This sums it all up real well

[sirs]

Yeah but what you think most of the group was doing (when you deigned to provide an example) was something laudatory and commendable.  And for two of the groups, NAACP and ACLU, you didn't even bother to give ANY specific examples of their supposed wrongdoing.

Well I could give vague distorted, or even complete bald faced lies as "examples" like you do.  NAACP was once a great organization, well intentioned in its goals and activities.  Same with the ACLU.  No longer the case now, both having mutated into largely far left PAC's

Yes but those "OTHER PEOPLE" are members of the same community we all belong to.  Why on earth should they not be made to shoulder a fair share of the burden when the obligation falls equally on each and every member of the community?

And why on earth should you have any say in what another person's money is used for.  So long as it's not illegal, you have no frellin business on how you'd spend THEIR money.  "Fair share" is one of the worst crocks, you socialists have going for you.  It's bad enough the amount of money they pay in income, estate, and capital gains taxes, compared to "the poor".  If you actually understood the concept of "fair", the folks you're dying to spend THEIR money on would actually be taxed less, if the proper defintion of "fair" were to ever be applied.  As Isaid, you're absolutely no different that Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson, on this issue.

Actually I used the word "crypto-fascist," but if you feel you're not one of the folks the NAACP, ACLU or Teachers' Union was fighting, then I'll take it back in your case.  Although I am fairly certain, at least in the case of the ACLU, that you would be on the opposite side of some of their big issues.  But I take back nothing in the case of the Bush administration.  I KNOW they are crypto-fascists.

As I said, your continued shredded use of the term, serves only to lesson it's impact and validtity, upon those that such a term could actually be applied to

[Plane]

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

Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.

Your simple minded fascist leader , not I, spouts such simplistic bullshit.

Yours is not a paraphrase of the same sentiment?

The diffrence went right over my head , I need more explanation.

[Mucho]

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

Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.

Your simple minded fascist leader , not I, spouts such simplistic bullshit.

Yours is not a paraphrase of the same sentiment?

The diffrence went right over my head , I need more explanation.

You OK, Plane? To say someone is guilty for supporting evil is really not the same as saying he is for against US. I never did see the comparison.

[Plane]

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

Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.

Your simple minded fascist leader , not I, spouts such simplistic bullshit.

Yours is not a paraphrase of the same sentiment?

The diffrence went right over my head , I need more explanation.

You OK, Plane? To say someone is guilty for supporting evil is really not the same as saying he is for against US. I never did see the comparison.

People who are enableing Bush are for evil.
Are you evil ?

The diffrence in principal escapes me totally.

[Mucho]

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

Mucho understands this principal to be true---- You are either for us or against us.

Your simple minded fascist leader , not I, spouts such simplistic bullshit.

Yours is not a paraphrase of the same sentiment?

The diffrence went right over my head , I need more explanation.

You OK, Plane? To say someone is guilty for supporting evil is really not the same as saying he is for against US. I never did see the comparison.

People who are enableing Bush are for evil.
Are you evil ?

The diffrence in principal escapes me totally.

People that support Bush are evil. I do not support Bush. Therefore I am not evil. What is the problem?

[sirs]

People that support Bush are evil. I do not support Bush. Therefore I am not evil. What is the problem?

And here in lies the basic cornerstone of difference between the right and the left (albeit, in knute's case it's the lunatic left).  The right sees much of the left's policies and practices as wrong for the country, vs what they would consider right.  The left sees their opponents as "evil".  And of course evil justifies any and all methods to defeat it, even if it's unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal.  "Evil" requires such a justified tactic. 

And so we have both Tee earlier, and now Knute here, again "summing things up really well", as the title of the thread would imply

[Plane]

People that support Bush are evil. I do not support Bush. Therefore I am not evil. What is the problem?


((You are either for us or against us.=People that support Bush are evil. I do not support Bush. Therefore I am not evil. What is the problem?)



What problem?

[Universe Prince]

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.

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.)

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?

[Mucho]

People that support Bush are evil. I do not support Bush. Therefore I am not evil. What is the problem?

And here in lies the basic cornerstone of difference between the right and the left (albeit, in knute's case it's the lunatic left).  The right sees much of the left's policies and practices as wrong for the country, vs what they would consider right.  The left sees their opponents as "evil".  And of course evil justifies any and all methods to defeat it, even if it's unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal.  "Evil" requires such a justified tactic. 

And so we have both Tee earlier, and now Knute here, again "summing things up really well", as the title of the thread would imply

Funny that you should think I am the lunatic left since I think you are the lunatic right and I have more truth behind my thinking When your evil commits wanton crimes against humanity like attacking innocent countries and stealing from the poor to give to the rich, almost anything should be allowed. I maintain it is you that is  you "unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal." It was you after all that attempted a legislative and judicial coup against an innocentt  man  like Clinton and are now causing  innocent Iraqis to be killed for nothing really anymore. Actually you (the few remaining Bush supporters ) are both evil and stupid I am afraid.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[sirs]

Funny that you should think I am the lunatic left since I think you are the lunatic right and I have more truth behind my thinking When your evil commits wanton crimes against humanity like attacking innocent countries and stealing from the poor to give to the rich, almost anything should be allowed. I maintain it is you that is  you "unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal."

Another perfect example of the lunacy I'm referring to.  Thanks Knute

[Michael Tee]

<<Well I could give vague distorted, or even complete bald faced lies as "examples" like you do.>>

Got any examples of "complete bald-faced lies" that I have given you as examples of anything?

I didn't think so.

It's hilarious to hear YOU accusing ME of giving out "vague" lies as examples, when this is how you answered my question regarding the alleged misdeeds of the ACLU and the  NAACP:

<<NAACP was once a great organization, well intentioned in its goals and activities.  Same with the ACLU.  No longer the case now, both having mutated into largely far left PAC's>>

Oh.  I see.  Thanks for straightening THAT out for us.

<<And why on earth should you have any say in what another person's money is used for.  So long as it's not illegal, you have no frellin business on how you'd spend THEIR money.  >>

Gee, I had no idea you were so opposed to the basic principle of taxation (government takes from the people who would like to use the money in their own lives to pay for government projects.)  Quite the little anarchist, aren't you, under your deep cover as a cryptofascist nut-case.

<<"Fair share" is one of the worst crocks, you socialists have going for you.  It's bad enough the amount of money they pay in income, estate, and capital gains taxes, compared to "the poor".  >>

You're absolutely right.  I think it's fair for the poor to pay just as much as the rich for government.  Fuck'em if they can't raise the nut.

<<If you actually understood the concept of "fair", the folks you're dying to spend THEIR money on would actually be taxed less, if the proper defintion of "fair" were to ever be applied.>>

Hey, why tax'em at all?  Why not make the poor pay for it all? 

<<As Isaid, you're absolutely no different that Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson, on this issue.>>

No shit, Falwell and Robertson want the rich to pay more taxes?  HALLELUJAH, praise Gawd!!!  Never would I have suspected that these gentlemen are truly righteous duudes.  Thank you for clueing me in.

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on December 02, 2006, 05:46:24 PM

>Actually I used the word "crypto-fascist," but if you feel you're not one of the folks the NAACP, ACLU or Teachers' Union was fighting, then I'll take it back in your case.  Although I am fairly certain, at least in the case of the ACLU, that you would be on the opposite side of some of their big issues.  But I take back nothing in the case of the Bush administration.  I KNOW they are crypto-fascists.>


<<As I said, your continued shredded use of the term, serves only to lesson it's impact and validtity, upon those that such a term could actually be applied to>>

Oh, it's actually applicable to Bush and his criminal gang, don't worry about that, and probably to you too as well.  They're (and you are) the last stop on the political spectrum before you come to full-blown fascism.  (And NO, that is not meant to be a compliment.)

[Mucho]

Funny that you should think I am the lunatic left since I think you are the lunatic right and I have more truth behind my thinking When your evil commits wanton crimes against humanity like attacking innocent countries and stealing from the poor to give to the rich, almost anything should be allowed. I maintain it is you that is  you "unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal."

Another perfect example of the lunacy I'm referring to.  Thanks Knute

You are so very welcome. I do want to thank you in your help in keeping this wonderful topic on page 1.

[sirs]

Funny that you should think I am the lunatic left since I think you are the lunatic right and I have more truth behind my thinking When your evil commits wanton crimes against humanity like attacking innocent countries and stealing from the poor to give to the rich, almost anything should be allowed. I maintain it is you that is  you "unethical, immoral, hell, even illegal."

Another perfect example of the lunacy I'm referring to.  Thanks Knute

You are so very welcome. I do want to thank you in your help in keeping this wonderful topic on page 1.

My pleasure

[Plane]

<<"Fair share" is one of the worst crocks, you socialists have going for you.  It's bad enough the amount of money they pay in income, estate, and capital gains taxes, compared to "the poor".  >>

You're absolutely right.  I think it's fair for the poor to pay just as much as the rich for government.  Fuck'em if they can't raise the nut.

<<If you actually understood the concept of "fair", the folks you're dying to spend THEIR money on would actually be taxed less, if the proper defintion of "fair" were to ever be applied.>>

Hey, why tax'em at all?  Why not make the poor pay for it all? 

The Working Poor would be paying no federal tax at all if it were not for the SS but the Social security  system by itself makes the tax system regressive.