.”  Do we wish to use that same form of axiom in regards to those laws dealing with the financial welfare of individuals? Is it better to allow one hundred persons to take advantage of these programs for self-gain than to deny it to one person of need?

On top of people undeservedly taking advantage of these programs we must also consider one more factor. That factor being the actual fraudulent claims that by the very nature of the programs will result within a program like this. Is it better to allow one hundred fraudulent claims than to deny it of one person in need? Here is more of an example of fraud or people taking advantage of the genorosity of the tax payer. 200 ineligible dependents

As those who have been following me on this blog probably already know my answer is no. and in my opinion there is only two ways that the government can deal with the financial welfare of individuals that cannot be taken advantage of, legally or illegally. The government can expand the program so as to allow everyone to participate in that program without any bias or prejudice. The other way is for the government to eliminate the program all together. You have two guesses as to which one I’d prefer.

Now, there will be some who will call me hard-hearted because of this. They will tell you I have no compassion. If that be their feelings about me then so be it. But if I am to be accused of this it will be only at the expense of those towards whom I am soft-hearted. If I am to be accused of this then it will only be at the expense of those who I feel deserve greater respect then what is being shown to them.

Where do my thoughts lie? They lie in the idea of the 48% who display their ethics by working 1/3 of every day or more away from their families so that some may spend the whole day with their families, the taxpayer. My feelings lie in the knowledge that the government demands that the taxpayer has to place the needs of strangers above the needs of his own family. My feelings and thoughts lie in the fact that these men must provide the means to other so that they can fulfill their dreams before he is allowed to fulfill his own and those of his own family.  Is that what the American Dream is all about?

What say you? Are my thoughts and feelings misplaced?

Liberalism, a Look at It as being in the Mode of the Enlightenment of the Founding Fathers

I have just spent some time viewing Dr. Hicks teachings of philosophy and what I have learned from these lectures was probably the most enlightening lectures that I have ever heard. The following video is but the first of this series of lectures. It is a series of lectures explaining the philosophy of Post- modernism. The most significant understanding I got from these lectures is the fact I hear these same arguments used and see them being utilized in the politics of today's world.

The one significant conclusion that I have come to is the idea of what a liberal sees himself as being identified and what a conservative sees himself as being identified. Both sees themselves in the mode of the founding fathers thus see the opposition in light of this perception of themselves. But in order to understand this we must first identify the fact that we live in the age of the philosophy of modernism or as it is more commonly thought of as living in a modern world as ushered in by the enlightenment era or the age of reason. And our nation is a foundational example of this new train of thought.

This then would identify the time prior to this age as the age of premodernism or the premodern world with any age after this as being the age of post-modernism or the post-modern world. The liberal sees himself in the mode of the founding fathers who were the innovators of the modern world movement in that the liberal today is the innovators of the post- modern movement. This contrast with the conservative who is attempting to conserve the modern world movement as the founding fathers ushered in.

In closing I can only say that I suggest that you should sit thru the whole series of videos and see how his lectures are being played out in this modern world and understand from a philosophical point of view what the conflicts of political viewpoints are. If you listen closely you'll hear the arguments of liberalism as they now are presented as well as being instituted in this society.

And you will understand why the liberal mindset is so critical of the way of life we have in this nation also. You will also understand how Marxism plays a part in this mindframe as well. I believe you will find that the time spent watching as well as listening to these lectures will be time well worth it.  I know I did. What say you?

The rest of the lectures can be found here, Dr. Hicks

Human Beings With All of their Differences and Inequalities of Nature (Part 4)

To continue with this series of essays about human beings we need to examine one more position. It is the center position of the extremes as described in the previous posts.


The absolute extreme of the center is more difficult to describe. The reason being is that it is usually defined as a combination of the two outer extremities, the right and the left. One way to describe it would be that it is an absolute compromise of the absolute extremes. The big problem with this is that it focuses on the outcome without considering what happens to the means.

We as human beings are governed by our principles concerning morality. Those principles influence our every decision of behavior. What a compromised solution does is necessitate a change of behavior without consideration of the beliefs involved. The behavior has changed but the principle held still remains. In other words, the man has become a hypocrite to his beliefs and with each compromise he makes the more of a hypocrite he is. And with each compromise made the easier it becomes to compromise again.

A man who is willing to compromise is a liar. For that man is portraying himself to the world as being somebody that he is not. His behavior belies his beliefs. Most important is the fact that he is betraying the most important person in his life, himself. In order to live with himself truth would have to have no meaning to this person.

And like lies one compromise will, inevitably, lead to another compromise. Sooner or later this man will be forced to face the truth about himself and when this happens he will have to suffer the consequences of his own making. Since compromise cannot be justified on its own merits then it only can be justified by demeaning the purity of the absolute extreme positions in some manner or another.

The big problem with this position concerns responsibility and doing things the right way or the wrong way. This is a position of shared responsibility. This would be a position where all behavior is behavior that is considered as being both determined and of free will. This alone would declare this position as being self-contradictory. Why would we want someone to accept responsibility for a behavior that they have no control over? We would be blaming the victim of this behavior if we hold him responsible. Is that the right thing to do?

It is also a position where right and wrong must be considered as being blurred. Some would even say that there is no right or wrong way of doing things. This would be a position of amorality. It would be a position taken where evaluation of behavior is not influenced by one's sense of morality. The only conclusion that a person can come to based on the premises allowed is that responsibility of the behavior cannot be ascertained logically without presupposing responsibility. This would go against the whole idea of the meaning of justice.

This would presuppose that something else other than a sense of morality should be used to ascertain responsibility. What else can people possess on an equal basis that could be used as a determinant of responsibility that would not be biased and prejudicial? What else can people possess on an equal basis that does not automatically declare one person guilty and another person innocent of behavior simply by the possession of it? What else can a person possess on an equal basis that doesn't automatically prevent a relationship between two persons of different positions of society? What else can a person possess on an equal basis that would restrict the behavior of each equally?

What say you, my friends? Can someone provide me an answer to my questions?

The Government is a Business and Should be Treated as One

Grandpa told me once that he would like to hear a politician speak the following words or words similar to them. He told me that if people really understood the purpose of his own existence and the purpose of the existence of government then we would not be so divided as a nation. These were the words that grandpa would have liked to hear as he spoke to me in a very saddened manner knowing that he would never hear them.


“People, if you value your independence and liberty then realize this. Every law written demands that independence is lost. With every law written you no longer act voluntarily and consensually. You are acting in obedience to the law regulating that behavior or you are breaking the law. That is the nature and purpose of laws.

This does not mean that a person would have acted outside of that law if it was not enacted. In fact, one criterion of a good law is the fact that, in my opinion, 90% of the people would not have committed the act even if the law was not enacted. Of course there are exceptions to this observation. The paying of taxes would be one instance that this criterion would not be applicable.

People, if you value your independence and liberty realize this. What is yours cannot be taken away by your government. If the government has the right to take it away from you then it belongs to the government, not you. The government does not spend your money, it spends its own money that it had the right to confiscate from you.

People, stop looking at the purpose of government as if it was a charity organization. It should be looked at in the same manner as you view a business, any business. It exists to provide a service not a charity and you pay for that service. You pay the price that it demands for those services. When you look at government from that prospective then you'll realize that it should only provide those services that each and every individual needs in society. And since all persons benefit mutually from that service than each and every one of us should pay equally for that service.

We, the people, elect those who run this government. If we were to judge the performance of those elected would we judge them as running a successful business or a failing business? Are they abiding by a budget that recognizes the need to be in the black or are they accumulating debt that would result in the bankruptcy of any business? If debt is your answer then are they abiding by the principles of good business so as to make our investment in that business profitable for our children?

As to the tax structure, is it such that each of us must pay for the services rendered by our government as each of us should pay or does the burden fall upon the shoulders of the less fortunate? If the answer is the latter then what right do the rest of us deserve to benefit from the services that the government provides? Business would declare that if you cannot afford to pay for the services of that business then you have no right to those services.

And just like any business government has a specialty service of which only a government can provide. And the service that government specializes in is the service of force in order to bring about a peaceful and prosperous society. And as long as governments limit themselves to the issues necessitating using the tools of force then it will have served its purpose in a society just as any other business serves its purpose. It is when it begins to provide services that should not necessitate the use of force that it no longer can justify its existence.

It is when governments begin to provide services outside of its specialty that governments no longer are governments of the people, by the people and for the people. It then becomes a government of the majority of persons or a government of the minority of persons. For it will be one or the other that receives the benefits that government will be providing. And when that occurs then it can only occur at the expense of the other and you have a nation divided, one side in resentment towards the other instead of a nation united by the principles of good government.

In closing a little history should remind us of what occurs when a nation is divided by irreconcilable differences of issues. That history will remind us that those differences on issues resulted in two wars. One war was the revolutionary war and the issue was taxation without representation. The other war was what is called the Civil war and the issue was slavery. And both wars were the result of one thing. One side wanted to impose its will on the other side in regards to these issues and the other side was defending their right to make their own decision in regards to these issues.

When we understand this we will understand the real meaning of the free will of a individual and its importance to a people where liberty is such a cherished right. If we do not come to that realization we are dooming our children to a life governed by the principle of determinism where liberty can not exist and the meaning of life itself is degraded. Is that what you want for your children?”

When his words trailed off into a whisper I could not help but think that with every lesson in life that grandpa tried to instill in me were lessons that drew upon these thoughts as their cornerstone.

Biology and the Laws of Marriage

After waiting a bit to hear if there was any argument in regards to what he said grandpa continued his talk at the meeting.


“First of all we must admit that those who favor decisions in regards to the rights of homosexuals are predominantly those who have accepted the theory that homosexuality behavior is a genetically determined trait rather than a learned trait. How many would favor homosexual marriage if sexual behavior were not genetically determined?

And there are societies that show tolerance towards the behavior of homosexuality. But let’s not confuse behavior with state of being. Before we decide to give certain rights to certain individuals who are members of a certain collective we need to make the determination that to do so is beneficial to society as well as it is beneficial to the individuals.

“I brought up the question in an earlier talk of, what would happen in a single gender collective in regards to sexual behavior? Well, we do have collectives of single gender in this society already. Those collectives are known as prisons. And we already know what happens in them in regards to sexual activities. And I challenge anyone to declare that only homosexuals are sexually active in prisons.

If DNA is a valid means to determine biological traits in people and if biological traits are an aspect of the principle of determination rather than free will that can mean only one thing. There must be a gene that controls the sexual orientation of a person and that must be a common gene in each of us.

I have but one question in regards to this. If this is true then two persons possessing the same DNA must be of the same sexual orientation. So, explain to me how there can be identical twins and one of those twins is a heterosexual while the other is a homosexual?

Wikipedia has an interesting entry entitled “Biology and Sexual Orientation”. It describes the many ways that studies have been done in regards to sexual orientation. It seems as if the best that these studies could conclude is and I quote;

“No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1…”.

In another area of this entry in regards to the study of twins it had this to say and I quote,

“Nonetheless, it is possible to conclude that, given the difference in sexuality in so many sets of identical twins (who are genetically identical), sexual orientation cannot be purely caused by genetics.”

In closing I remind everyone that rights belong to individuals not groups. Thus if we are to determine whether or not the rights of an individual is being denied to any individual by law then we must address the individual.

“ Do the laws on marriage prevent a homosexual from getting married and knowing all of the benefits that there are in marriage? The answer is no. There are no laws that prevent that. The sexual preference of the parties to be married is not a requirement of the State for the purpose of marriage. The only requirement is that the person that one is to be married to is a person of the opposite gender. And this applies to all persons.

Is it true that persons of certain sexual orientation can marry anyone that they want to while persons of a different sexual orientation cannot? The answer is no. Once a law has been enacted in regards to a certain issue no one has the right to do as they want in regards to that issue. The law applies to every single individual thus all are abiding by the law or not abiding by the law. The only way for a person to do what they want is for there to be no laws in regards to what he wants. Think about what this means the next time you hear someone say that there oughta be a law…”

With these words said, grandpa stepped down from the podium and sat next to grandma to await the words of the next speaker.

Sexual Orientation, a Biological Trait or a Learned Trait?

Grandpa, grandma and I went to a church sponsored gathering one weekend. The purpose of this gathering was to discuss the controversial issue surrounding marriage and the role of the homosexual within the community. Grandpa had this to say on the subject.

“The biggest controversy in regards to the issue of marriage is whether or not homosexuality is biological or learned. And this is where I am going to have to depend upon my friends in the field of science to correct me if I am wrong. I’ll have to admit that here I am using my memory mostly to present my case on this topic and my memory has been known to have a lapse now and then. LOL.

When homosexuality was first determined to be biological, science used an outdated method of making that determination. Science considered it a biological attribute by the universality of it rather than it being a cultural trait. In today’s science, DNA is used to determine biological traits.

This has a big bearing on the issue of marriage and whether or not the laws are discriminating against homosexuals. Apparently, it is a given, that heterosexuality is a biological trait in animal kingdom. My one question would be, if we lived in a perfect world would we have but a single sexual preference? And if we did which sexual preference would it be?

I think we can all agree that if it was the homosexual trait that would exist in the perfect world the animal kingdom would become extinct before it ever had a chance to have a history. This leads us to another question.

The survival instinct is interconnected to heterosexuality. This has to be a given. Would that mean that the homosexual does not possess the instinctive trait of self-survival along with the instinctive trait of survival of the species? This would seem to be unlikely to me.

Another question that must be answered is what exactly is meant by the term sexual orientation? If it is a biological trait, do we or don’t we have a choice? Will heterosexuals only have sex with the opposite gender? Will the homosexual only have sex with the same gender?

In a singular gender collective will only the homosexual engage in sex or will the so-called heterosexual engage in sexual activities in this collective also? If it is just a preference then how can we say that it is a biological trait? For the word itself is recognition of the need to make choices or decisions.

Speaking of choices brings up another aspect of the subject, morality. For as human being we are not only sexual beings we are also beings of morality. And this brings the concepts of free will and determinism into play. Man has always considered those things as determined not subject to the laws or principles of morality and those things as chosen subject to be determined as moral or immoral in this society. Biological traits have been considered as falling under the principle of determinism.

In this society we have made a determination that certain sexual activities are to be considered as immoral, even in some cases illegal, and that sexual activities are considered as moral under certain circumstances only. Marriage is and has been the most predominant factor of the determination of the morality of sexual behavior within every collective and history of man. The consequences, not only to the individual but also to the collective, of not abiding by this moral principle have been documented extensively by science.

In conclusion, it would appear to be imperative that we determine not whether homosexuality is a biological trait but whether any sexual orientation is a biological/determined trait or if it is a trait of free will or a chosen trait. Until we do then any decision that involves making a judgment upon any sexual activities of any individuals of a collective can only be based on presumptions not facts. 

And as long as we use presumptuous ideas then we need to take religious ideas into consideration and not relegate them to the closet by calling them bigoted ideas.  Not doing so because of a particular political ideological belief in regards to religious ideas in politics is bigotry in itself”

With these words said, grandpa stood silently at the podium awaiting any comments or questions to his words.

Marriage Laws and its Comparison to the Interracial Laws of Marriage in the Past

While grandpa and I were in in town on some errands that grandma had given to grandpa we ran into a couple of old friends who were arguing the pros and cons of the same sex marriage issue. And from the way they were arguing a person could see that each person were passionate about their side of the issue. Grandpa just stood there listening without taking part in the discussion for a few minutes. Once he had listened long enough to get the gist of what kind of argument was being used he whispered to me to stay there and listen while he went about doing the errands.

When grandpa had finished his errands and came back for me and we headed home. On the way he asked me this question,

“Boy, what did you learn from listening to our good friends?”

the question took me by surprise and I had to think for a few minutes before giving grandpa an answer.

“ Nothing really, grandpa. It seemed as if the both of them were so emotionally charged up in defending their side of the argument that neither of them realized just how illogical their argument was. They each was trying to win the argument by demeaning the other because of the position they took on the issue.”

Grandpa just smiled as he nodded. “Good observation, boy. Now, give me an argument on the issue based upon the basic premise used by our friends.”

I just look at grandpa and as he gave me a smile and wink I began.

“There are those that claim that one group in this nation is just seeking equal rights with another group when it comes to marriage. And in doing so use the emotional appeal of the fact that at one time interracial marriage was also banned in order to show that they are being treated in an unequal manner by the laws of marriage.

If this is true then the same reasoning must be used to show that this is a comparable basis. There were many arguments used in an attempt to justify the ban on interracial marriage and one of them was the argument for maintaining the purity of the races. The comparable argument then would be an argument for the maintaining the purity of the sexual orientation of a group of persons. Since this is an obvious fallacy then the comparison is also a fallacious comparison.

Another argument that was used was the argument that interracial marriage goes against the laws of nature. The laws of nature, in this case, deals with the laws of survival of the individual and the laws of survival of the species. These laws are interconnected. By this I mean that in the process of abiding by the one a person will abide by the other. This was an obvious fallacy of logic in relation to interracial marriage and science does not support this argument.

But in understanding the means that is to be applied to abide by these laws it can be said that same sex marriage does go against the laws of nature. Thus, it can be said that again we see an obvious fallacy of comparison. So, those that use this premise in order to show that the laws of marriage discriminates will come to an unconvincing and illogical conclusion except for those who would be convinced by the appeal to emotion.

Then there are those who will cite the fact of homosexual behavior has been found in other life forms also so as to imply that homosexual behavior is a natural act. This is a fallacious argument also because the argument I'm putting forth is whether or not it goes against the laws of nature. I am not putting forth an argument of whether or not it is a natural or learned act.

These are two different concepts as any scientist or philosopher will tell you. And while we can use one concept, the laws of nature, as evidence for the other. It is a fallacious argument to use the other as proof that persons are abiding by the laws of nature.

There are more arguments that are used to show a comparison between the two issues. Most of them being religious in content. These arguments will not be touched other than to declare that the religious establishment can be said as being united in their opposition to idea of the change in the definition of marriage. I will only say that in regards to the issue in question the charge of religious bigotry for those who rely on religious beliefs for their stance is an unjust charge.”

When I had finished my argument grandpa just had this to say,

“Well, boy, now that you have stated your case we'll see if someone who visits us can find a fallacy in your argument”

The Laws of Marriage, Unjust Discrimination?

The institution of marriage is being challenged in this nation. There are those who would redefine it and are using the 14th amendment as justification for this new definition. While the traditional definition was based around the idea of gender this new definition would use sexual orientation as the basis of it to show discrimination. The problem is not as complicated as one would think. It just has many facets that need answers to if we are to solve this problem in a righteous and moral manner.

There are those who will say that marriage is a religiously based institution. If so, then it becomes a first amendment issue not a 14th amendment issue. Some will say that it discriminates based on denial of benefits. If so, then it must be the laws in regards to those benefits that must change in order for the government to give equal treatment not the laws of marriage.

Some would claim that the laws in regards to marriage makes certain persons second class citizens. This would require us to examine the intent and purpose of the institution of marriage. And in doing so we must not consider the intent of the individual who seeks to bond with another in marriage. Only then can we determine whether a person is being unjustly discriminated against or even if the charge of discrimination is a just grievance.

We must recognize that there is a difference in just feeling like you have been discriminated against and whether or not you are actually being discriminated against. Feelings alone does not justify a charge of discrimination. And just wanting something does not justify a charge of discrimination in order to obtain what you want.

If we are to declare that the government is to treat everyone as if they were equals then we must determine whether or not any laws enacted denies any individual the opportunity to partake in a marriage contract as stipulated in the laws. Only then can it be declared that a person has been denied his rights.

So, the question becomes “does the laws in regards to marriage deny the rights of an individual, any individual? What are the laws in regards to marriage? And how must we answer the question of discrimination?

The first law of marriage is that it is a gender based institution. In other words the participants in the formation of this smallest of collectives must be a man and a woman. This fact is a time honored as well as a universally honored determinant. Does this requirement prevent any individual to be a participant in the institution of marriage? The answer must be no. For every person is of one of these genders.

Another law of marriage is that it is an age based institution. In other words the participants in the formation of this smallest of collectives must be of a certain age. Does this prevent any individual the right to be a participant in the institution of marriage? The answer must be yes. It serves to prevent those persons who do not meet this requirement to be a participant in the institution of marriage. This is a culturally determined requirement and this requirement is not a uniform requirement among the many cultures.

But it is an accepted requirement based upon the fact that society accepts that persons be mature enough to carry out their responsibilities of their role in the marriage. And here may be a problem because we then must determine what the role of each person is so as to evaluate whether or not a person has the capability as well as the maturity to carry out their role. And age is the arbitrary determinant that the State uses to declare that the participants meet this requirement.

And we can find within this requirement the one question that must be answered in order to determine whether or not certain collectives of any society can be said as justifiably discriminated against. Do each participant have all of the capabilities that is required to carry out their role in a marriage?

What capability does a man have by the nature of his being, if any, that would require that he be a participant in a marriage?  What capability does a woman have by the nature of her being, if any, that would require that she be a participant in a marriage? And if not at the present time, was there ever a time it can be said that they did and age and/or nature was a factor in their incapability now?