orphan?

Quote :

"You will scour the presidential nominees' acceptance speeches in vain for any hint that your life is rightfully your own, to be lived in accordance with your beliefs and desires and no one else's. The Founding Fathers set out to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but Barack Obama has a different idea. The "essence of America's promise," he declared in Denver, is "individual responsibility and mutual responsibility"—rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights. The "promise of America," he said, is "the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper." In reality, that fundamental belief is what you might call the promise of socialism. What has set this country apart since its inception is not the notion of obligations but the notion of rights. "All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself," wrote the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. "The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals." That idea got lost somewhere between Thomas Jefferson and John McCain. What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: "We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law . . . We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities." Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom? That without it, personal responsibility becomes hollow and service is servitude?"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0907chapmansep07,0,5991702.column

I've wanted to see a serious political candidate discuss freedom for quite some time. It's refreshing to see someone else comment on this issue.

9/19/2008 11:51:18 AM

I'd say it died when FDR took office. Of course, it probably took a mortal blow right before the Civil War

9/19/2008 12:00:57 PM

Quote :

"The "essence of America's promise," he declared in Denver, is "individual responsibility and mutual responsibility"—rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights."

This depends on your theory of rights, which is up for debate. Naturally if you're a libertarian, you believe that rights are only general and negative. But if you consider rights to be general and positive, then a mutual respect for rights means some societal obligations as well.

Imagine you see a man drowning in a shallow puddle. He's knocked out, face down, and aspirating the water. All you have to do is nudge him slightly and it'll roll him out of the puddle, and he'll survive. Some might consider that he has a right to you nudging him out of the puddle -- a right to basic consideration, perhaps, or a right to the prevention of harm in reasonable circumstances.

It's like if a man has a heart attack in a restaurant -- we might consider him as having a right to assistance.

9/19/2008 12:06:49 PM

Quote :

"The "promise of America," he said, is "the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.""

I'm sorry, but that is fucking scary. The McCain campaign should be blasting that on the airwaves night and day.

9/19/2008 12:10:16 PM

^ I think that's fucking scary too. I'm not particularly pleased with anything Palin or McCain have said either, to be fair.

9/19/2008 12:22:32 PM

I don't see anything wrong with expecting a just society to care for its disadvantaged members.

9/19/2008 12:23:26 PM

Ein Reich
Ein Volk
Ayn Rand

9/19/2008 12:25:43 PM

Quote :

"I don't see anything wrong with expecting a just society to care for its disadvantaged members."

Me neither, I just dont think the state should be the ones who decide who and how much those disadvantaged members get. That should be up to the giver.

9/19/2008 12:41:44 PM

Quote :

"Me neither, I just dont think the state should be the ones who decide who and how much those disadvantaged members get. That should be up to the giver."

In essence what you're saying is that there should be no standards of distributive justice at all.

9/19/2008 12:42:55 PM

Quote :

"I don't see anything wrong with expecting a just society to care for its disadvantaged members."

I do not think many disagree with this as an end. It is the means in which we attempt to achieve this end that is disturbing. Resorting to theft and coercion does not equate to a "just" society. Many hold the belief that theft is not necessary and that governmetn supplants, not supplements, efforts to aid the poor. For example, prior to Medicaid and Medicare, it was believed amongst doctors that giving free care to the poor and elderly was a duty. With the presence of government health programs, doctors now expect payment for their services. What was once provided for free now has a price tag on it, in addition to a monstrous, wasteful bureaucracy.

9/19/2008 12:49:22 PM

Quote :

"Resorting to theft and coercion does not equate to a "just" society."

Taxation is not theft, unless you want to redefine "theft" to include a remarkably inclusive class of actions.

A definition of "theft" wide enough to include taxation would include things like charging me for food.

9/19/2008 12:51:34 PM

Quote :

"In essence what you're saying is that there should be no standards of distributive justice at all. "

yep, the individual should be FREE to decide what they consider justice to be.

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2008 12:52:46 PM

Quote :

"yep, the individual should be FREE to decide what they consider justice to be."

There's a good reason we don't allow this in society.

See: The Wild Wild West, rural villages in the Middle East, Sudan

9/19/2008 12:54:32 PM

there's a reason why the Northeast has always run things, Mr. Ferguson.



With freedom, comes responsibility.

9/19/2008 1:01:22 PM

Quote :

"There's a good reason we don't allow this in society. See: The Wild Wild West, rural villages in the Middle East, Sudan"

Wild West: The frontier is where most of our American Ideals began, for every outlaw (also note that their outlaw status was state given) there were hundreds of people just trying to live and be FREE

Middle East/sudan: Both problems were created by the institutions that run these countries. Im approaching this thread from an anarchy perspective (b/c that to me is true freedom) so I dont see how problems created by their governments can be related to Individual choices

Quote :

"there's a reason why the Northeast has always run things, Mr. Ferguson"

b/c they have the most money?

Quote :

"With freedom, comes responsibility."

could not agree more, awesome pic btw

9/19/2008 1:19:01 PM

Quote :

"Wild West: The frontier is where most of our American Ideals began, for every outlaw (also note that their outlaw status was state given) there were hundreds of people just trying to live and be FREE Middle East/sudan: Both problems were created by the institutions that run these countries. Im approaching this thread from an anarchy perspective (b/c that to me is true freedom) so I dont see how problems created by their governments can be related to Individual choices"

I'm sorry, what? I'm talking specifically of the small town blood feuds that pop up when people "decide for themselves what justice is" and the authorities step out of the way.

Most small town violence in places like rural Turkey are caused by lack of police regulation altogether.

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2008 1:23:12 PM

Quote :

"Taxation is not theft, unless you want to redefine "theft" to include a remarkably inclusive class of actions. A definition of "theft" wide enough to include taxation would include things like charging me for food"

So if I were to rob you at gunpoint and "redistribute" your money to someone else I believe needs it more, I am doing something different than what the government, in effect, is doing via the tax system (albeit without the physical gun)? The legality of something does not necessarily make it any more moral.


[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2008 1:39:39 PM

Str8Foolish would rather give free handouts to societies disadvantaged members. Except the white ones. And the Christian ones. Oh and the ones with 2 parents and who had a job for more than 1 year. Oh and the ones that have ever owned a car.

9/19/2008 1:42:23 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, what? I'm talking specifically of the small town blood feuds that pop up when people "decide for themselves what justice is" and the authorities step out of the way. Most small town violence in places like rural Turkey are caused by lack of police regulation altogether. "

So the problem isn't people living their lives free from government interference and deciding for their own what is just, but with the government actively ignoring it's one legitimate function.

9/19/2008 1:48:54 PM

^ It's one legitimate function happens to be one of its most oppressive?

9/19/2008 1:53:26 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, what? I'm talking specifically of the small town blood feuds that pop up when people "decide for themselves what justice is" and the authorities step out of the way. Most small town violence in places like rural Turkey are caused by lack of police regulation altogether. "

sorry if i misinterpreted you the first time. Its true that some blood feuds and such would happen without authorities, although if you think about it, they happen with authorities too (see LA gang violence).

Also consider the violence that the state commits in the name of justice. Millions of people have died b/c certain nations or states thought they were doing the just thing. It makes the people that have died as result of blood feuds seem small and irrelevant, especially when you consider that blood feuds only affect those families involved (I realize this isnt always the case) and the people involved often have direct input on whether they should continue the feud or allow for reconciliation.

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 3:29 PM. Reason : BTW, some pretty solid discussion in here ]

9/19/2008 3:28:10 PM

Quote :

"Str8Foolish would rather give free handouts to societies disadvantaged members. Except the white ones. And the Christian ones. Oh and the ones with 2 parents and who had a job for more than 1 year. Oh and the ones that have ever owned a car."

Ron Paul 2008: Kill Your Parents

9/19/2008 3:30:16 PM

9/19/2008 3:43:02 PM

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 3:53 PM. Reason : freedom: catch it!]

9/19/2008 3:50:13 PM

Quote :

"Str8Foolish would rather give free handouts to societies disadvantaged members. Except the white ones. And the Christian ones. Oh and the ones with 2 parents and who had a job for more than 1 year. Oh and the ones that have ever owned a car."

False.

Quote :

"Also consider the violence that the state commits in the name of justice."

That's not an argument against systematic, fair, and rational deliberation over the legitimate definition and role of justice in government.

Quote :

"So if I were to rob you at gunpoint and "redistribute" your money to someone else I believe needs it more, I am doing something different than what the government, in effect, is doing via the tax system (albeit without the physical gun)? The legality of something does not necessarily make it any more moral."

So if I were to dress up like a bat and run around stopping crime ...

9/19/2008 3:59:27 PM

Quote :

"That's not an argument against systematic, fair, and rational deliberation over the legitimate definition and role of justice in government. "

I think that argument illustrates that the fair and rational definitions of justice that governments come up with usually arent very fair or rational to everyone. However, the government requires that you adhere to their definition.

The same could be said of individual's definitions of justice, they may not be fair to everyone. However, an individual doesn't have any input into your life.

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 4:48 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2008 4:45:48 PM

Quote :

""I don't see anything wrong with expecting a just society to care for its disadvantaged members.""

Lets get a better definition of disadvantaged members, what they are disadvantaged from, and why they are disadvantaged.

I believe the message from all parties is usually the same....you should help your neighbor.....but they each have different plans to carry out "help".

Dems want to forcefully take money from the rich, wealthy and "privilaged" by taxing. Then ask for everyone to donate after the fact. They then decide how to spend the money collected.

Repubs want everyone to donate money to a charity of their choosing. The rich choose where their money goes.

Cant you guys see the difference...one party takes...the other asks

9/19/2008 5:11:58 PM

Quote :

"Repubs want everyone to donate money to a charity of their choosing. The rich choose where their money goes. Cant you guys see the difference...one party takes...the other asks"

If only it were that simple. The bailouts of AIG & co. beg to differ with the philosophy of the Republicans simply letting one have their money to donate at their leisure. One's money is simply given to another set of "disadvantaged interests."

9/19/2008 5:19:03 PM

No Billionaire Left Behind

9/19/2008 5:22:41 PM

Quote :

"Lets get a better definition of disadvantaged members, what they are disadvantaged from, and why they are disadvantaged."

People who cannot afford basic, essential goods and services (clothes, food, shelter, health care).

Quote :

"I think that argument illustrates that the fair and rational definitions of justice that governments come up with usually arent very fair or rational to everyone. However, the government requires that you adhere to their definition."

This is a descriptive claim (which is true), but we're having a discussion about "shoulds" here. Since we're discussing how things should be structured, discussing how they are doesn't bear much relevance.

Quote :

"Dems want to forcefully take money from the rich, wealthy and "privilaged" by taxing. Then ask for everyone to donate after the fact. They then decide how to spend the money collected. Repubs want everyone to donate money to a charity of their choosing. The rich choose where their money goes. Cant you guys see the difference...one party takes...the other asks"

"Ask and ye shall receive" only works with divinity.

9/19/2008 6:45:17 PM

Not that it's not a worthy cause, but while you're donating 500 bucks to the cystic fibrosis foundation, some families are starving and will never see a penny of charity because they are too proud to ask. Who helps them?

9/19/2008 7:21:56 PM

Quote :

"A definition of "theft" wide enough to include taxation would include things like charging me for food. "

that is not even close to being the same thing.

Quote :

"So if I were to dress up like a bat and run around stopping crime ..."

Uhh, I think that's exactly his point: "right" and "legal" are two different things.

Quote :

"If only it were that simple. The bailouts of AIG & co. beg to differ with the philosophy of the Republicans simply letting one have their money to donate at their leisure. One's money is simply given to another set of "disadvantaged interests." "

Yep...but I'm not defending that, and neither are most other fiscal conservatives.

Quote :

"No Billionaire Left Behind "

...but to be fair, the point of these corporate bailouts isn't to "save the billionaires"...it's to save everyday people who take a beating when companies like this go under.

I still don't think it's the right answer--but let's be real here instead of just spouting off Democrat talking points.

Quote :

"People who cannot afford basic, essential goods and services (clothes, food, shelter, health care). "

Only a tiny minority thinks that the truly destitute (who are legitimately trying to do better) should be left to sleep under the bridge. I mean, like, an inconsequentially small minority. Furthermore, the number of people who are legitimately trying and who are still truly destitute is pretty damned small. This is not what people are railing against when they talk about redistribution of wealth.

Quote :

""Ask and ye shall receive" only works with divinity."

Well, allow me to present my personal anecdotal evidence to the contrary:

I used to donate to charity. For several years, I had small allotments taken out of my pay every month for that purpose...

Then it occured to me that I already "donate" to those who are less fortunate through our progressive tax system and through various entitlement programs. Now I don't donate a goddamned cent.

Quote :

"some families are starving and will never see a penny of charity because they are too proud to ask. Who helps them? "

1. if they're too proud to ask for charity, does it make any difference how much money is out there to be given to them?

2. if they're starving and too proud to ask for help, i don't feel much sympathy. that's being stupid.

3. they aren't truly starving. if they aren't asking for help, they just aren't hungry enough, yet. i went a week without eating, once. That shit sucked big time. If you get hungry enough, you'll put that pride aside.

4. If someone wants the help, it's there. Homeless shelters, food kitchens, etc...often (usually?) privately operated, too.

People starve to death in Africa. Basically nobody starves in America, and if they do, it's because they're fucking stupid, not because there isn't ample help out there for them.

9/19/2008 8:16:21 PM

Quote :

"Yep...but I'm not defending that, and neither are most other fiscal conservatives."

Then who exactly is? The inevitable fact is, with the Republicans, bailouts like this are a way of life. To date, this administration has bailed out:

-Airlines
-Agribusiness (farm bill, anyone?)
-Government-backed private mortgage buyers (Fannie & Freddie)
-Banks
-Insurers
-???

Who exactly is next before the clock runs out? Certainly Detroit is going to rolling around Washington now, tin cup in hand - are we to assume that they'll be turned away, like all the others haven't?

At some point, a disconnect emerges between rhetoric and reality. You may support fiscally conservative policies on principle, but when you're still going out and voting for Republicans (who in turn have lined to support each of these bailouts), the fact is, those principles aren't worth much more than talk in the end.

9/19/2008 8:25:59 PM

well, i would be the first to agree that the GOP is not really fiscally conservative these days.

i often (probably usually) don't vote GOP. in many (most?) races, I either don't vote or I vote Libertarian (most Libertarian candidates are as fucked up as a football bat, but I do it to show support for the general direction I wish the GOP would take, and to show that I didn't fail to vote GOP out of apathy, but because the party has left me).

I pick and choose a handful of GOP candidates that I can either tolerate or genuinely support. Every now and then, I'll vote GOP simply against a Democratic candidate who I consider especially bad.

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 8:47 PM. Reason : it amazes me that I can't find people to vote for. it's not like I'm way out on any fringe.]

9/19/2008 8:46:46 PM

^ all of the people you'd probably want to vote for already have real jobs

9/19/2008 9:07:39 PM

While there is a place for private charity..it should remain private.

When you give money to the United Way, you are directly contributing because you want to help and enjoy the feeling of giving.

When a politician appropriates your money and passes it out to the people he thinks should get it, he's doing it in order to score goodie points and gain more power. He is spending your charity money for his personal political purposes.

You should look past their front-reasons: It's fair, we owe it to each other, social justice, it's patriotic etc. The real reason lies in their self-interests. They use guilt and our American sense of charity against to gain more votes and power. The gov't should not be involved with income redistribution.

9/19/2008 9:41:55 PM

Quote :

" i went a week without eating,"

Was that in SERE training??

9/19/2008 10:08:10 PM

Quote :

"Certainly Detroit is going to rolling around Washington now, tin cup in hand - are we to assume that they'll be turned away, like all the others haven't? "

Yep, they just asked for, if I heard correctly, $25 billion in low interest loans.

Quote :

"Was that in SERE training?? "

Yes

Quote :

"When a politician appropriates your money and passes it out to the people he thinks should get it, he's doing it in order to score goodie points and gain more power. He is spending your charity money for his personal political purposes. You should look past their front-reasons: It's fair, we owe it to each other, social justice, it's patriotic etc. The real reason lies in their self-interests. They use guilt and our American sense of charity against to gain more votes and power. The gov't should not be involved with income redistribution. "

exactly. i don't get why this isn't more obvious to more people.

9/20/2008 7:08:10 AM

Quote :

"with the Republicans, bailouts like this are a way of life"

I guess I missed the news that the majority of Democrats voted against preventing a financial meltdown? It is simply incorrect to portray this as a partisan event. It is also wrong to portray the facilitated merger of Bear Stearns and the loan to AIG as direct deposits to billionaire bank accounts. Stockholders of Bear and AIG saw their holdings all but wiped out.

I agree, however, that government involvement, even if necessary, is very disturbing.

As for the ties between corporate america and Washington, this is only exacerbated by wishes from the public to allow the Federal government to amass even more power. Allowing the federal government to carry out more and more policy will only provide a one-stop-shop for special interests. So be very careful what you wish for when you vote in a presidential or congressional candidate who promises the world delivered via the federal government.


[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 7:49 AM. Reason : ,]

9/20/2008 7:47:08 AM

Quote :

"When a politician appropriates your money and passes it out to the people he thinks should get it, he's doing it in order to score goodie points and gain more power. He is spending your charity money for his personal political purposes. You should look past their front-reasons: It's fair, we owe it to each other, social justice, it's patriotic etc. The real reason lies in their self-interests. They use guilt and our American sense of charity against to gain more votes and power. The gov't should not be involved with income redistribution."

There's a distinction between why people try to enact certain policies, and what the rational justification for those policies are. I don't know why this isn't obvious to more people.

9/20/2008 1:16:57 PM

ummm. maybe it's cause the "rational justification" is bullshit in the first place? I don't care that a slimey politician is justifying it one way when I know he is really just doing it to gain votes.

9/20/2008 4:25:35 PM

Is there an argument to be made between too much governmental power and too much corporate power? Both have their own respective arguments, but the recent bailouts seem to have added further elements to the discussion.

9/20/2008 4:41:53 PM

i'd argue that too much gov't power and too much corporate power at the same time are disastrous

9/20/2008 4:44:27 PM

Quote :

"Taxation is not theft, unless you want to redefine "theft" to include a remarkably inclusive class of actions. A definition of "theft" wide enough to include taxation would include things like charging me for food."

there's a transfer of goods/services in both cases, but in one of them the transfer was involuntary

amirite?

9/20/2008 4:44:36 PM

i'd say both are involuntary. Try not to pay your taxes. see what happens. you aren't "volunteering" a fucking thing to the government

9/20/2008 4:45:40 PM

[facepalm]

uhh, that's the opposite of what he meant

[/facepalm]

9/20/2008 5:16:07 PM

Quote :

"Is there an argument to be made between too much governmental power and too much corporate power?"

You could argue that the more power we place in the hands of the federal government, the more power there is for special interests to partake in. There is a reason our founding fathers warned against a strong federal government. Reagan had the right idea to try and devolve power back to the states. Imagine how much easier it is for special interests to have a one-stop-shop for their lobbyists than if they had fifty separate states to deal with.

9/20/2008 10:12:43 PM

Quote :

"there's a transfer of goods/services in both cases, but in one of them the transfer was involuntary amirite?"

no you chose to work in this country. there is a price to make income in the us. if you don't like it go to another place and work. completely voluntary.

9/20/2008 10:17:30 PM

riiiiiiiiight. but hey, at least you admit that the government charges us all rent, essentially

9/20/2008 11:32:17 PM

Quote :

"no you chose to work in this country. there is a price to make income in the us. if you don't like it go to another place and work. completely voluntary."

There wasn't much of a price for the majority of the United State's existence. Just because that price has been jacked up over the past half century does not now make it a mainstay of American culture that we all must live by. If anything, it can be argued that we are straying from the core principles this country was founded upon; those outlined in the declaration of independence and the constitution.

If anyone wants to stray from those principles, they can "go to another place and work. completely voluntaryl"

9/21/2008 9:01:40 AM