This sums it all up real well

[Mucho]

Yes- you read it with and closed & vacuous mind. It is funny that the younger you are the more certain , but seldom right , you are especially when what could have been a mind is controlled by a silly & extremist ideological religion .

It is funny that you said  "the younger you are the more certain, but seldom right, you are" because no one around here is more certain or more seldom right than you are. You talk big, trying to puff yourself up by insulting people with judgmental condemnations, but the actual substance of what you say is usually vapid and absurd. I dislike you and think you lack credibility not because you are a liberal or because you espouse liberal ideas. It's because you, Knute, talk in a hypocritically self-righteous manner while you spout foolish political dogma and condemn anyone who does not generally agree with you politically. You either cannot or will not open your mind to the notion that people who don't hold your political beliefs can be good people who want to help others, but they just disagree with you on how to do it. You either refuse or are incapable of considering the reasoning of those who don't hold to what you find acceptable. So when you try to accuse someone of being close-minded and vacuous,  that really is funny. It's hilarious.

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

[Michael Tee]

What utter nonsense.

<<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.>>

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

<<Oh yes, I know, you want to do it for the people . . . >>

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

<<  . . . but you seem unwilling to consider that anyone who doesn't agree with you could have similar intentions. >>

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

<<No, they're greedy, self-centered people. >>

True.

<<Not like you. >>

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

<<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.>>

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.

<<Oh my yes, your plan is so... What's that you say? That isn't your plan? That isn't your motivation? >>

"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.  

<<Well, perhaps you should give other people the same consideration. >>

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

<<Just because other people don't agree with your politics doesn't mean they're greedy and care only about themselves.>>

In the case of small-c conservatism and smaller-government advocates, it means precisely that, 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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

 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.

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.

[Plane]

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

You do not see this because you are not looking , Conservatives give more money volentarily than do liberals , they even give more blood.

I don't see the superiority of useing bearuocrats to redistribute the wealth above pitching debutante balls to redistribute the wealth , are caterers on the dole really happer than waitstaff at the ball?


Civil servants are uniformly foolish , it is a job requirement , I don't think you should be so blindly trusting that civil servants should be trusted to spend money on people to better purpose than the people would spend it on themselves.

[sirs]

What utter nonsense....My plans for their money is not what they plan for their money. ...

[/size]

Boy, now doesn't that "sum things up really well"

[Universe Prince]

What utter nonsense.

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

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.

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.

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

Have you?

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.

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.

"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.

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.)

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.

[Plane]

What utter nonsense.

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

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



The rest of your post I really liked.

[Universe Prince]

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?

The rest of your post I really liked.

Thank you.

[Michael Tee]

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

You're confusing tolerance (conceding the right of everyone to express his opinion) with conformity.  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.  In fact, I'm perfectly free to state the exact opposite.

<<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.>>

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.

======================================================

<<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]

To which Prince replies:

<<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.
======================================================

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

That's none of your business.  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.

=======================================================
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:57:21 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 [Prince] said. You want money taken from others so you don't have to do anything to help people.>>

Wrong again, Prince.  Who says I'm not willing to pay my fair share through taxes?  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.
=======================================================
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:57:21 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. >>

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

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."
 ======================================================

<<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. >>

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.  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.
======================================================

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:57:21 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 . . . >>   

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

<< . . . and unjust society.>>

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.
======================================================

<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:57:21 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.)>>

The only thing you set yourself up for is blindness.  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.  Socialists don't need your dispensation to know that they are not thieves or looters, that they are in fact very different from thieves and looters.  If they were thieves and looters, it wouldn't make one single bit of difference what you called them, and if they're not, then it matters not that you don't call them that, even less that the reason you don't call them that is that you are "open-minded."

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.
=====================================================
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:57:21 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. >>

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.  Although just recently I DID come across something very like anarchism on a "Patriot" web site - - check out "George Everette Sibley" and his wife ""Lynda C. Lyon" on Google (two executed cop-killers.)  - - sorry for the digression - - the rationalizations and evasions in their stories are hilarious, but there's nothing funny in their bios and nothing funny in their executions.  Really a very sad story about two intelligent and articulate people who had a lot to offer society, some pretty basic personal flaws of character, monumental stupidity somehow at odds with their obvious intelligence all adding up to a real American tragedy.  I don't think I would have laughed so hard at the evasions and rationalizations had I known at the time how the story would end, but still and all, they were very, very funny.

I'm sorry.  I digressed.

<<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.

<<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.>>

I''m talking about the plutocracy and their dupes.  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.

<< 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>>

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.

<< . . .  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.

<<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.>>

There IS no rational explanation for love.  Even a rationalist like you oughtta know that.  Love your brother as yourself is an ethical commandment.  You don't have to and I don't have to convince you to.  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.  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.  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. 

<<Eventually you might build that up to a post with as much substance as a wave of neutrinos. >>

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.
 
 

[Plane]

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?

In a fun way of course .

I am presently attending a Gosphel Lighthouse church and attended an AOG for a long time .

I was raised in a Presbeterian Church so I know the diffrence.

[Michael Tee]

<<In a fun way of course .>>

plane's the one who put the fun back into fundamentalism.

[Plane]

<<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]

To which Prince replies:

<<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.
======================================================


Ken Lay seems to have been a cheat , he misappropriated money.

Unless I am wrong about him he was shuffleing credit and loans and other peoples money in a way that wound up costing a lot of people money that they had earned.

This makes him a good stand in of government in general, they are all like that.

A liberals concern for the Poor causes him to want to do something effective for them with other peoples money , he has no faith in his own money .

[Universe Prince]

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.

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.

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.

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.

<<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.

<<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.

<<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?

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.

<<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.

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.

<< [...] 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.

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.

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

<<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'.

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.

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.

<< . . .  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<This makes him [Ken Lay] a good stand in of government in general, they are all like that.>>

I'm kind of surprised that you can't see the difference between Ken Lay and government in general. 

Do you understand that when Kenny-Boy stole money from others, he did so with the main intent of lining the pockets of, and benefitting nobody else but, Kenny-Boy himself, his friends and family?  Good.

Do you understand that when "government in general" takes people's money through taxes, their main intent is to spend it (or what's left of it after the military gets whatever it needs to rob and kill millions of Third World people) on programs such as school lunches, public health, education, etc.?  Good.

Are you starting to see maybe just a glimmer of difference between Ken Lay secretly stealing for his own aggrandizement and "government in general" taking money to benefit primarily people who need food, health, education?  I hope so.

<<A liberals concern for the Poor causes him to want to do something effective for them with other peoples money , he has no faith in his own money.>>

Well, that's true enough.  I don't expect the miracle of loaves and fishes to spring forth from the holy money that lives in my pocket.  If I give my holy quarter to a beggar, I don't expect it to magnify into thousands of quarters to feed thousands of beggars because of the sanctity of my own holy persona.  Only a nutball fundamentalist would have that kind of "faith in his own money," but IMHO, despite his "faith in his own money," his quarter won't go any farther than my quarter.

No, plane, my faith is in my government.  I gave them my money in taxes and they gave me a health system that pays all my bills and my family's bills.  And let me witness for you:  that faith has been munificently repaid ten thousandfold.  What I paid in taxes was a fraction of the benefits that I have received:  my wife's rectal cancer removed by one of the best colorectal surgeons not only in Canada but in the whole world, a guy who lectures all over the world on his technique, and it didn't cost us a cent; continuing follow-up oncology including weekly home visits from a stoma nurse continuing to this day, and it didn't cost us a cent; haemorrhoidectomy and follow-ups, free of charge; angioplasty, follow-up treatment and therapy not costing a cent.  Do I want another year of intensive cardiovascular physiotherapy?  No problem, any time I do, pick up the phone, schedule it - - won't cost me a cent.

You're God-damn right I don't have any faith in the power of my own money.  If I'd been forced to pay for all this on my own, I'd either be dead or bankrupt at this point in time.  For sure, we'd have lost our home, as many in the U.S.A. have done, for medical costs.

I live in the real world, plane.  In the real world, I pay my taxes, and my government takes care of me.  I might also add the excellent University of Toronto undergraduate educations that my three kids and I have all had, courtesy of our government.  We could never have paid for all of that from our own resources, or if we had managed, we'd be paying off the debt for the rest of our lives.  The subways, the public parks, the marinas and the beaches - - all maintained by what?  Our own money?  Are you crazy?  The fucking government provides ALL of that and twenty thousand times more.

I'm real sorry you don't see any difference between Ken Lay and "government in general."  I just told you what "government in general" did for me.  Now maybe you can tell me what Ken Lay did for me.