A Tale of Two Cows

I have found those who consider themselves modern American liberals, however, don't have as easy a time with it.

You mean don't have an easy time answering it in the simplistic way you find acceptable. This is like those chain emails that get forwarded around conservative groups, kind of like what Ravi pointed out a couple pages ago. I'm liberal on this position, but far from all.

Reality here is more complex than a yes no to me. What should be the trump card: a person's opinion on a hypothetical, or their opinion on real-world policy? Again, hypotheticals usually make for poor argument, and are even less useful when used to marginalize or justify morality that is based on the real world.
 
I have found those who consider themselves modern American liberals, however, don't have as easy a time with it.

You mean don't have an easy time answering it in the simplistic way you find acceptable. This is like those chain emails that get forwarded around conservative groups, kind of like what Ravi pointed out a couple pages ago. I'm liberal on this position, but far from all.

Reality here is more complex than a yes no to me. What should be the trump card: a person's opinion on a hypothetical, or their opinion on real-world policy? Again, hypotheticals usually make for poor argument, and are even less useful when used to marginalize or justify morality that is based on the real world.

The principle involved has absolutely nothing to do with morality. It has to do with a concept on which the U.S. Constitution was founded. It is true that the Founders believed it would work only with a virtuous and religious people, but the principle itself is amoral. It is simply what it is.

In my opinion, those who don't like concepts boiled down to their simplest components and build from there simply don't understand or accept that concept. It is only by adding a lot of non sequitur and other hypotheticals to confuse and complicate the issue that the simplest hard truths can be avoided or ignored or dismissed. If that was not the case, I think we wouldn't really have liberals at all since I believe conservatives are every bit as caring and compassionate as liberals or even more so.
 
I have found those who consider themselves modern American liberals, however, don't have as easy a time with it.

You mean don't have an easy time answering it in the simplistic way you find acceptable. This is like those chain emails that get forwarded around conservative groups, kind of like what Ravi pointed out a couple pages ago. I'm liberal on this position, but far from all.

Reality here is more complex than a yes no to me. What should be the trump card: a person's opinion on a hypothetical, or their opinion on real-world policy? Again, hypotheticals usually make for poor argument, and are even less useful when used to marginalize or justify morality that is based on the real world.

Cows, horses, food, healthcare----whatever. Sure everyone wants everyone to have it all.
The question is HOW they get it and what makes them deserving.
 
Again, hypotheticals usually make for poor argument, and are even less useful when used to marginalize or justify morality that is based on the real world.

Of all the beasts that God allows
In England’s green and pleasant land,
I most of all dislike the Cows:
Their ways I do not understand.
It puzzles me why they should stare
At me, who am so innocent;
Their stupid gaze is hard to bear —
It’s positively truculent.

T.S. Eliot
 
I have found those who consider themselves modern American liberals, however, don't have as easy a time with it.

You mean don't have an easy time answering it in the simplistic way you find acceptable. This is like those chain emails that get forwarded around conservative groups, kind of like what Ravi pointed out a couple pages ago. I'm liberal on this position, but far from all.

Reality here is more complex than a yes no to me. What should be the trump card: a person's opinion on a hypothetical, or their opinion on real-world policy? Again, hypotheticals usually make for poor argument, and are even less useful when used to marginalize or justify morality that is based on the real world.

The principle involved has absolutely nothing to do with morality. It has to do with a concept on which the U.S. Constitution was founded. It is true that the Founders believed it would work only with a virtuous and religious people, but the principle itself is amoral. It is simply what it is.

In my opinion, those who don't like concepts boiled down to their simplest components and build from there simply don't understand or accept that concept. It is only by adding a lot of non sequitur and other hypotheticals to confuse and complicate the issue that the simplest hard truths can be avoided or ignored or dismissed. If that was not the case, I think we wouldn't really have liberals at all since I believe conservatives are every bit as caring and compassionate as liberals or even more so.


Your first paragraph isn't making much if any sense as it applies to this thread. Whether wealth redistribution is right or wrong, it IS about morality. That is the definition of morality.

And since when is Cowland governed by the US Constitution?

That is reflective of the central problem with this thread. You are trying to simultaneously stick to this hypothetical Cowland, and use the red herring label at an introduction of a counter position informed by the real world... but then are now attempting to extrapolate the principle position on the wrongs of cow distribution out to the real world, where cows are not redistributed but tax money is.
 
You mean don't have an easy time answering it in the simplistic way you find acceptable. This is like those chain emails that get forwarded around conservative groups, kind of like what Ravi pointed out a couple pages ago. I'm liberal on this position, but far from all.

Reality here is more complex than a yes no to me. What should be the trump card: a person's opinion on a hypothetical, or their opinion on real-world policy? Again, hypotheticals usually make for poor argument, and are even less useful when used to marginalize or justify morality that is based on the real world.

The principle involved has absolutely nothing to do with morality. It has to do with a concept on which the U.S. Constitution was founded. It is true that the Founders believed it would work only with a virtuous and religious people, but the principle itself is amoral. It is simply what it is.

In my opinion, those who don't like concepts boiled down to their simplest components and build from there simply don't understand or accept that concept. It is only by adding a lot of non sequitur and other hypotheticals to confuse and complicate the issue that the simplest hard truths can be avoided or ignored or dismissed. If that was not the case, I think we wouldn't really have liberals at all since I believe conservatives are every bit as caring and compassionate as liberals or even more so.


Your first paragraph isn't making much if any sense as it applies to this thread. Whether wealth redistribution is right or wrong, it IS about morality. That is the definition of morality.

And since when is Cowland governed by the US Constitution?

That is reflective of the central problem with this thread. You are trying to simultaneously stick to this hypothetical Cowland, and use the red herring label at an introduction of a counter position informed by the real world... but then are now attempting to extrapolate the principle position on the wrongs of cow distribution out to the real world, where cows are not redistributed but tax money is.

Okay dear try to focus. Money is property. Cows are property. The principle applies equally to both. You can use any form of currency, objects, land, fictitious imagination or whatever, but in this context it is all property. And the principle applies regardless of what you use for illustration.
 
I have found those who consider themselves modern American liberals, however, don't have as easy a time with it.

You mean don't have an easy time answering it in the simplistic way you find acceptable. This is like those chain emails that get forwarded around conservative groups, kind of like what Ravi pointed out a couple pages ago. I'm liberal on this position, but far from all.

Reality here is more complex than a yes no to me. What should be the trump card: a person's opinion on a hypothetical, or their opinion on real-world policy? Again, hypotheticals usually make for poor argument, and are even less useful when used to marginalize or justify morality that is based on the real world.

Cows, horses, food, healthcare----whatever. Sure everyone wants everyone to have it all.
The question is HOW they get it and what makes them deserving.

They get it through taxation of those with enough income above some subjective line about what constitutes poorness, with the burden increasing the higher up we go.

WHAT makes them deserving depends. Someone who is using welfare money to buy an ounce of blow and a plasma TV, I think that should be fraud and they should be excluded from getting any more of these dollar bills.

A single mom who works full time in retail and has to pay for daycare, she gets "it" by being an American citizen who isn't abusing this entitlement of a minimum standard of living in one of the richest countries on Earth.

IMO, of course. I'm sure some people don't see it this way. :cool:
 
Let's be real. This isn't about cows. It's about wealth redistribution through progressive taxation.


I support that policy, within reason of course, because my moral compass says we live in a relatively very-wealthy society. Because we have amassed so much wealth, aka cows, I believe there should be, and is, a minimum standard of living all citizens are entitled to by virtue of being a citizen of America. Or Cowland. :dunno:

This doesn't, however, mean I support unregulated welfare4life, or TANFF for anyone who wants it, or unending unemployment compensation. There needs to be strings attached; I think most people realize that.

They get it through taxation of those with enough income above some subjective line about what constitutes poorness, with the burden increasing the higher up we go.

WHAT makes them deserving depends. Someone who is using welfare money to buy an ounce of blow and a plasma TV, I think that should be fraud and they should be excluded from getting any more of these dollar bills.

A single mom who works full time in retail and has to pay for daycare, she gets "it" by being an American citizen who isn't abusing this entitlement of a minimum standard of living in one of the richest countries on Earth.

IMO, of course. I'm sure some people don't see it this way. :cool:


Third time will be a charm.
 
Let's be real. This isn't about cows. It's about wealth redistribution through progressive taxation.


I support that policy, within reason of course, because my moral compass says we live in a relatively very-wealthy society. Because we have amassed so much wealth, aka cows, I believe there should be, and is, a minimum standard of living all citizens are entitled to by virtue of being a citizen of America. Or Cowland. :dunno:

This doesn't, however, mean I support unregulated welfare4life, or TANFF for anyone who wants it, or unending unemployment compensation. There needs to be strings attached; I think most people realize that.

They get it through taxation of those with enough income above some subjective line about what constitutes poorness, with the burden increasing the higher up we go.

WHAT makes them deserving depends. Someone who is using welfare money to buy an ounce of blow and a plasma TV, I think that should be fraud and they should be excluded from getting any more of these dollar bills.

A single mom who works full time in retail and has to pay for daycare, she gets "it" by being an American citizen who isn't abusing this entitlement of a minimum standard of living in one of the richest countries on Earth.

IMO, of course. I'm sure some people don't see it this way. :cool:


Third time will be a charm.

I doubt it since you still aren't answering why Riche should be the one to provide for Pauvre for whatever reason, and on what basis the government has the right to take property from Riche in order to provide for Pauvre.

The government can't give property to Pauvre without taking it from somebody.

If you persist in saying that it is the 'right' or 'moral' thing to do, however, I shall have to conclude that you consider the government the proper entity to decide what is 'right' and what is 'moral'.
 
You mean don't have an easy time answering it in the simplistic way you find acceptable. This is like those chain emails that get forwarded around conservative groups, kind of like what Ravi pointed out a couple pages ago. I'm liberal on this position, but far from all.

Reality here is more complex than a yes no to me. What should be the trump card: a person's opinion on a hypothetical, or their opinion on real-world policy? Again, hypotheticals usually make for poor argument, and are even less useful when used to marginalize or justify morality that is based on the real world.

Cows, horses, food, healthcare----whatever. Sure everyone wants everyone to have it all.
The question is HOW they get it and what makes them deserving.

They get it through taxation of those with enough income above some subjective line about what constitutes poorness, with the burden increasing the higher up we go.

WHAT makes them deserving depends. Someone who is using welfare money to buy an ounce of blow and a plasma TV, I think that should be fraud and they should be excluded from getting any more of these dollar bills.

A single mom who works full time in retail and has to pay for daycare, she gets "it" by being an American citizen who isn't abusing this entitlement of a minimum standard of living in one of the richest countries on Earth.

IMO, of course. I'm sure some people don't see it this way. :cool:

So taking money from those who are econimically successful and giving that money to someone who isn't seems like a good policy to you?
 
Let's be real. This isn't about cows. It's about wealth redistribution through progressive taxation.


I support that policy, within reason of course, because my moral compass says we live in a relatively very-wealthy society. Because we have amassed so much wealth, aka cows, I believe there should be, and is, a minimum standard of living all citizens are entitled to by virtue of being a citizen of America. Or Cowland. :dunno:

This doesn't, however, mean I support unregulated welfare4life, or TANFF for anyone who wants it, or unending unemployment compensation. There needs to be strings attached; I think most people realize that.

They get it through taxation of those with enough income above some subjective line about what constitutes poorness, with the burden increasing the higher up we go.

WHAT makes them deserving depends. Someone who is using welfare money to buy an ounce of blow and a plasma TV, I think that should be fraud and they should be excluded from getting any more of these dollar bills.

A single mom who works full time in retail and has to pay for daycare, she gets "it" by being an American citizen who isn't abusing this entitlement of a minimum standard of living in one of the richest countries on Earth.

IMO, of course. I'm sure some people don't see it this way. :cool:


Third time will be a charm.

I doubt it since you still aren't answering why Riche should be the one to provide for Pauvre for whatever reason, and on what basis the government has the right to take property from Riche in order to provide for Pauvre.

The government can't give property to Pauvre without taking it from somebody.

If you persist in saying that it is the 'right' or 'moral' thing to do, however, I shall have to conclude that you consider the government the proper entity to decide what is 'right' and what is 'moral'.



The people of a representative democracy give their government, via policy enacted by their representatives, the permission to redistribute cow-wealth. That's the basis; government by consent of the people. I thought this was obvious?

And the government does enact laws and policies based on morality. Morality informs laws against killing, theft, blackmail, etc. That's why representative democracies are cool, because the people get to say what morality means. Not everyone will agree of course, but that conflict is just inherent to society.
 
So taking money from those who are econimically successful and giving that money to someone who isn't seems like a good policy to you?

Within reason, yes. Provided it's barely enough to survive but not enough to life comfortably.
 
Third time will be a charm.

I doubt it since you still aren't answering why Riche should be the one to provide for Pauvre for whatever reason, and on what basis the government has the right to take property from Riche in order to provide for Pauvre.

The government can't give property to Pauvre without taking it from somebody.

If you persist in saying that it is the 'right' or 'moral' thing to do, however, I shall have to conclude that you consider the government the proper entity to decide what is 'right' and what is 'moral'.



The people of a representative democracy give their government, via policy enacted by their representatives, the permission to redistribute cow-wealth. That's the basis; government by consent of the people. I thought this was obvious?

And the government does enact laws and policies based on morality. Morality informs laws against killing, theft, blackmail, etc. That's why representative democracies are cool, because the people get to say what morality means. Not everyone will agree of course, but that conflict is just inherent to society.

Under the U.S. Constitution the reason that killing, theft, blackmail are illegal is not for any considerations of 'morality' in any capacity. The Founders were extremely careful not to base ANY component of the federal law via the Constitution on any basis of morality or virtue.

The reason killing, theft, blackmail are illegal is because they violate unalienable rights that the Constitution was designed to protect, such rights being the unalienable right to one's life and one's legally acquired property.

Riche honorably acquired his property and, according to the Constitution, an unalienable right to use it for his own purposes short of infringing on the unalienable rights of any other.

Please point to the Constitutional provision that authorizes the government to take property from Riche so that Pauvre may have it.
 
Third time will be a charm.

I doubt it since you still aren't answering why Riche should be the one to provide for Pauvre for whatever reason, and on what basis the government has the right to take property from Riche in order to provide for Pauvre.

The government can't give property to Pauvre without taking it from somebody.

If you persist in saying that it is the 'right' or 'moral' thing to do, however, I shall have to conclude that you consider the government the proper entity to decide what is 'right' and what is 'moral'.



The people of a representative democracy give their government, via policy enacted by their representatives, the permission to redistribute cow-wealth. That's the basis; government by consent of the people. I thought this was obvious?

And the government does enact laws and policies based on morality. Morality informs laws against killing, theft, blackmail, etc. That's why representative democracies are cool, because the people get to say what morality means. Not everyone will agree of course, but that conflict is just inherent to society.
I hate to disagree with you because you are often right, but those laws are not based on morality, rather they are based on the fact that others cannot violate rights which the government protects.

But otherwise: she is confusing taxing income with taking cows. It just isn't the same thing no matter how many times she insists it is...and the government has a right to tax us. It doesn't have a right to take our cows.
 
I doubt it since you still aren't answering why Riche should be the one to provide for Pauvre for whatever reason, and on what basis the government has the right to take property from Riche in order to provide for Pauvre.

The government can't give property to Pauvre without taking it from somebody.

If you persist in saying that it is the 'right' or 'moral' thing to do, however, I shall have to conclude that you consider the government the proper entity to decide what is 'right' and what is 'moral'.



The people of a representative democracy give their government, via policy enacted by their representatives, the permission to redistribute cow-wealth. That's the basis; government by consent of the people. I thought this was obvious?

And the government does enact laws and policies based on morality. Morality informs laws against killing, theft, blackmail, etc. That's why representative democracies are cool, because the people get to say what morality means. Not everyone will agree of course, but that conflict is just inherent to society.

Under the U.S. Constitution the reason that killing, theft, blackmail are illegal is not for any considerations of 'morality' in any capacity. The Founders were extremely careful not to base ANY component of the federal law via the Constitution on any basis of morality or virtue.

The reason killing, theft, blackmail are illegal is because they violate unalienable rights that the Constitution was designed to protect, such rights being the unalienable right to one's life and one's legally acquired property.

Riche honorably acquired his property and, according to the Constitution, an unalienable right to use it for his own purposes short of infringing on the unalienable rights of any other.

Please point to the Constitutional provision that authorizes the government to take property from Riche so that Pauvre may have it.

Can we quit with the pretense about cows? :lol:

The government has the authority under the general welfare clause coupled with the 16th Amendment, confirmed by the body of SCOTUS cases specifically post-FDR.
 
What is the difference between taking money that we lawfully acquired and taking cows of an equal value to the money that we lawfully acquired?
 
The people of a representative democracy give their government, via policy enacted by their representatives, the permission to redistribute cow-wealth. That's the basis; government by consent of the people. I thought this was obvious?

And the government does enact laws and policies based on morality. Morality informs laws against killing, theft, blackmail, etc. That's why representative democracies are cool, because the people get to say what morality means. Not everyone will agree of course, but that conflict is just inherent to society.

Under the U.S. Constitution the reason that killing, theft, blackmail are illegal is not for any considerations of 'morality' in any capacity. The Founders were extremely careful not to base ANY component of the federal law via the Constitution on any basis of morality or virtue.

The reason killing, theft, blackmail are illegal is because they violate unalienable rights that the Constitution was designed to protect, such rights being the unalienable right to one's life and one's legally acquired property.

Riche honorably acquired his property and, according to the Constitution, an unalienable right to use it for his own purposes short of infringing on the unalienable rights of any other.

Please point to the Constitutional provision that authorizes the government to take property from Riche so that Pauvre may have it.

Can we quit with the pretense about cows? :lol:

The government has the authority under the general welfare clause coupled with the 16th Amendment, confirmed by the body of SCOTUS cases specifically post-FDR.

SCOTUS interprets existing law or it is supposed to. SCOTUS did not have the jurisdiction to approve or disapprove of welfare but rather whether equal protection applies in the application of welfare.

But are you saying there is no unalienable right to the property that one acquires by honorable, ethical, legal means? That the government or SCOTUS can decree that we must give up whatever the government decides that it needs in order to do whatever?

Does the government have all power to make those decisions?

If not, where do you draw the line?
 
What is the difference between taking money that we lawfully acquired and taking cows of an equal value to the money that we lawfully acquired?

None but since the govenor makes his living off of taxes he collects I would imagine he would prefer cash.
 
What is the difference between taking money that we lawfully acquired and taking cows of an equal value to the money that we lawfully acquired?

None but since the govenor makes his living off of taxes he collects I would imagine he would prefer cash.

Yup. But if a person doesn't have the cash, I guarantee you the government doesn't hesitate to take cows or some other property in lieu of cash. Happens all the time.
 

Forum List

Back
Top