Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Universe Prince

Pages: 1 ... 227 228 [229] 230 231 ... 244
3421
3DHS / Re: Reid: Immigration reform a top priority
« on: December 04, 2006, 12:19:43 PM »
Quote from: sirs on December 02, 2006, 01:09:58 PM

<-----------------------whooooooosh-----------------------------------------
That was the point of my comments on diversity apparently flying right over your head.


On the contrary, I got the point of your comments. Diversity for the sake of diversity is bad. But no one was advocating diversity for the sake of diversity. So that whoosh sound was more likely your point as plummeted to the ground like a rock.

3422
3DHS / Re: This sums it all up real well
« on: December 04, 2006, 12:13:45 PM »
You say of the small-government conservative movement, "considering the source of its funding" it "is nakedly and transparently a movement for the preservation of wealth and privilege." I would suggest that is a perspective, not a truth. There is another perspective that involves a concept of property rights as important. That perspective would say that the wealth a person earns or creates or accumulates through various means, so long as they are not fraudulent or a violation of someone else's basic rights, belong to that person and so the SGC would be, in part, a movement for the preservation of property rights. And since we're talking specifically about small-government conservatives, I think it would be safe to say that perspective would also include the SGC movement being about restricting the power by government to infringe upon basic rights. I'm not saying to have to agree with that perspective. I'm just saying I think it is no less valid than yours.

You also said the point that not all small-government conservatives are evil is "irrelevant". Why? "In order to condemn a movement, one doesn't have to condemn each and every one of its individual members." In general, I agree, but you were not condemning a movement. You were talking about the people and saying they were all greedy, evil, and/or stupid. You were in essence stereotyping the individuals and insisting they could not be else.

You claim to judge the SGC movement as "the movement of the greedy, the egotistical, the selfish" because you consider the effects of the policies, who would benefit and who would be harmed. Okay, but such considerations are why I do not agree with socialist policy. What are the overall effects on society? Who benefits from having such policies in the short-term and the long-term? Who is harmed by such policies in the short-term and the long-term? I understand that you believe socialist policies harm the greedy and benefit the poor. I disagree. I think socialist policies ultimately harm everyone and damage society. But I don't believe that is your goal or your reason for supporting socialist ideas. I'm not saying everyone who wants smaller government or opposes socialist ideas thinks the way I do about it, but I am suggesting it is possible to consider these sort of questions, not agree with socialism, and still have concern about what does and does not benefit society. And I think more people than you give them credit for within what you call the SGC movement have those concerns and have love for their fellow man.

Now then you said something here that I think goes to the core of the difference between your perspective and mine. And so I want to quote the whole paragraph:
      As a political philosophy, a thought-system in a world of competing thought-systems, it is of course value-neutral.  Either one system or the other will produce the greatest good for the greatest number - - good or evil shouldn't enter into it any more than they would into a debate as to which of two competing formulae would produce the cleaner-burning fuel.      
I could be wrong, but from what you have said in this discussion and in past discussions, my understanding of your position is that you believe socialism is the system that produces the greatest good for the greatest number, and so you think it should be imposed on society. I believe that liberty produces the greatest good for the greatest number, and so I think that aside from protecting the basic rights of individuals, society ought to be left alone so that individuals can choose for themselves what they believe and how to live and what sort of community they want. I have no real problem with the concept of socialism or communism as such, because I understand that those concepts come from a desire to help others and to create a community beneficial for all. What I have a real problem with is the notion that your desire for a better society gives you the right to insist everyone else should be forced to agree to live by your rules whether they agree with you or not. Now some might say I want the same sort of thing, to impose my rules on everyone else, but this is not what I want. My goal is not have behavioral rules forced on others. My goal is that people be left alone to choose their own behavior. (So people should be free to murder or rape or the like? No. Murdering someone is not leaving him or her alone, now is it? Raping someone is not leaving that someone alone to decide for herself, it is? No, it is the forcible imposition of one's choice on another, the opposite of what I'm advocating. There are ways to deal with these issues in a free society, but that is a topic for another time.) My point being that if you want to live in a socialist community, I don't want to stop you. What I do and will oppose is the attempt to make everyone live in a socialist community.

An example of how this might work is the Amish. The Amish live in Amish communities that conform to what they believe is good. But they do not insist everyone live by Amish rules, and generally no one is forcing the Amish to do things like use modern technology. And yet the Amish community does not live in total isolation or adverse opposition to the rest of us. Indeed, there is even trade (voluntary trade I want to point out) between us. I can go to a number of local grocery stores and find food products made by Amish communities. I'm sure there are plenty of objections as to why this example cannot be carried out on a larger scale, but I don't intend this to be an exact example covering all details. I merely wanted to point out such an arrangement of people living in communities of their choice without imposing their ways on everyone can be possible and peaceful.

Your dismissal of voluntary cooperation as a failure seems to misunderstand the very nature of the concept of voluntary cooperation. You speak of Jim Crow laws and the child labor situation, but these are not examples of voluntary cooperation gone wrong. These are examples of just the opposite. They needed to be eliminated exactly because they were not voluntary cooperation and were an abuse of basic rights. You mention large scale poverty and inequality, which I consider to be continued by a lack of voluntary cooperation. No, I'm not saying anything bad about the poor or suggesting any sort of up-by-their-bootstraps argument. What I am saying is that there are artificial barriers that are the opposite of voluntary cooperation. Things like minimum wage laws that create an artificial price floor on employment is just one example. To mess about with all sorts of laws and regulations that interfere with voluntary cooperation and then say voluntary cooperation is a failure is like tying a healthy and otherwise perfectly ambulatory person down to a wheelchair and then saying the person must need the wheelchair because he can't walk.

And now to the topic of love. I have no idea why you seem to think I'm insisting love has to be logical. I never said it is or has to be. You say "Those of us who feel we are our brother's keeper have not come to that feeling out of logic." Fine, no one said you had to get there logically. But that doesn't mean it is an unreasonable position or that it is no more logical than "to say 'Fuck this guy' and move on without a backward glance." You talk of feeling that you are your brother's keeper. For me, it is not a feeling. I believe that I am supposed to love my neighbor as myself, and I think the notion of treating others as one wishes to be treated is an eminently logical and rational position. The position of callousness toward others seems to me extremely irrational.

You speak of loving one's neighbor and how socialists "feel that we all share this responsibility, that we just can't NOT care about the underclass.  That we SHOULDN'T not care about them.  We feel that communal duty." I know a lot of people who would be considered SGCs, and from what I know of them, I believe I can honestly say there is not a single one of them who would not say that he does not feel a responsibility to care about others. And some of those people that help operate a program where people pay—not get paid but rather the people who do the work pay—to help repair and rebuild rundown, and in many cases literally falling apart, houses for people they don't otherwise know. Some of those SGC people help operate a local charity that takes in donations to help provide not just food but also clothing and day-to-day necessities for poor and homeless people. Some of those SGC people help to operate a local home for abused and abandoned children. I'd say they seem to pretty clearly care about others and believe they should care about those in need. And I can, because I know them, say they also believe that the obligation to care and to help is something all people share.

You may believe the responsibility to help others is purely communal, but I do not. I think it is an individual responsibility that all individuals have. That means it is not enough for me to want to help others or to have my money taken to help others. It means I should do something to help others, not only because they need help but because I would want someone to help me if I needed help. That does not, however, mean I ignore the usefulness of corporate or communal action. No one that I know of, socialist or otherwise, suggests there should not be such a thing as cooperative action, people working together to achieve something. Certainly people should come together, pooling efforts and resources to help others. I don't know any SGC who does not think so. And I think it is an unfair characterization on your part to suggest that socialists care while anyone who is not socialist does not care at all.

You say, "Love of neighbour is not inconsistent with wanting to achieve the most effective result for the neighbour nor with wanting the burden to be equally shared by all". Of course not. No one said it was. My objection was not to wanting to achieve an effective result nor to wanting everyone to share the burden. My objection is to wanting to take by force what doesn't belong to you, and to wanting to force other people to submit to your moral preferences. You claim my "mistake is to expect that love of neighbour will translate into personal action UNRELATED to prodding the community into taking on the burden." But I don't expect that at all. I have no objections to asking or encouraging people to take action. I have no objection to drumming up support for community aid projects. If able, I might even contribute my money or my time to help such a campaign. You say you don't expect to achieve perfect justice in an imperfect world, nether do I. But also don't expect to get closer to justice by doing something I consider unjust, i.e. taking what belongs to others and/or forcing people to submit to one's moral preferences regardless of what the people themselves believe as individuals. And I care about these things not because I lack a concern for society or for helping others. No, I care about these things because I do in fact have concern for society and for helping others, because I do love my neighbor.

So while from your perspective those who do not support socialist polices are supporting greedy policies out of callousness or selfishness or stupidity, from my perspective the situation is not nearly so simple. I do not deny that some people are greedy, but I see no evidence that socialists care more than other people or that rejecting socialist ideas is a sign of greed and selfishness. I almost wish the world were that simple, but it is, as best I can tell, more complex than that.

3423
3DHS / Re: This sums it all up real well
« on: December 04, 2006, 08:42:34 AM »
Quote from: Mucho on December 02, 2006, 04:32:14 PM

I defy you to identify the so called dogma to which you alude. I am not a liberal . I only use that term in here to piss off you RW haters./ I would call myself a radical , but left &* right radicals are pretty much the same being anarchists and/or libertarian losers. Samo , samo.


So call it a radical left-wing dogma. Whatever name it may or may not have, it seems to be nonetheless a dogma, a absolute faith that your beliefs are alone goodness and truth and any contradictory idea is necessarily wrong and any idea that calls that absolute faith into question is necessarily evil. If it is not a dogma, you still act as though it is.

Quote from: Mucho on December 02, 2006, 04:32:14 PM

Oh and others proving your point when is another shallow debate quirk for losers.


But of course, "shut the f--- up" is the way of champions; and of course if you keep referring to your opponent as a 'loser' that makes you a winner. (Back home, we call that sarcasm.)

Quote from: Mucho on December 02, 2006, 04:32:14 PM

You say you dont support Bush , but you clearly his enablers and that makes you every bit as guilty as they in the death and destruction wrought on the world by them


I'm not sure what you meant to put in between "you clearly" and "his enablers" but I'm going to guess you meant to say I support them. Who, exactly, are they anyway? You're being vague, and I suppose deliberately so. I can't very well argue I don't support them when I don't know who you're talking about or what you're calling support. Would you care to be more specific?

3424
3DHS / Re: Reid: Immigration reform a top priority
« on: December 02, 2006, 06:05:24 AM »
Quote from: sirs on December 02, 2006, 02:38:20 AM

And with all due respect to you and your immigrant grandparents Prince, is that it's insulting to those who HAVE gone thru the "onerous process", jumped thru all the hoops, travrsed all the bureaucracy, and then be told "oooh, if you had simply just broken our laws, we'll taken much better care of you".


Then don't tell them that. Tell them we're sorry they had to be put through such a ridiculous set of hoops and that we hope to change that so no one else will have to suffer through that nonsense ever again.

Quote from: sirs on December 02, 2006, 02:38:20 AM

I know you hate hearing it, but our resources are finite.  I can vouch for that, from a health care perspective.  And advocating such an open border policy you seem to weild, will give exactly the ammunition that the left needs to bring about Univiersal Health Care, as our Hospitals & ER's get completely overwhelmed, if they haven't already.


That seems like a weak argument to me. We try to stop one bad thing by perpetrating something just as bad if not worse? That doesn't seem like the right solution to me. My dislike of the idea of government funded universal health care is not so great as to overwhelm my dislike of our immigration situation.

Quote from: sirs on December 02, 2006, 02:38:20 AM

No, what made this country great has nothing to do with borders.  What made this country great were immigrants that came to this country


Came while we had a much more open border policy than we do now.

Quote from: sirs on December 02, 2006, 02:38:20 AM

What made this country great were immigrants that came to this country to be Americans 1st & foremost, while still honoring the cultures they came from.


They did not come to be Americans. They came to make a better life for themselves. Just like the immigrants who are trying to get into this country now. And the same complaints were made back then. They don't assimilate. They come here, take low paying jobs and then send the or take the money home. They're a danger to the American way of life. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

Quote from: sirs on December 02, 2006, 02:38:20 AM

We harm ourselves by advocating complete diversity to the point that "America" no longer exists.


This is the most ridiculous of all the complaints that are made about immigrants and diversity. Of course the America of today will eventually no longer exist. Just like the America of 1776 no longer exists, and the America of 1860 no longer exists, and the America of 1941 no longer exists. Not all the change has been positive or for the best, but we are still here nonetheless, are we not? America will change in many ways and will likely stay the same in many ways. 100 years from now, someone will be complaining about taxes on virtual money, and arguing that the immigrants are flooding in and we just cannot possibly handle the changes they will bring about. Probably he will say it in a version of English that sounds odd to our ears just like the spoken English of 1776 would sound odd to us. But there is nothing wrong with that, and it is certainly nothing to fear. We harm ourselves by shunning diversity in the name of security. For diversity is merely another expression of liberty.

3425
3DHS / Re: A Time for Color
« on: December 02, 2006, 05:32:59 AM »
Yes, Domer, we all get it. You think Bush is horrible and completely unfit for the job. That you long for an idealized leader to save us all from this mess does not make your most recent comments about Bush any less tedious. The response I gave them is exactly what they deserved. You want more substantive debate? Say something more substantive.

3426
3DHS / Re: This sums it all up real well
« on: December 02, 2006, 05:08:44 AM »
Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Sorry, Prince, it just. don't. work. that way.  People who want to help the poor and don't give a shit about their second or third or fourth million are nice guys and people who want to hang on to their wealth and privilege not giving a shit what happens to the bottom 20% are egotistical selfish pricks.  And there's no theory, no spin, no rationalization in this universe or the next that will ever change that.


Here is something that might shock you: in general, I agree with what that. Yes, I just said I agree with what you said. But again, not everyone who doesn't agree with your socialist ideas is a selfish prick whose only thoughts are how to make more money and how to keep other people from getting some first. Similarly, that you hold socialist ideas doesn't make you a selfish, looting bastard whose only thoughts are how to take more money away from people and how to keep people from making money in the first place. Do you see how that works yet? This isn't spin or rationalization. This world we, you and I, live in, it really does work that way. It isn't nearly the black and white, socialists right and everyone else evil, situation as you keep making it out to be.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

It's not authoritarian if it's the will of the people expressed through their democratically elected representatives.


I doubt you'd say that if we were talking about the will of fundamentalist guys like Pat Robertson or James Dobson and their followers.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Unjust my ass!!!  It's a hell of a lot more just than your current society where a CEO makes up to 400 times the salary of his lowest-paid worker, where the ruling class fly on private jets between luxury homes while millions of ghetto kids live short lives of crime and desperation in the slums of every city and town in America.


You seem to be assuming a lot here. For one, you seem to be assuming that I think it is just that CEOs make 400 times the salary of his lowest-paid worker and that while the wealthy fly on private jets between luxury homes while millions of ghetto kids live short lives of crime and desperation in the slums of every city and town in America. I do not think that. For another, you seem to be assuming that because you can claim the current society seems unjust to you then your solution is therefore just. I think that assumption is also incorrect. In any case, here we have a wonderful place to note again the idea that a person can disagree with your political positions and still want a better society for all. I would love to see the end of CEOs making outrageous sums of money, and I want more than I can say to see people rise out of the poverty and crime and desperation that you talked about. I just don't agree that socialism is the way to make that happen.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

You don't like it when I analogize by comparing socialists to shepherds and the plutocracy and its defenders to wolves; for some reason (unspecified) you'd like it better if I called the plutocracy and its defenders non-wolves.


No, you're wrong again, but thank you for playing. Not once did I say you should call the plutocracy and its defenders non-wolves. Not once, as is in it never happened. What I said was, and I quote, "I'm asking you to take the same consideration you expect for your point of view, that you really think your way is a plan to help society, and use it to consider that someone who disagrees with you about how to help society is not therefore automatically a wolf any more then you're automatically a thief or a looter for wanting to take what belongs to other people." Again you're trying to redefine my argument as a defense of greed and evil, which is not the case and never has been. I'm not arguing that greed is good. I'm arguing that disagreeing with your socialist political positions does not mean the person disagreeing is greedy or evil or callous or crazy or stupid. That is all. Not one word I have spoken in this entire argument as been in defense of greed or plutocracy or anything of the sort.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Basically, you are saying, "Look, I'm open-minded enough to recognize that not all socialists are thieves and looters.  Now why can't YOU be open-minded enough to recognize that not all small-government conservatives are selfish egotistical pricks?"  To which I would reply, we're engaged in a search for the truth here, not a contest in open-mindedness.  Things are what they are.  What you said about socialists happens to be the truth.  I can't tell an untruth just to balance out with you on some artificial scale of "open-mindedness."  Open-mindedness is NOT a synonym for diplomacy, still less for lying.  You are saying the truth when you say that not all socialists are thieves and looters.  I would be lying if I said that small-government conservatives were not either (a) selfish egotistical pricks or (b) the dupes of selfish egotistical pricks.


Is there no end to your double standards. A search for truth you say? And then you baldly throw a lot of excrement down, stand on it, and insist you've staked out the high ground. Complete humbuggery. You sound like a preacher explaining he just preaching the truth when he expounds on how everyone not agreeing with his theology is an apostate sinner. Basically you're saying "Look, I'm morally superior because I'm right and they're wrong." That isn't seeking for the truth. That is dogmatically not seeking for the truth.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

You're quite right.  (Well, you can't be wrong all the time, can you?)  That was wrong and stupid on my part.  I apologize and I take it back.  There IS an intelligent case to be made for abolishing tax-paid fire and police departments, but the only people that have made it are anarchists.  Pure anarchists.  It's been so long since I've seen a pure anarchist position that I'd forgotten they even existed.


Not sure what you mean by "pure anarchists" but there are a number of anarchists who advocate eliminating tax-paid fire and police departments, and their words are easy to find, since you're familiar with Google, I don't need to tell you how to find them.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

<<People don't like taxes? You just call them greedy. >>

Come on, play fair.  I'm talking small-government conservatives, people who object to paying taxes out of greed.


Just exactly my point. You apparently will not accept that someone might be a small-government conservative and object to taxes because that small-government conservative thinks those taxes harm society. You insist your intentions are good and others should believe so, but you refuse to extend that courtesy and respect to those who don't agree with your socialist positions. There is a word for that. It starts with an 'h' and ends in an 'ypocrisy'.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Considering the poverty and misery in your country and your abominable standards of public health, I think even those moderately successful working families have enough fat to cut off.  There's a lot of big money that could be taxed before we have to sight in on the people you are describing.


You don't need to sight in on them to start harming their financial stability.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Voluntary cooperation was legal and available from the founding of the Republic.  From the dawn of history for that matter.  Doesn't work.  Might as well call for Darwinian law.


Doesn't work? It works every damn day. Where do you live? Mars? No it doesn't work to extent that I'd like, but that is because people keep wanting to screw with it, like the folks in Virginia who decided making sure food comes from government approved kitchens was more important than actually getting food to the homeless.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

<< . . .  and you're the one advocating taking what belongs to someone else. >>

God-damn right I am.  And leaving 'em enough to get by on quite comfortably.  So that others don't have to live in the gutter.


And then you don't have to do anything about the people in the gutter. You can just stay home and feel morally superior.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

There IS no rational explanation for love.


I did not say there has to be one. But what taking what belongs to others because you think it's unfair that they have so much and are not giving what you think they should is not love. Maybe it is envy, jealousy, resentment, or something like that, but it is most certainly not love.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Love your brother as yourself is an ethical commandment.


You can argue that. And I would argue that taking what belongs to other people is not ethical, and people or society are not made more ethical by wide-scale unethical action. I would also argue that loving your neighbor as yourself does not result in deciding you are morally superior to your neighbor because his political ideas do not mesh with yours.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Look on your brother as an easy mark if you like - - that's your right and your choice.  Onoe's just as rational as the other.


I disagree strongly.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

What I want is to convince enough people to think like me and to act like me - - to accept that we ARE our brother's keeper.  And to act accordingly.


I have no real problem with that in essence. But taking under threat of imprisonment what belongs to others is not an act of persuasion. It is an act of coercion.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

To legislate a world where every man contributes his fair share to the upkeep of those who can't keep up on their own.  NOT what he wants to give or what he feels like giving (leaving a disproportionate burden on the rest of us.)  Bearing his fair share like everyone else in this society.


Exactly. You're not leaving room for people to act accordingly. You're advocating forcing people to conform to what you want. That is not fair, moral or ethical. A person whose money is taken and spent on a good deed has not made a fair or a moral choice, has not acted according to the notion that he is his brother's keeper. He has merely submitted to the imposition of someone else's moral preferences. Your argument for making other people "contribute" (you seem to have confused the concepts of 'contribute' and 'surrender') their fair share is like little Johnny in kindergarten complaining that it isn't fair that some other child has something Johnny wants but doesn't have, and so he should be allowed to take it whenever he wants it. And then of course someone has to explain to Johnny that taking what belongs to others is stealing, and, sorry Johnny, sometimes life just doesn't seem fair, and you can't make it fair by taking what you want from others because that act in itself is not fair. Yes, the other child should learn to share, but he is not sharing if you've stolen it from him. The other person does not become moral or fair when you remove from him the moral or the fair choice. And doing that does not make you moral or fair. It just makes you a bully.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

I hope instead that a day will come when selfishness and greed are looked upon as empty and devoid of substance as neutrinos and when caring and compassion and acceptance of the burden of caring for the less fortunate are seen as the essential building blocks of a just and fair society.


I don't agree that socialism is the path that will lead us there, but I hope for that day too. I can guess that you refuse to accept that, but it is nonetheless true. You don't have to accept it for it to be true, and your lack of acceptance does not make it any less true.

3427
3DHS / Re: This sums it all up real well
« on: December 02, 2006, 05:01:48 AM »
Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

You're confusing tolerance (conceding the right of everyone to express his opinion) with conformity.


Not at all. The notion that a person who disagrees with one's personal political preferences is not stupid or a wolf or callous or greedy does not require you to conform to their ideology. It does not require you to conform to much of anything. Though it might need a little help from some of that brotherly love and understanding you go on about later. But we'll get back to that.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

I'm tolerant of your right to say what you said, I certainly don't have to say it's the most brilliant analysis I've ever read.


No one is asking you to do so.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

In fact, I'm perfectly free to state the exact opposite.


Of course. No one suggested otherwise. Which makes me wonder why you going on about it.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Wanting to tax the very rich to pay for basic necessities for the very poor is selfish?  Excuse me, but we must be working from two very different dictionaries.


No, not really. You're just refusing the acknowledge that trying to make others pay for what you're unwilling to make happen yourself can still be selfishness. It may be a different brand of selfishness than the kind the greedy rich guy has, but can still be selfishness just the same. Of course, I started this part of the argument by suggesting you were not selfish, but never you mind that.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

<<As if that [taxing the rich] makes absolutely no difference whatsoever between my motivation and Ken Lay's.

[...]

<<Sure, Ken Lay and his ilk are really Robin Hoods at heart.>>

[Explanatory note:  in the above two quotes, I (MT) was trying to point out that contrary to Prince's contentions, the motivation to tax the rich is NOT the same as the rich man's motivation to get richer; taxing the rich so that the poor can live better is not an instance of greed]


Explanatory note: I (Universe Prince) was contending nothing of the sort. I was contending that your attempts to ascribe to yourself, and others like you, only good motivations while at the same time ascribing only greed and stupidity to those who do not agree with your politics is a double standard. I was contending that while you're intentions are to help society, someone can disagree with your political positions and have the same motivations. To which you replied that you're not stupid enough to believe that. Perhaps it is instead that you're not smart enough to believe that, but I think that is not so. I think you're more than smart enough. You're just unwilling.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

<<How did Ken Lay get into this? >>

As a symbol of the rich.  As shorthand for all the greedy "conservative" pigs just like him shouldering up to the trough.

<<Oh wait, I get it. You're trying to make like I'm defending Ken Lay. Except of course, I never said a word about him. Must be another strawman.>>

OK, let's not call him Ken Lay.  Let's call him Daddy Warbucks.  Or Richie Rich.  Or Mcihael Milken.  Or Dick Cheney.  Or Bebe Rebozo.  Or Malcolm Forbes.   Or maybe we could discuss something a little more substantive than my choice of symbols to represent the ruling plutocracy.


Except that I wasn't talking about a ruling plutocracy. You brought it up to make it seem as if I'm defending greed and evil. Which I am not doing at all. I'm not defending greed. I'm not defending Ken Lay. I'm not defending a plutocracy. While I'm sure it would help you to redefine my arguments so you can continue to play the goodhearted defender of the little people while you make me out to be some sort of advocate for greed, evil and poisoning cute little puppies, that is nothing less than a strawman. So I agree that we should discuss something else. Try sticking to what I have actually said.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

<<Have you? [voluntarily divested yourself to improve the lot of the poor.]>>

That's none of your business.


How can it be none of my business? You seem to think it is your business to know and decide how other people spend their money. Why are your financial actions off limits? That hardly seems like a fair standard. If you're going to argue that helping others should not be left to individual initiative, should not the rest of us get to know what you're doing for the poor with your money? If you're going to criticize others for not voluntarily divesting themselves to improve the lot of the poor, shouldn't we be allowed to know how you measure up to that standard?

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

My point was that it should never be left to individual initiative since the obligation is communal.  We are ALL our brother's keeper and as long as we leave it to individual initiative, there will be a basic unfairness in that some will voluntarily shoulder more than their fair share and others will escape sharing any part of the communal burden.


Okay, that is your opinion. I disagree. The obligation to help others—and I do believe there is one—is individual. We are all our brothers keepers. Yes, as long as we leave it to individual initiative, some people will carry more of the burden than others and some will choose not to carry any at all. And while I agree that seems unfair, I do not agree that such unfairness is fixed by doing something equally unfair, taking what belongs to others in a demand that they conform to our or your my standard for what is compassionate and good. To take or coerce from others what belongs to them is, essentially, stealing even if it is done with good intentions. So not only is it unfair, it is an immoral action. And a charitable society is not supported or developed by taking what belongs to others. A charitable society is supported and developed by the action and encouragement of voluntary cooperation.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

<<So it is as I [Prince] said. You want money taken from others so you don't have to do anything to help people.>>

Who says I'm not willing to pay my fair share through taxes?


No one. Notice I did not say you want money taken from others so you don't have to pay taxes. I said you want money taken from others so you don't have to do anything to help people. "Paying" your "fair share" through taxes is the lazy path because it requires nothing of you except to do nothing while the government takes your money. Maybe you think your "communal obligation" to help others amounts to only that, but I do not believe my individual obligation to help others starts or ends there. My obligation to help others requires me to actually choose to do something to be of help to others. The idea that this obligation can somehow be replaced by support for taxing the wealthy is absurd to me.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

I just don't want to allow some citizens to blow big bucks on pointless luxuries while other citizens starve and suffer all the disadvantages of poverty.  There should be a minimum standard of living well above the present poverty in which too many North Americans live at present.


I understand that, and I am not unsympathetic to it. The solution, however, is not to make economic success harder by entrenching a program of taking money away from people. That only results in exactly what you complain about, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The solution is to eliminate the artificial barriers to economic success and artificial props to large businesses and corporations. Yes, you read that last part correctly. I am against corporate welfare and against letting corporations help form legislation that affects business in this country. But I am also against regulations that result in little more than making large corporations safe from competition by smaller companies. If you want to raise all people's boats, you have to stop building dams.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

<< [...] Others do not choose you want them to choose, so you want to take from them what you want them to have chosen to give. >>

Well, that's pretty much the theory that underlies all government taxation isn't it?


Uh, what is "no", Alex. It may underlie some taxation but not all. Taxation for, say, police and the like is about providing funding for public services, not about making sure that Daddy Warbucks pays his "fair share" because someone thinks Daddy Warbucks has too much money.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Are you anti-tax?  It's a legitimate position.  Fundamentally anarchist, but legitimate.  I can respect a pure anti-tax position more than I can respect a semi-semi position, such as"It's OK to be taxed to pay for an army to bomb poor dumb fucking Arabs into oblivion but it's not OK to be taxed to put ghetto kids into better schools and obtain early childhood intervention for their early years."


I did not used to be, but yes I am anti-tax. I think there can be a place for a minimal government, people choosing to have a government for the protection of human rights, an extension of the individual's right to protect himself and his rights from violation, as Frédéric Bastiat talked about. But I think that sort of government should remain funded by voluntary contributions. Then we would see who genuinely supports various programs like Welfare or the "war on drugs". Yes, I know, it's crazy to think a government could function on voluntary contributions, I've heard it all before. But I think we might never have attacked Iraq if the government had to raise war funds first. And we certainly would not still be in Iraq at this point if the people could choose to stop funding it. And yes, I know all the things that the government does now could not be done if it was funded by voluntary contributions, but that objection assumes that all the things the government currently does need to be done by the government.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 11:06:38 PM

Not as well as your reaction to it indicates your own head-in-the-sand, have-it-both-ways delusion that you can be a selfish egotistical bastard not giving a shit if your brother lives or dies and still be an all-American nice guy at the same time.


Sigh. But that is not even remotely what I said. I realize political positions that don't align with yours  you equate with selfishness almost regardless of what those positions are or the actual motivations for those opinions. I'm not saying the callous bastard who doesn't care about others is a nice guy. I am saying that not everyone who doesn't agree with your socialist ideas is a callous bastard.

3428
3DHS / Re: Reid: Immigration reform a top priority
« on: December 01, 2006, 09:20:05 PM »
Quote from: Plane on December 01, 2006, 08:00:49 PM

Is this a matter of government action or a matter of public understanding of the situation?


Both.

3429
3DHS / Re: This sums it all up real well
« on: December 01, 2006, 09:18:09 PM »
Quote from: Plane on December 01, 2006, 08:35:12 PM

I am a fundimentalist , and if you cannot discern any diffrence between my attitudes and MT's I begin to doubt your discernment.


In what way are you a fundamentalist?

Quote from: Plane on December 01, 2006, 08:35:12 PM

The rest of your post I really liked.


Thank you.

3430
3DHS / Re: Reid: Immigration reform a top priority
« on: December 01, 2006, 09:12:07 PM »
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2006, 06:30:33 PM

When a doctor seeks to cure a patient, the first thing he tries to do is to eliminate the cause of the malady. First, you kill the bacteria, so the malady will not get worse.


The first thing the doctor does is to attempt to correctly identify the problem.  If the problem is not correctly identified, chances are good that the solution(s) for eliminating it may not do any good and could cause further harm.

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2006, 06:30:33 PM

If 13,000,000 illegals are a problem, then 16,000,000 or 20,000,000 will be a bigger problem. An ever-growing number of illegals is an ever-growing problem. As I said, Duh!


But you're assuming the people being here is the problem. As I said, if the problem is not correctly identified, chances are good that the solution(s) for eliminating it may not do any good and could cause further harm.

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2006, 06:30:33 PM

Every country has a right and a need to control immigration.


Why?

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2006, 06:30:33 PM

I am not against people coming here, but those who come, should be people that are actually needed, not fugitives from justice, not vagrants and beggars, not people with contagious diseases. Perhaps not people with congenital deformities, either.


You're making the same sort complaint that people have made about immigrants as long as the U.S. has been here. They're too poor. They're dirty. They're criminals. They're diseased. It's mostly a load of fearmongering nonsense. And nothing is more elitist and uncompassionate than to insist that we must keep out the undesirables.

3431
3DHS / Re: This sums it all up real well
« on: December 01, 2006, 08:12:59 PM »
Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 06:57:21 PM

What utter nonsense.


Being tolerant of opposing view points is nonsense? You're starting to sound like some sort of fundamentalist.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 06:57:21 PM

Like I want to take away (tax) money from the rich to line my own pockets.


You still want to take money and property away from people. And that you may claim you're not looking to line your own pockets hardly means your motivations are not selfish.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 06:57:21 PM

As if that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever between my motivation and Ken Lay's.

[...]

Sure, Ken Lay and his ilk are really Robin Hoods at heart.


How did Ken Lay get into this? Oh wait, I get it. You're trying to make like I'm defending Ken Lay. Except of course, I never said a word about him. Must be another strawman.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 06:57:21 PM

I don't see them voluntarily divesting themselves to improve the lot of the poor.


Have you?

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 06:57:21 PM

My plans for their money is not what they plan for their money.  $400,000 coming-out parties for their debutante daughters is more in line with they want the money used for, I think it should go to public health and education.


So it is as I said. You want money taken from others so you don't have to do anything to help people.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 06:57:21 PM

It's not part of my scheme to make the poor my individual responsibility or any individual's, so that those who choose to be their brother's keeper bear the whole burden while the irresponsible selfish schmucks go on piling up their fortunes at the expense of the less greedy and escape having to make any contribution at all apart from what they voluntarily condescend to contribute.


Yes, I know. As your language here clearly illustrates, part of your plan is to force your moral preferences on everyone else. Others do not choose you want them to choose, so you want to take from them what you want them to have chosen to give. And your little Us vs. Them nonsense--trying to make this out to be those who choose be their brother's keeper versus irresponsible selfish schmucks--illustrates so well the nasty attitude and close-minded nature of your political position.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 06:57:21 PM

"My" plan isn't really my plan, it's a well-known socialist blueprint for a just and fair economy and it is what it is.


More accurately a blueprint for an authoritarian and unjust society.

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 06:57:21 PM

Unfortunately I'm just not that stupid.  I don't give the wolf the same motivation as the shepherd.


No, you're not stupid. You just talk that way sometimes.  While it is interesting that you seem to think of yourself as a shepherd, someone guarding a herd of stupid animals, no one is asking you to give the wolf the same motivation as the shepherd. I'm asking you to take the same consideration you expect for your point of view, that you really think your way is a plan to help society, and use it to consider that someone who disagrees with you about how to help society is not therefore automatically a wolf any more then you're automatically a thief or a looter for wanting to take what belongs to other people. (The funny part of this is in making this argument for an open-minded approach I know I'm setting myself up for you or Knute to call me close-minded again.)

Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 06:57:21 PM

In the case of small-c conservatism and smaller-government advocates, it means precisely that [they're greedy and care only about themselves], whether you like it or not.  Except, as I pointed out in my post to Knute, for the true believers, the abolish-the-police-and-fire-department guys - - they're not necessarily selfish and greedy, they're just plain stupid.


Yes, by all means, keep up the "they're stupid" defense. It means you never have to explain why they're wrong. You just say, "they're stupid," and you go along never having to consider their point of view. You pigeonhole and dismiss, escaping the burden of making an intelligent case yourself. People don't like taxes? You just call them greedy. People want to argue that your plan isn't the best one? You start trying to talk about Ken Lay and people throwing $400,000 coming-out parties, never mind the working family running the modestly successful or maybe the just barely getting by family business out of a desire to establish some financial security for the family. People don't agree with your ideas about how to help society? You just call them wolves even though they may be advocating voluntary cooperation and you're the one advocating taking what belongs to someone else. Don't even bother with rational explanations of your opinions. Just use words like greedy or stupid or wolves or crazy or whatever other irrational prejudice enforcing names you can think up. Eventually you might build that up to a post with as much substance as a wave of neutrinos.

3432
3DHS / Re: This sums it all up real well
« on: December 01, 2006, 07:15:05 PM »
Quote from: Mucho on December 01, 2006, 06:47:15 PM

Please find another debate trick other than "that's what you are , what am I?" It is not only stupid, but becoming quite tedious .


When you stop accusing others of your own faults, I'll consider not pointing it out.

Quote from: Mucho on December 01, 2006, 06:47:15 PM

 I do not condemn all who disagree with me . Only those that do it on stupid shallow grounds like you or those whose very believes create needless deaths and misery like most of the other RW lunatics in here.


Yes, of course. Exactly what I said. You talk in a hypocritically self-righteous manner while you spout foolish political dogma and condemn anyone who does not generally agree with you politically. Thanks for proving my point.

Quote from: Mucho on December 01, 2006, 06:47:15 PM

I do however wish to thank you for keeping this topic on top for so long. All the other RW freaks were either to cowed or beaten by the election to respond. You thought the US was actually as stupid as you, but were wrong at least this time.


Would you bother to get a clue, just once? I don't support President Bush, do not support the war in Iraq, and I think the Republican Party deserved to get beat in the last election. Pay attention to someone besides yourself every once in a while. Sheesh.

3433
3DHS / Re: Reid: Immigration reform a top priority
« on: December 01, 2006, 05:44:46 PM »
Quote from: BT on December 01, 2006, 09:44:45 AM

One way to resolve border issues and the immigration problems that follow that is to move the borders.


I've half-jokingly suggested for some years that we'd solve a lot of problems if we just annexed Mexico.

Quote from: BT on December 01, 2006, 09:44:45 AM

There is a move afoot to take NAFTA a couple steps further, in effect making North America another European Union with a common currency and quite possibly common laws, including property. The big three countries have been having talks since 2004 and i would include the central american countries.


I would not be completely opposed to that. Any objections that might arise would be in response to the details of the plan. I think the countries of Central America might not be so inclined to what they would probably perceive as the U.S. taking control. But who knows? If the carrot is big enough, they might go for it.

3434
3DHS / Re: A Time for Color
« on: December 01, 2006, 05:35:09 PM »
That is all nice and good, Domer, but that doesn't alter the basic nature of the language you used. Perhaps you just want a political messiah and not a religious one, but it is a messiah you're asking for nonetheless. I doubt the open-minded genius you describe as the "leader who will save us" is going to come along. And in any case, we live in a democratic republic. Seems to me the responsibility for getting us out of this mess rests with us and not some idealized leader.

3435
3DHS / Re: This sums it all up real well
« on: December 01, 2006, 05:20:18 PM »
Quote from: Michael Tee on December 01, 2006, 01:34:22 PM
I think these are the true believers.  Real conservatism is simply based on greed and self-interest, so of course they want fire and police departments like anyone else.  Their "small government" philosophy isn't meant to do anything more than get the government off their backs so they can pursue their crooked schemes and plans to economically beggar the rest of the population and engorge their own wealth.  Or just make more money according to their own individually formulated ethical standards and keep more of what they make, regardless of what anyone else "weaker" than they may need.  The true believers are the ones who are stupid enough to fall for the "philosophical" basis of conservatism and take it to its logical extreme.  More stupid than crazy in that case, sort of disproving my original leanings, at least in respect of them.

There is something ironic about people who want to take money and property away from people insisting that someone else's political ideology is based on greed and self-interest. Oh yes, I know, you want to do it for the people, but you seem unwilling to consider that anyone who doesn't agree with you could have similar intentions. No, they're greedy, self-centered people. Not like you. What is it you said there... they want "to economically beggar the rest of the population and engorge their own wealth." Not like your plans to economically beggar everyone so you personally don't have to actually do something to help others. Oh my yes, your plan is so... What's that you say? That isn't your plan? That isn't your motivation? Well, perhaps you should give other people the same consideration. Just because other people don't agree with your politics doesn't mean they're greedy and care only about themselves.

Pages: 1 ... 227 228 [229] 230 231 ... 244