Obama 2001: 'Tragedy' THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED

[Odd1_Out]

Oh, what an adorable little rant! Allow me to correct on a few of your factual points.

You've stated that you believe that [Obama] wants the same thing that you want; to end poverty and to do so with JUuuust enough socialism to get the job done; you've said that you and [Obama] aren't trying to stifle competition and nationalize the means of production where all citizens are converted to 'workers' paid scale salaries...

But here's the problem with that: THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF SOCIALISM THAT WILL END POVERTY: THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF REDISTRIBUTIVE ECONOMICS THAT WILL REDUCE POVERTY... PERIOD. Left-think, which is what you're espousing here, seeks to eliminate NEED... AND THERE IS NO END TO HUMAN NEED! Left-think erroneously confused equality with FAIRNESS... Of course you can't define fairness synonymously with equality, but that doesn't seem to stop you people from chronic usage wherein 'FAIRNESS' is paramount OVER equality; which is to say that the left doesn't give a RIP about people having equal rights and equal opportunity to pursue the fulfillment of their lives; the left demands that it IS NOT FAIR that two people with equal rights and equal opportunities did not realize EQUAL OUTCOMES... and that is simply ABSURD.

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd know that I didn't say this would END poverty, but it would reduce it, and if the correct #s were used, then it would STATISTICALLY end poverty. And, yes, you CAN change stastical results by appropriately redistributing numbers (I call it elementary math).

Giving money to the poor ABSOLUTELY WOULD REDUCE POVERTY. The assertion that giving enough money to the poor to raise them above the poverty line would still leave them stastically impoverished is absurdity (again, math). Socialistic policies have been implemented before in the U.S. to reduce poverty and they worked... ever heard of the New Deal or the Great Depression... Do you realize how many more people would have died during that time without government intervention?

It is true that some would try to suckle upon the welfare system and not improve their situation (as is done in the current system), but most people wouldn't be satisfied with the bare minimum offered by such a plan, most people, if given the chance to leave a state of poverty WOULD DO SO. Arguing otherwise is denying human nature: We are never satisfied with the bare minimum. This is the part where the left and right disagree; the right doesn't want to give any money to a system that people can abuse, and THE LEFT BELIEVES THE GREATER GOOD IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT.

The is a big difference between human NEED and WANT, though you don't seem to recognize it. Human NEED is based on the essential things we require to survive, and that IS a limited quantity. Human WANT, or GREED, does not have any bounds, which is why so many oppose giving money to those in NEED. Because they (you) WANT things.

My argument has nothing to do with equality and fairness, it is based upon HUMAN DECENCY, i.e. not wanting people to needlessly starve to death in one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

The fact is that most people around the PLANET, let alone in the US, who live in poverty DO NOT ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. Thus poverty does not 'cause' crime... what causes crime is people deciding to commit crimes; which is to say that people reject the idea that they re not ENTITLED to the belongings of another; what causes crime is that SOME PEOPLE decide that THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR... THEY HAVE A NEED... THE OTHER PERSON HAS THE MEANS TO FILL THAT NEED... AND THEY HIJACK THAT MEANS... THE VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON OF MEANS. Now the distinction between the two individuals, the one with the need and the one with the means may and often is nearly indiscernible; the difference of one guy on the MLK has $5.00 and the other one NEEDS that $5.00; but they're both walking down the MLK and they both broke as HELL, living in the same damn HOUSE, so to speak.

Your rationalization that poverty causes crime is invalid logically, you're just assuming that because crime is higher in areas where poverty is highest, that poverty causes crime.

My thinking on this is that violent crime is caused by a failure to understand the responsibilities inherent in our God given human rights; the failure to vigilantly guard against the exercising of one's rights to the detriment of another... thus those people committing violent crime do not accept their responsibilities and look to others, on many levels, to service their needs.

WOW! You better hurry up and get that memo to every major criminologist in the country because, ya know what.... CRIMINOLOGISTS HAVE CONSENSUS THAT POVERTY IS A MAJOR FACTOR IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (read a book, instead of just telling me "what you think").

Most poor people don't commit crimes? No, no, sweetie, the answer is MOST PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES, DON'T GET CAUGHT, especially minor crimes like shop lifting. Also, some one who is impoverished has less to lose than someone who is not, and they ARE more likely to commit violent, drug related, and theft related crimes than other people because of this.

Let's apply your "logic" about crime elsewhere, shall we? Most rich people don't own jets, so being rich is not a factor in owning a jet...
Explaination: Just because "most people" of a group don't do something, doesn't mean that activity is not more characteristic of that group than of others.

Now the left will claim that those people don't have the opportunities that other people do... the answer to that is a simple "BULLSHIT!" The opportunity is there, because it is everywhere in the US. People accept that which satisfies them... and they generally accept poverty because they don't BELIEVE THEY HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE! They're taught that they are in poverty because someone ELSE has taken their opportunity... That the ethereal "RICH" are rich because THEY STOLE THE OPPORTUNITY FROM THOSE IN POVERTY... And THAT is what the left teaches them... That is the message that YOU HAVE JUST BROUGHT... That what we need to do is to spread the wealth around, so other people can be happy.

It takes money to make money in this country. Not everyone who is rich worked to get there, and poor people inherit each other's debt with each generation. People don't have much of a choice, if they can't afford college. The "American Dream" of going from rags to riches is little more than a fairytale. All hard work brings for someone in a bad situation is fatigue and a bad back.

Again... I must call BULLSHIT! here... And I don't mean to say that you are not ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that you're attacking the root cause and not the effects; I mean that you're DEAD WRONG. In that redistributive economics does absolutely NOTHING BUT treat the effect and to EMPOWER THE CAUSE.

Again, you're assuming that these people would not be working. That was a primary clause of the sort of plan that I am talking about. They could just work the minimum requirement and collect the rest from the government, but that sort of existence has got to get boring quick. See your own comments about human nature and people never being satisfied.

First, Labor is not zero sum; meaning that all labor is NOT one value and is NOT static...

Yeah, I already covered that. You can refrain from repeating what I've already said... ya know, just to save time.

Which is precisely how millions upon tens of millions of people born into poverty move up and out of poverty every day, in every way.

WOW!! Tens of millions of people escape poverty every day?! Well, screw redistributing the wealth. Ha, this thing is gonna clear itself up within a week!

"Need-Motivated" You nor any other movement, ideology or popular whimsy is going to resolve anything which is need-motivated.

You can if you satisfy that need (logic).

The problem is that you people reject the idea of personal accountability.

WRONG! My family is actually lower Upper Class. We have a great sense of "personal accountability", and worked to get/stay where we are... But, we also understand that we were born into a better situation than most to begin with, and that not everyone is so lucky. NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT FAMILY OR IN WHAT SITUATION THEY WERE BORN IN.

It is a fact (a real one, not one of yours), that over 70% of people in the U.S. die in the same socio-economic status as they were born into. ECONOMIC MOBILITY IS LIMITED, ESPECIALLY FOR THE POOR because IT TAKES MONEY TO MAKE MONEY (if you don't have money to invest in college, stocks, a business, etc., then your fate is pretty much sealed).

I can imagine coming home after taking my Father's car without permission and explaining to him that 'need-motivation' was the basis of my disrespecting him, his rules and his trust.

Again, that's a want, not a need.... unless you took the car because you had just been shot and needed to get to the hospital.

ROFL... Yeah, I can see that working. "Please don't rob me Mr. Punk, here's a free living and in the unlikely event that you find yourself in need while you're enjoying the product of other people's labor, feel free to express your need and we'll pour more cash on you... because your needs supersedes the rights of others."

Well, if he's robbing you, technically he wanted money, so offering it to him probably would help.

Now go find gainful employment, increase your skill set until it becomes of a sufficient value that you're able to live a life which you find fulfilling and stop being such a DICK! Or we'll kill your ass for your failure to respect the rights of others.

Riight... So, welfare is morally corrupt, but murder is okay?

Your problem is that YOU DON'T WANT THOSE PEOPLE TO HAVE TO ASK FOR HELP! YOU WANT THOSE PEOPLE TO BE ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF OTHER PEOPLES LABOR WHICH IS PRECISELY THE SAME PERSONAL FAILURE AS THE NEED MOTIVATED PUNK...

Here's a CLUE: YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR. PERIOD!

Actually, I believe they are entitled to the fruits of MY LABOR, as well as any other household making beyond a certain income. I believe that it is our responsibility as human beings to take care of those less fortunate than ourselves. Our life here on this earth is made up of a delicate balance, and we may actually live in harmony when everyone realizes ONE SIMPLE THING.......
that YOUR WELL BEING IS INTRINSICALLY TIED TO THE WELL BEING OF EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH. Neglecting one suffering person won't change your situation much, but neglecting an entire group that is suffering most definately will.

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree and say that I have a bleeding heart and you have a black one.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh, what an adorable little rant! Allow me to correct on a few of your factual points.

And by 'correct' she means "redesign my argument to avoid looking like I am exactly what the failure being corrected represented her to be."

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd know that I didn't say this would END poverty, but it would reduce it, and if the correct #s were used, then it would STATISTICALLY end poverty.

ROFL... Yeah... I read that. And just as you've demonstrated above, you project a correction wherein you state that 'you did NOT want to END poverty, only to STATISTICALLY END POVERTY;' I simply rejected that position as unbridled idiocy, based upon the 70 years of leftist policy which has sought to statistically minimize poverty; policy which has thoroughly failed and must fail, as the calculation on which the policy rest is fatally flawed.

If the goal is to 'STATISTICALLY END POVERTY' then the solution is to simply raise the statistical threshold whereupon 'poverty' is established and presto... no mo' poverty... Your argument is, as such always is: SPECIOUS.

And, yes, you CAN change stastical results by appropriately redistributing numbers (I call it elementary math).

You can change statistical results through any manipulation of the data; which is why such arguments are without value, generally counterproductive and efforts born on such is prone to chronic failure.

Giving money to the poor ABSOLUTELY WOULD REDUCE POVERTY.

Absolutely FALSE! Giving money to those proven to be incapable of handling money will only result in their mishandling the moneygiven to them (as they've historically mishandled everything given to them); whereupon their status will remain unchanged.

The assertion that giving enough money to the poor to raise them above the poverty line would still leave them stastically impoverished is absurdity (again, math).

False... You can change the statistical position of any charted element of a statistic by simply changing the calculation on which the stat is based. For instance if you claim that poverty is established at an annual income of $15,000 for a family of four, then just changing the threshold establishing poverty from $15K to $10K... STATISTICALLY you instantly move the top tird who formerly lived in poverty to living above the poverty level.


Again, your entire line of reasoning speaks ONLY to the symptom of annual revenue... Meaning you want to construct your conclusion that a given individual is living in poverty because of their annual income; you want to completely ignore the reason that Ramón is a crack head... that he spends all of his time in pursuit of crack, except during that period when he is huggin' the pipe. Now this is true for Elvis the Meth-head, as well as Sabrina and Dixie, the crack and meth-whores, respectively.

The fact is that all four of our fictitious statistical po' folks are all pursuing the fulfillment of their lives; but their personal habits are not conducive to that which would otherwise provide for a decent, respectable living. Thus the problem is NOT their cash flow... it's their REASONING and their personal threshold of what they will and will NOT accept.

They have MADE CHOICES!~ They have the SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE AND THE SAME OPPORTUNITY AS EVERYONE ELSE... They CHOSE and continue to CHOOSE, EVERYDAY, to engage in behavior which would leave them impoverished. Such is the nature of the human being... They are FREE TO CHOOSE TO BE CRACK/METHHEADS... but they, like YOU are NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSONS LABOR BECAUSE OF THEIR SELF INDUCED NEEDS...

Socialistic policies have been implemented before in the U.S. to reduce poverty and they worked...

False, there is not a single case, anywhere in the scope of history of humanity where a socialist policy has ever MET IT INTENDED GOAL! PERIOD. Feel free to cite your examples and I will happily show you where each is a miserable failure.

...ever heard of the New Deal or the Great Depression... Do you realize how many more people would have died during that time without government intervention?

I am very familiar with both... the Great depression was a function of massive government intervention into the market, such as the New Deal, which created substantial hindrances in the market's ability to recover; thus severely increasing the depth of the depression and prolonging the economic agony.

In short the socialist policies advanced by the 'progressives' of the 1930s were responsible for a temporal market correction turning into "The Great Depression."

Educate yourself: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf

It is true that some would try to suckle upon the welfare system and not improve their situation (as is done in the current system), but most people wouldn't be satisfied with the bare minimum offered by such a plan, most people, if given the chance to leave a state of poverty WOULD DO SO.

ROFLMNAO... Yes, that is true, MOST PEOPLE do NOT settle for the minimum... Of course those living in poverty: THEY ARE THE PEOPLE THAT SETTLE FOR THE MINIMUM...

Arguing otherwise is denying human nature: We are never satisfied with the bare minimum.

Accept for the people that settle for the minimum of course... and they're the one's living at the cultural economic bottom; which you want to 'help' by confiscating the product of other people's labor and giving it to those whose record is they settle for minimum production.

This is the part where the left and right disagree; the right doesn't want to give any money to a system that people can abuse, and THE LEFT BELIEVES THE GREATER GOOD IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR INDIVIDUAL SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that is precious... What a lovely example of muddled confusion.

Your statement is absurd as it twists reality to avoid the truth. The left wants to PROVIDE AN ENTITLEMENT THROUGH AN ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM WHEREIN THE PRODUCT OF ONE PERSON'S LABOR IS GIVEN TO THOSE WHO DID NOT EARN IT, BUT WHO ARE DETERMINED BY THE LEFT TO HAVE A NEED OF IT; ON THE BASIS THAT THE GREATER GOOD IS MORE INPORTANT THAN THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF THEIR LABOR; which is merely the cornstone to individual liberty; the pure essence of FREEDOM...

The is a big difference between human NEED and WANT, though you don't seem to recognize it. Human NEED is based on the essential things we require to survive, and that IS a limited quantity. Human WANT, or GREED, does not have any bounds, which is why so many oppose giving money to those in NEED. Because they (you) WANT things.

Indeed there is a difference... those in living in poverty that have a WANT to get out of POVERTY, NEED to improve their skill sets to the point where they are able to offer goods and services to those that WANT OR NEED them and who have something of value that they are willing to exchange for the goods and services offered by the impoverished WANTING to escape poverty.

The problem of course is those living in poverty tend towards accepting the MINIMUM in most things and as a result aren't prone to take upon themselves the EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT TO ACQUIRE THOSE SKILLS.

My argument has nothing to do with equality and fairness, it is based upon HUMAN DECENCY, i.e. not wanting people to needlessly starve to death in one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

Gee... is it just me or does it just seem 'UNFAIR' that some people are subject to NEEDLESSLY starving to death because the wealth is being controlled by someone that is not starving to death?

It's pretty clear that you're confusing fairness with equality and in this latest example you're specifically implying that it isn't fair that some people realize an outcome wherein they are starving while others realized an outcome wherein they're WEALTHY!

WOW! You better hurry up and get that memo to every major criminologist in the country because, ya know what.... CRIMINOLOGISTS HAVE CONSENSUS THAT POVERTY IS A MAJOR FACTOR IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (read a book, instead of just telling me "what you think").

ROFLMNAO... So what? If criminologists believed to the core of their souls and had the data to conclusively prove (to themselves and the other leftists) that Unicorns were flying in at night and eating the poor’s wealth... that wouldn't much impress me either...

The fact is that people in poverty are people who tend towards accepting very little of themselves and those around them... as such, they tend not do not take on the responsibility to exert the effort to improve their personal skills necessary to take themselves OUT OF POVERTY... People in poverty tend towards invalid reasoning, where they accept unsound conclusions which set the responsibility for their life upon OTHER'S... That these and other fatal flaws in their individual lives are common to those who find themselves in chronic poverty has ZERO to do with that poverty and EVERYTHING to do with those fatal flaws in their individual lives.

Most poor people don't commit crimes?

Most poor people don't commit crimes... that is an incontestable fact. Not that fact is born out in the history of most poor people who have for whatever reason reasonably honest lives which simply were not focused upon the accumulation of wealth and that which promotes the likelihood of wealth.

Simply compare the population of those living in poverty and the volume of criminal acts and it becomes clear that while those living in poverty experience a higher tendency towards crime as a percentage of that population than do their wealthier neighbors, the percentage is nonetheless a stark minority.

No, no, sweetie, the answer is MOST PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES, DON'T GET CAUGHT, especially minor crimes like shop lifting. Also, some one who is impoverished has less to lose than someone who is not, and they ARE more likely to commit violent, drug related, and theft related crimes than other people because of this.

LOL... Now those of us that have said for MANY YEARS that leftists are bigots, racists and idiots in general appreciate that...

Let the record reflect that this oracle of tolerance and compassion for the poor has just stated that the sum of that segment of the population are in fact criminals with less to lose, than 'rich-folk', it's just that their crimes are merely under-reported...

ROFL! It's a rare day that we find a leftist coming clean on that; but when we do it is usually through just such a cognitive back-door.

Let's apply your "logic" about crime elsewhere, shall we? Most rich people don't own jets, so being rich is not a factor in owning a jet...
Explaination: Just because "most people" of a group don't do something, doesn't mean that activity is not more characteristic of that group than of others.

A lovely example of fallacious reasoning.

Corrected for validity: All jets are owned by the rich; but not all rich people own jets.

It takes money to make money in this country.

BULLSHIT! That is a myth... and one perpetuated by those interested in fomenting discontent among those without money. All it takes to make money is to be in possession of goods and services which those with money need or want and are willing to exchange for their money.

Not everyone who is rich worked to get there, and poor people inherit each other's debt with each generation.

So what? Whether they worked for it or not, it remains theirs and you've no right to take it from them... You may ask them to give it to you and where they are of a mind to do so you're perfectly within your right to ACCEPT THEIR GIFT.... You are perfectly within your rights to ask them to exchange it for goods and services which they may need or desire... and you're perfectly within your rights to accept that mutually agreed upon exchange.

But you are NOT WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO USE FORCE TO CONFISCATE THEIR PROPERTY WHICH IS WHAT HUSSEIN OBAMA IS ADVANCING AS HIS ECONOMIC PLAN: THE SHARE THE CONFISCATED WEALTH.

People don't have much of a choice, if they can't afford college.

Going to college does not come with a 'wealth warranty,' there is no end to the list of college educated people that live in poverty and squalor; this, a result of POOR CHOICES THAT THEIR COLLEGE EDUCATED ASSES MADE; which is not distinct in the slightest from their poor ignorant neighbors.

The "American Dream" of going from rags to riches is little more than a fairytale.

Patently false... The list of people that grew up in poverty and lived their adult lives outside of poverty is endless. Again you're simply perpetuating negative thinking. I will grant you this however: Those that bought into left-think, such as that which you're presently espousing, have no chance of moving out of poverty; as they have ACCEPTED THEIR POVERTY, which is key to remaining there.

All hard work brings for someone in a bad situation is fatigue and a bad back.

Pure negative nonsense. Absolutely false... Those that believe in this bilge will not work hard to leave poverty; as they have no reason to do so; BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE STUCK THERE! THEY ACCEPT IT~

Again, you're assuming that these people would not be working. That was a primary clause of the sort of plan that I am talking about.

I'm not assuming anything. I am looking at their record and assessing that their track history is fair indicator of their future performance, pending major changes IN THEIR PERSONAL THINKING... CHANGES WHICH WILL ALTER THEIR BEHAVIOR IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY TAKE ACTION WHICH WILL IMPROVE THEIR SKILL SETS TO THE POINT WHERE THEY ARE ABLE TO OFFER A PRODUCT THAT IS OF SUFFICIENT VALUE TO OTHERS THAT THEIR EXCHNGING OF THAT SKILL SET PRODUCES AN INCOME WHICH RAISES THEM OUT OF STATISTICAL POVERTY.

They could just work the minimum requirement and collect the rest from the government, but that sort of existence has got to get boring quick. See your own comments about human nature and people never being satisfied.

No doubt it does... but that has been their track record; that is what THEY HAVE ACCEPTED.

Yeah, I already covered that. You can refrain from repeating what I've already said... ya know, just to save time.

That's a lie... you didn't say anything approaching that... you simply want to imply you did to evade the results which "that' produced: Exposing your thinking as ABSURD.

WOW!! Tens of millions of people escape poverty every day?! Well, screw redistributing the wealth. Ha, this thing is gonna clear itself up within a week!

Again your above calculation proves that you didn't say what you claimed you said above... You project that the product of the economy is zero-sum... that because tens of millions of people move from poverty, that poverty itself will just clear up in short order...

First, the product of the economy is NOT zero sum, it is fluid, with new people coming on and old people going out, by the tens of thousands every single day.

Second, PEOPLE THAT REMAIN IN POVERTY DO SO BECAUSE THEY ACCEPT IT! PERIOD! THEY CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE THE EXTRORDINARY EFFORTS... thus their efforts remain ordinary and such efforts where poverty is the threshold leave little potential to result in rising above poverty.

You can if you satisfy that need (logic).

ROFL... well it's Illogical; meaning that it’s logically flawed.

The need is not the absence of wealth; the need is the absence of the means to create wealth. Your calculation is flawed, you've concluded through you flawed calculation that the solution is that the absence of wealth is the need and by advancing your solution you're discouraging those in poverty from developing the means to create wealth; thus exasperating poverty... which is why the left leaves nothing but poverty in its wake.

It is a fact (a real one, not one of yours), that over 70% of people in the U.S. die in the same socio-economic status as they were born into. ECONOMIC MOBILITY IS LIMITED, ESPECIALLY FOR THE POOR because IT TAKES MONEY TO MAKE MONEY (if you don't have money to invest in college, stocks, a business, etc., then your fate is pretty much sealed).

Gee... let's see... so you're saying that 70% of the people accepted the socio-economic class to which they were first exposed?

SHOCKING! This would tend towards indicating that those people recognized that what they were initially exposed to was NORMAL... thus they operated within what they believed to be acceptable parameters of performance. AMAZING...

Now you claimed above that the rags to riches thesis was a myth... yet there are 30% of the population (USING YOUR OWN BASELESS STAT) which either rose above or fell below the socio-economic status to which they were born... So you refute yourself AGAIN!

ROFL...

Again, that's a want, not a need.... unless you took the car because you had just been shot and needed to get to the hospital.

Is it? Or is it a 'want' from your subjective perspective; and a 'need' from that of the errant teen's perspective? Change the Dad's car to Dad's 'food' and it becomes a need... but the principle remains the same; as valid principle ALWAYS DOES... You have no right to the product of another man's labor... PERIOD.

Just because you are HUNGRY, does NOT ESTABLISH THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEONE ELSE'S FOOD. And YOU are not the arbiter of this distinction... YOU FEELING that something of a NEED does NOT give you the right to confiscate what you feel will satisfy that need from someone that has it.

Of course you're invited to produce reasoning which would show that A NEED DOES PRODUCE A RIGHT TO USURP THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

Well, if he's robbing you, technically he wanted money, so offering it to him probably would help.

Well it serves my purposes to exercise my sacred duty to defend my life and property from his unjustified threat to both... and do so in recognizing that he had forfeited his right to life by threatening my own; dispatching him to his maker for final judgment. Life is a series of decisions which leads us to our earthly destiny. Robbing me is what we call a 'career decision.'

Riight... So, welfare is morally corrupt, but murder is okay?

ROFLMNAO... You truly are a giver aren't ya sis?


Welfare is morally bankrupt; the principle-less idiocy of the intellectually deficient; that which seeks to establish a RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER'S LABOR TO SATISFY A SUBJECTIVELY DETERMINED NEED! A philosophical ABSURDITY.

Murder is the taking of a human life in the absence of a valid moral justification. There can be no potential for murder where one is defending themselves from a threat to their life; where that threat is founded upon an invalid moral justification; a classic example of an invalid moral justification is to threaten someone's life for the purposes of usurping their rights to the use of the product of their labor...

In short, there are only two valid moral justifications for the taking of a human life: To defend that life against a threat to one's own life, which rests upon an invalid moral justification OR the defense from such a threat being perpetrated against someone in their immediate presence.

Thus killing a person assaulting you is not murder; it is in fact a perfect moral justification for taking a human life.

Actually, I believe they are entitled to the fruits of MY LABOR, as well as any other household making beyond a certain income.

GREAT! ANd that's the beautiful thing about the United States... You can have any absurd belief that fires off your reson soaked synapse and be free to pursue it; meaning that you're free to spend your life giving away everything that you earn to anyone that ya like. Take me for instance... I earn my living and I exchange it with the organization which holds my mortgage, the utility companies. I.e: Florida Power and Light, the municipal water and sewer provider, an extensive list of insurance companies, the grocer, the gas station owners, the mechanic which maintains my cars, the retailers from whom we purchase our clothing and other assorted products which we either need or want and so on... You claim that YOU BELIEVE that those that did not EARN your income are entitled to it... and I say that you're free to give it to them... I celebrate your freedom to do so.

But where you organize with those that would take from me the means to pay those listed above from the product of MY LABOR is where we part company and it is THERE, at THAT point where you and those with whom you are organizing become a discernable threat to my means to exercise what I believe are MY RIGHTS... and I believe I've already covered what is justified where one's Rights are being threatened.

I believe that it is our responsibility as human beings to take care of those less fortunate than ourselves.

Super! And I believe that you're free to pursue the care of anyone you find in such a condition... Go DO IT! Tend to your RESPONSIBILITIES.

Our life here on this earth is made up of a delicate balance, and we may actually live in harmony when everyone realizes ONE SIMPLE THING.......

Indeed it is... and you and those with whom you're organizing are dangerously close to stepping on my side of that scale... and should you do so, you're going to find that myself and those that believe as I do, will correct our rights from your erroneous beliefs that you're entitled to that which we've earned to satisfy your subjective inferences of 'need.'

that YOUR WELL BEING IS INTRINSICALLY TIED TO THE WELL BEING OF EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH.

I suggest you keep that in mind... As your well being is becoming very much tied to your erroneous misjudgment of what Americans are prepared to tolerate... do not under-estimate our resolve... as this is intrinsically tied to your well being.

Neglecting one suffering person won't change your situation much, but neglecting an entire group that is suffering most definately will.

Yeah... That's a great point. I suggest you get your head around the full scope of that point. Because my group is not prone to sit idly by and watch the world screw us... our track record is one wherein we take action to do what is necessary to obtain what we need.

I believe we can all live in peace and that as long as you tend to parting with the product of your labor to minister to those you deem less fortunate and do so respecting the rights of those around you; PARTICULARLY the right to one's own life and the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life through the unfettered use of the product of one's labor, then we shall all get along fine... but as I stated at the outset, the tendency of your crown is to set your priorities in the erroneous perception of never ending NEEDS... and you're worked your way to the last nerve of us who have patiently tried to accommodate you, but are growing quite weary of the burden which carrying you people has become.

 

[Turboswede]

I think there is just a fundamental difference in world view from people who support the idea of wealth redistribution and those that oppose it. Back in school I had a professor that, about capitalism, would quote something that Von Braun said in an interview while working on the Saturn project. The interviewer asked if he felt any responsibility for the damage done to England by the V-2, Von Braun’s reply was

“We made the rockets go up, where they came down…that was not my department”

Capitalism is great for generating huge amounts of wealth, but by its very nature tends to concentrate that wealth with in the hands of a smaller and smaller number of people. Without some control you would have all capital controlled by a handful of dynastic families as they used their hold on capital to bar entry into markets by new competitors.

Here is my real problem with PubliusInfinitu’s argument and the reason why I think I will always be considered a “liberal” socially.

your entire line of reasoning speaks ONLY to the symptom of annual revenue... Meaning you want to construct your conclusion that a given individual is living in poverty because of their annual income; you want to completely ignore the reason that Ramón is a crack head... that he spends all of his time in pursuit of crack, except during that period when he is hugging' the pipe. Now this is true for Elvis the Meth-head, as well as Sabrina and Dixie, the crack and meth-whores, respectively.

The fact is that all four of our fictitious statistical po' folks are all pursuing the fulfillment of their lives; but their personal habits are not conducive to that which would otherwise provide for a decent, respectable living. Thus the problem is NOT their cash flow... it's their REASONING and their personal threshold of what they will and will NOT accept.

They have MADE CHOICES!~ They have the SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE AND THE SAME OPPORTUNITY AS EVERYONE ELSE... They CHOSE and continue to CHOOSE, EVERYDAY, to engage in behavior which would leave them impoverished. Such is the nature of the human being... They are FREE TO CHOOSE TO BE CRACK/METHHEADS... but they, like YOU are NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSONS LABOR BECAUSE OF THEIR SELF INDUCED NEEDS...

PubliusInfinitu is correct in the assessment that poverty is only a symptom and “curing” the symptom of poverty will not solve the problem. Trouble with that is we can never seem to agree with what the root problem is. First off, I have known a lot of folks on public assistance who were not drug addicts. In fact, none of the people I have known to receive public assistance were drug addicts.

All the recipients of welfare that I have met and known are single mothers (white) with 2 or 3 children with a high school education who worked part time and were trying to earn a degree between shifts at the Pizza place or fast food restaurant.

I will be the first one to say that they made poor choices, they trusted men who were untrustworthy and were opposed to abortion on religious grounds. The “same rights and opportunities” may (on paper) apply to them, but because of their fatherless upbringing they made horrible choices in men.

Unlike PubliusInfinitu I don’t feel that these women and there children should be punished for the rest of their lives for decisions made in their late teens and early twenties. After making a poor choice in men and then deciding to have the children their future options become limited and they are no longer able to make the same decisions that some of us take for granted.

False, there is not a single case, anywhere in the scope of history of humanity where a socialist policy has ever MET IT INTENDED GOAL! PERIOD. Feel free to cite your examples and I will happily show you where each is a miserable failure.

Nationalization of the US automotive industry in 1942 (Intended goal, winning WW2)

Your statement is absurd as it twists reality to avoid the truth. The left wants to PROVIDE AN ENTITLEMENT THROUGH AN ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM WHEREIN THE PRODUCT OF ONE PERSON'S LABOR IS GIVEN TO THOSE WHO DID NOT EARN IT, BUT WHO ARE DETERMINED BY THE LEFT TO HAVE A NEED OF IT; ON THE BASIS THAT THE GREATER GOOD IS MORE INPORTANT THAN THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF THEIR LABOR; which is merely the cornstone to individual liberty; the pure essence of FREEDOM...

What if the support provided does not stem from the product of the payer’s labor but the payer’s ancestor’s labor? Why can’t Paris Hilton be morally asked to contribute a small portion of her inherited wealth to improve the chances of other Americans to succeed in industry?

I do believe at some level that the Greater Good is more important that the individual’s right to the product of their labor in some cases, but in most cases I believe that the Greater Good is much more important that the individual’s entitlement to their ancestor’s labor.

This argument should appeal to anyone who has benefited by seizing property by force from others whether it be Native Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, etc. America has a history of taking from individuals when it benefited the “common good”.

I think PubliusInfinitu will argue that the individual has the right to pass down the fruits of his labor over generations, on this point we will have a fundamental disagreement as I believe that wealth should (with some limitations) revert to the community which generated the wealth. America and Britain have long supported the concept that, at some point, the labor of the individual becomes an asset of the Nation (limits on patents 7 copyright, the rule against perpetuities, etc.). I feel that it should be taken a step farther and that inheritance and passive income should be subjected to very onerous tax rates.

Indeed there is a difference... those in living in poverty that have a WANT to get out of POVERTY, NEED to improve their skill sets to the point where they are able to offer goods and services to those that WANT OR NEED them and who have something of value that they are willing to exchange for the goods and services offered by the impoverished WANTING to escape poverty.

The problem of course is those living in poverty tend towards accepting the MINIMUM in most things and as a result aren't prone to take upon themselves the EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT TO ACQUIRE THOSE SKILLS.

Once again I must say that all the recipients of public aid I have know were desperately trying to escape poverty and the limited support of the “welfare state” was wholly inadequate given the challenges they faced. It’s just very difficult earning a computer science degree (for one) or gaining the requisite credits to qualify as a journeyman body worker while raising 2 children under school age and working 20-30 hours per week.

I paid my way through school on my own (public school where 65% of the funding comes from the state), but I never would have been able to do so if I had 2 little ones depending on me. I guess that’s the benefit of being a man, we get the choice of sticking around or not.

The fact is that people in poverty are people who tend towards accepting very little of themselves and those around them... as such, they tend not do not take on the responsibility to exert the effort to improve their personal skills necessary to take themselves OUT OF POVERTY... People in poverty tend towards invalid reasoning, where they accept unsound conclusions which set the responsibility for their life upon OTHER'S... That these and other fatal flaws in their individual lives are common to those who find themselves in chronic poverty has ZERO to do with that poverty and EVERYTHING to do with those fatal flaws in their individual lives.

I agree with PubliusInfinitu on this one, the unfortunate thing is that once the cycle begins it is very difficult to escape because of the limitations some place on themselves. People that I have know to escape from poverty have the sense that they deserve more out of life and have the self esteem to work for it. The individuals that seem chained to poverty may be hard workers, but they just can’t see any other path for themselves. When I was growing up my mother was involved in charities that assisted battered women in getting suits and perfecting interview skills so they could escape dependence (on men or the state). The hardest thing to overcome was the individual’s lack of self esteem and low expectation level.

So what? Whether they worked for it or not, it remains theirs and you've no right to take it from them... You may ask them to give it to you and where they are of a mind to do so you're perfectly within your right to ACCEPT THEIR GIFT.... You are perfectly within your rights to ask them to exchange it for goods and services which they may need or desire... and you're perfectly within your rights to accept that mutually agreed upon exchange.

But you are NOT WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO USE FORCE TO CONFISCATE THEIR PROPERTY WHICH IS WHAT HUSSEIN OBAMA IS ADVANCING AS HIS ECONOMIC PLAN: THE SHARE THE CONFISCATED WEALTH.

Here is another area of fundamental disagreement, I believe in the right of the state to tax citizens for the common good. It’s much better than a system where the landowner taxes tenants for his own good. The philosophical basis of this is that the rights of all land ownership escheat to the state, therefore we are all only tenants on the governments land, fortunately in this day and age the government is usually run by and for the “people” through some form of republican democracy. At the most basic level all property belongs to the sovereign and it is the sovereign’s decision of what rights tenants are allowed to hold in property.

The sovereign (in the form of the state) is clearly within its rights (under statutory and common law) to confiscate property.

Going to college does not come with a 'wealth warranty,' there is no end to the list of college educated people that live in poverty and squalor; this, a result of POOR CHOICES THAT THEIR COLLEGE EDUCATED ASSES MADE; which is not distinct in the slightest from their poor ignorant neighbors.

PubliusInfinitu is absolutely right on this one and I think it’s a shame that the American educational system seems to push collage at all costs. Clearly there are people who would be much better served by training in a trade, service in the armed forces, or any one of many occupations which can provide a good living but do not require a 4+ year sacrifice. I think we as a nation should focus more guidance on the students in the 10%-75% of their class rather than at the top end of the spectrum. It was always expected that I would go to college and for fun I would read books on history and engineering (yes, I was that much of a dork), the state did not need to throw money at me in public school, I would have been fine with a library and a light bulb.

On the other end I was in auto shop (bookworm & motor head, weird) with a bunch of 17-18 year olds who had no clue what they would do after high school, the most ambitious were set to go into the Navy but the other 85% had no idea what was out there for them.

Patently false... The list of people that grew up in poverty and lived their adult lives outside of poverty is endless. Again you're simply perpetuating negative thinking. I will grant you this however: Those that bought into left-think, such as that which you're presently espousing, have no chance of moving out of poverty; as they have ACCEPTED THEIR POVERTY, which is key to remaining there.

I agree, there are lots of folks who escape poverty and what they all had in common was the rejection of poverty as a way of life. It’s true that if you want to stay poor, no one will try and stop you (in your head). I think the solution is to focus on convincing people to reject their poverty and understand that they are entitled to a better way of life.

Second, PEOPLE THAT REMAIN IN POVERTY DO SO BECAUSE THEY ACCEPT IT! PERIOD! THEY CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE THE EXTRORDINARY EFFORTS... thus their efforts remain ordinary and such efforts where poverty is the threshold leave little potential to result in rising above poverty.

I think there is a logical fallacy here that, while all people who accept poverty are destined to continue the cycle, but not all people who reject poverty are able to escape it and that’s where the state should focus its efforts. There is no point in throwing good money after bad, but there are situation (like state sponsored child care, etc) where the state can go a long way in helping those who want to succeed.

Just because you are HUNGRY, does NOT ESTABLISH THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEONE ELSE'S FOOD. And YOU are not the arbiter of this distinction... YOU FEELING that something of a NEED does NOT give you the right to confiscate what you feel will satisfy that need from someone that has it.

In your opinion, under US and Common law this may be a valid defense in a civil tort, just like if you are freezing you can break into an abandoned building to seek shelter.

Of course you're invited to produce reasoning which would show that A NEED DOES PRODUCE A RIGHT TO USURP THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

Once again, in your opinion. In America it depends on the extent of the need and the right you are infringing upon. There are volumes filled with incidents where a need produces a right to usurp the rights of others, from creating a fire break buy destroying a building, to conscripting citizens in a time of war. I don’t think you really agree with that absolute statement

Welfare is morally bankrupt; the principle-less idiocy of the intellectually deficient; that which seeks to establish a RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER'S LABOR TO SATISFY A SUBJECTIVELY DETERMINED NEED! A philosophical ABSURDITY.

As you can probably guess from my previous statements, I disagree. There is a philosophical basis for a right to another’s labor to satisfy a subjectively determined need (all needs are subjective to some extent).

Murder is the taking of a human life in the absence of a valid moral justification. There can be no potential for murder where one is defending themselves from a threat to their life; where that threat is founded upon an invalid moral justification; a classic example of an invalid moral justification is to threaten someone's life for the purposes of usurping their rights to the use of the product of their labor...

In short, there are only two valid moral justifications for the taking of a human life: To defend that life against a threat to one's own life, which rests upon an invalid moral justification OR the defense from such a threat being perpetrated against someone in their immediate presence.

Thus killing a person assaulting you is not murder; it is in fact a perfect moral justification for taking a human life.





I think it would boil down to where you draw the line of “invalid moral justification”, in the above example some may believe that killing a person assaulting you is morally justified while others might find it unjustified if you had an opportunity to withdraw from the situation. I know that New York and Washington would have very different views on “standing your ground” as a justification for the use of deadly force.

But where you organize with those that would take from me the means to pay those listed above from the product of MY LABOR is where we part company and it is THERE, at THAT point where you and those with whom you are organizing become a discernable threat to my means to exercise what I believe are MY RIGHTS... and I believe I've already covered what is justified where one's Rights are being threatened.

Super! And I believe that you're free to pursue the care of anyone you find in such a condition... Go DO IT! Tend to your RESPONSIBILITIES.

Indeed it is... and you and those with whom you're organizing are dangerously close to stepping on my side of that scale... and should you do so, you're going to find that myself and those that believe as I do, will correct our rights from your erroneous beliefs that you're entitled to that which we've earned to satisfy your subjective inferences of 'need.'

I suggest you keep that in mind... As your well being is becoming very much tied to your erroneous misjudgment of what Americans are prepared to tolerate... do not under-estimate our resolve... as this is intrinsically tied to your well being.

Yeah... That's a great point. I suggest you get your head around the full scope of that point. Because my group is not prone to sit idly by and watch the world screw us... our track record is one wherein we take action to do what is necessary to obtain what we need.

I believe we can all live in peace and that as long as you tend to parting with the product of your labor to minister to those you deem less fortunate and do so respecting the rights of those around you; PARTICULARLY the right to one's own life and the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life through the unfettered use of the product of one's labor, then we shall all get along fine... but as I stated at the outset, the tendency of your crown is to set your priorities in the erroneous perception of never ending NEEDS... and you're worked your way to the last nerve of us who have patiently tried to accommodate you, but are growing quite weary of the burden which carrying you people has become.

And here is where the left and right break down, from the above passages it appears that PubliusInfinitu would turn to violent action given the opportunity presented by taxation by an administration he does not agree with. I have not seen any left lining posters threaten an uprising against the federal government do to disagreements over spending. This worries me because I remember the militia movement that gained strength under Clinton and the impact it had on America. I pray that the right will actually come to terms with the election of a progressive candidate rather than turn to the Turner Diaries, Anarchists Cookbook and Revelations. Unfortunately I see that many are already Calling Obama the Anti-Christ so I fear my prayers will go unanswered.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But where you organize with those that would take from me the means to pay those listed above from the product of MY LABOR is where we part company and it is THERE, at THAT point where you and those with whom you are organizing become a discernable threat to my means to exercise what I believe are MY RIGHTS... and I believe I've already covered what is justified where one's Rights are being threatened.

Super! And I believe that you're free to pursue the care of anyone you find in such a condition... Go DO IT! Tend to your RESPONSIBILITIES.

Indeed it is... and you and those with whom you're organizing are dangerously close to stepping on my side of that scale... and should you do so, you're going to find that myself and those that believe as I do, will correct our rights from your erroneous beliefs that you're entitled to that which we've earned to satisfy your subjective inferences of 'need.'

I suggest you keep that in mind... As your well being is becoming very much tied to your erroneous misjudgment of what Americans are prepared to tolerate... do not under-estimate our resolve... as this is intrinsically tied to your well being.

Yeah... That's a great point. I suggest you get your head around the full scope of that point. Because my group is not prone to sit idly by and watch the world screw us... our track record is one wherein we take action to do what is necessary to obtain what we need.

I believe we can all live in peace and that as long as you tend to parting with the product of your labor to minister to those you deem less fortunate and do so respecting the rights of those around you; PARTICULARLY the right to one's own life and the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life through the unfettered use of the product of one's labor, then we shall all get along fine... but as I stated at the outset, the tendency of your crown is to set your priorities in the erroneous perception of never ending NEEDS... and you're worked your way to the last nerve of us who have patiently tried to accommodate you, but are growing quite weary of the burden which carrying you people has become.

And here is where the left and right break down, from the above passages it appears that Publius Infinitum would turn to violent action given the opportunity presented by taxation by an administration he does not agree with. I have not seen any left lining posters threaten an uprising against the federal government do to disagreements over spending. This worries me because I remember the militia movement that gained strength under Clinton and the impact it had on America. I pray that the right will actually come to terms with the election of a progressive candidate rather than turn to the Turner Diaries, Anarchists Cookbook and Revelations. Unfortunately I see that many are already Calling Obama the Anti-Christ so I fear my prayers will go unanswered.

Sir, I have given you my positions on human rights and they are precisely the same as those who founded the United States...

I have never taken any position which would bring harm to another individual which was not overtly threatening myself or another in my immediate sphere of influence. Nor did I ever take any position which would have advanced violent revolt during the dark days of the Clinton insurgency.

I did not however recognize the Clinton regime as the legitimate government of the United States... Nor will I recognize a government headed by a Marxist... be they Muslim or otherwise. And this based upon the certainty that they can bring nothing but ruin… I said as I sat in my chair that early morning in November, 2000 that the US would probably suffer an attack as result of the policies which Clinton was sure to advance to weaken the means of the US to defend against such… that feeling is greater by multiple orders of magnitude regarding this Marxist Muslim.

However, with that said, our nation and her economy survives on our ability to peacefully transfer power from one government to the next and while I vehemently disagree with Marxism and the Marxist that profess it, I will spend my time engaging in the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties; I will spend it contesting the legitimacy of ANY government which rests SOLELY upon an advocacy of the usurpation of individual liberty through infringing upon the means of the individual to exercise their God given rights.

I tell you now as I've stated innumerable times in the past on this site and many others, that the first shot will NOT come from us... We will not begin the looming civil war... The next US civil war will come from YOU... it will begin upon the foundation which is cast in the erroneous notion that NEED BREEDS RIGHT and it will begin where a popular consensus is that the Government is not providing what the idiocracy NEEDS and it will be a leftist rise against a leftist government which will have failed to deliver on that which it promised...

You see sir: "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

And you can rest assured sir, that we will have shown patients born only through the reinforcement of our maker, that somehow, you the great unwashed; the purveyors of tolerance and oracles of compassion would find some means to recognize valid moral principle and finally see that there was no example in human history which brought more out of and prevented more from entering poverty; that had fed more, sheltered more, provided greater comfort to more... than that established on the above principles set forth in the founding of the United States; and that what you were inevitably doing was destroying that foundation and advocating for a movement which would take that cornucopia of liberty into ruin... but there will come a point where the facade will no longer be possible; where the purpose of this ruse will be made clear, to a point beyond rationalization and once that point is crossed sir... we will destroy you and everyone that has advanced this idiocy.

But it is not our hand which controls that fate... we are busy minding our own businesses, just trying to keep the fudge-packers out of the daycare... We aren't stripping you of your rights... we're just sitting here hoping against all hope that you all just go the fuck away.

Understand this and perhaps it will quell your concern... YOU and your more radical comrades have your hand on the trigger... I believe that you 'feel' sympathy for the left and that you truly do not see what to me is the incontrovertible threat they represent; and while I understand your position, there will come a time when I will not recognize a distinction between the true believer and the appeaser; the enabler of the destruction.

I need you to see that I mean you no malice... I wish you only the best; my hope for you is nothing but the strong desire that you find every happiness in this life... the same goes for all of your friends, family, business and political associates. But I have great concern that you do not fully recognize what lurks behind that door you're crying for... I do not believe you have any idea of the forces which lurk behind that door marked "Change." I'm only asking you with every fiber of my being to not open it... to turn away from it and let us return to our philosophical debates, where we enjoy the luxury to disagree and no one is the worse for wear.

And I ask that you understand that I; that 'we' have done everything within our power to persuade you... please don't open that door; because to do so risk everything we both have... truly, it risks everything.

Please… just understand that what the future holds rests with you, the aggressors… the virulent culture of left-think. You’re the only ones that can stop it where it is still possible to stop it; so it’s purely up to you.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I think there is just a fundamental difference in world view from people who support the idea of wealth redistribution and those that oppose it.

I think ya may be onto to something there... and you'll have to forgive me, but 'Captain Obvious' is roaring through my head right now and I just can't muster the discipline to silence it...

Capitalism is great for generating huge amounts of wealth, but by its very nature tends to concentrate that wealth with in the hands of a smaller and smaller number of people. Without some control you would have all capital controlled by a handful of dynastic families as they used their hold on capital to bar entry into markets by new competitors.

Yeah... of course all capitalism is, is a free market where individuals exchange goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... of course some on the left need to argue against capitalism by demanding that it be pedantically defined by those whose focus is purely the accumulation of capital... which is wrong because doing so creates the facade that the accumulation of capital is the goal and that dismisses the fact that the key to do so requires one be FREE TO DO SO.

We all have equal rights to engage in the accumulation of capital yet most of us however do NOT... Most of us focus on the accumulation of sufficient capital to accomplish our goals and relax after that. Naturally, those with an obsession for the accumulation of capital will excel at accumulating capital, with trends taking their accumulated sums UP and down as the market and their skills ebb and flow... just like the rest of us experience ups and downs with that for which we have settled.

But the freedom that the raw capitalist enjoys is the SAME FREEDOM WE ENJOY... AND WHERE WE ALLOW THEIR FREEDOM TO BE STYMIED... WE DO THE SAME TO OUR OWN!

Screw that...

Here is my real problem with Publius Infinitum’s argument and the reason why I think I will always be considered a “liberal” socially.



Publius Infinitum is correct in the assessment that poverty is only a symptom and “curing” the symptom of poverty will not solve the problem. Trouble with that is we can never seem to agree with what the root problem is. First off, I have known a lot of folks on public assistance who were not drug addicts. In fact, none of the people I have known to receive public assistance were drug addicts. ...

I will be the first one to say that they made poor choices, they trusted men who were untrustworthy and were opposed to abortion on religious grounds. The “same rights and opportunities” may (on paper) apply to them, but because of their fatherless upbringing they made horrible choices in men.

Indeed... but that those you know on assistance were not drug addicts; were hard working people with real needs, does NOT GIVE THEM SPECIAL RIGHTS TO THE PRODUCT OF THE LABOR OF OTHER PEOPLE... PERIOD.

When you demand that the need of the hard working mother on AFDC and WIC requires a subsidy from those with the means to meet her NEEDS... YOU STRIP THAT MOTHER OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVER BECOME THE PERSON WITH THE MEANS TO SATISFY THE NEEDS OF A MOTHER IN FUTURE GENERATIONS. You do this by stripping her of incentive... you do this by reinforcing a lie; the lie that says that one's bad decisions which places one in severe WANT... is perfectly acceptable BECAUSE ONE HAS A RIGHT; ONE IS ENTITLED TO THE MEANS OF OTHERS WHICH OFFSETS THOSE WANTS.

Frankly sir, the entire leftist (neo-liberal) position is ludicrous.

Unlike Publius Infinitum I don’t feel that these women and there children should be punished for the rest of their lives for decisions made in their late teens and early twenties. After making a poor choice in men and then deciding to have the children their future options become limited and they are no longer able to make the same decisions that some of us take for granted.

The FACT that one is NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER'S LABOR IS NOT "PUNISHING" anyone... Here is where your reasoning takes a fantastic leap. You assume that the greater good trumps individual liberty... that 'the ends justify the means.' But you fail to recognize that when you rob those with means of their rights, YOU SIMULTANEOUSLY ROB THOSE WITH NEEDS OF THEIR RIGHTS!

Your reasoning is a lie, sir. You are stripping the culture of their fundamental liberty and there is absolutely NO POTENTIAL GOOD WHICH CAN COME FROM THAT.

False, there is not a single case, anywhere in the scope of history of humanity where a socialist policy has ever MET IT INTENDED GOAL! PERIOD. Feel free to cite your examples and I will happily show you where each is a miserable failure.

Nationalization of the US automotive industry in 1942 (Intended goal, winning WW2)

ROFLMNAO... Nice try... the only problem ya have there is that the US Government did not nationalize the auto-industry in 1942... The US auto-industry merely converted their production to the building of military machinery and did so quite willingly because that is where the market was... building hundreds of thousands of war planes, armor and military vehicles of every kind merely took the place of building other things by default.

The auto-industry was never owned by the US government; which would be a necessary and indisputably so function of being 'nationalized.' The auto-makers, along with the rest of the manufacturing industry in the US was handsomely paid for their war production...

That the US culture was steeled towards one tangible, critical, necessary goal of winning the war, does not mean that it was embracing socialism.

But of course it is a certainty that FDR was a fascist to his core and his policies were thus fundamentally socialist; but the US victory over the socialist axis was DESPITE FDRs own policy failures, and decidedly NOT due TO THEM. The key to the US victory over European failure was 100% due to the ability born on FREEDOM of the initiative of the INDIVIDUAL to overcome the burden of the socialist bureaucracy.

Your statement is absurd as it twists reality to avoid the truth. The left wants to PROVIDE AN ENTITLEMENT THROUGH AN ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM WHEREIN THE PRODUCT OF ONE PERSON'S LABOR IS GIVEN TO THOSE WHO DID NOT EARN IT, BUT WHO ARE DETERMINED BY THE LEFT TO HAVE A NEED OF IT; ON THE BASIS THAT THE GREATER GOOD IS MORE INPORTANT THAN THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF THEIR LABOR; which is merely the cornerstone to individual liberty; the pure essence of FREEDOM...

What if the support provided does not stem from the product of the payer’s labor but the payer’s ancestor’s labor? Why can’t Paris Hilton be morally asked to contribute a small portion of her inherited wealth to improve the chances of other Americans to succeed in industry?

BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO HER PROPERTY.

I do believe at some level that the Greater Good is more important that the individual’s right to the product of their labor in some cases, but in most cases I believe that the Greater Good is much more important that the individual’s entitlement to their ancestor’s labor.

Clearly that is what you believe... And all you need to do is to provide a VALID principle wherein you can show that YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR. Just because PH didn't earn the sum of her trust fund, that does not change the fact that YOU DID NOT EARN IT... THUS IT IS NOT YOURS! The person that DID EARN it, GAVE IT TO PH... and decidedly NOT YOU.

Now if you ask her, maybe PH will give you some of that which is HERS... OR you can exchange your goods and services for THAT WHICH IS HERS... whereupon it will become YOURS. Ya see... when you seek to strip PH of what is HERS... you STRIP THAT OF WHICH IS YOURS FROM YOURSELF. I have stated that YOU ARE FREE TO GIVE WHAT EVER YOU HAVE TO ANYONE YOU CARE TO GIVE IT TOO... but you are NOT FREE to demand that PH give you what is hers, so you can feel better.

This argument should appeal to anyone who has benefited by seizing property by force from others whether it be Native Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, etc. America has a history of taking from individuals when it benefited the “common good”.

Recognize that what you're talking about here is the forced confiscation of property... and recognize that those with whom you are opposed are not ignorant people of the earth... Your opposition is a heavily armed, highly intelligent, well motivated, well healed opposition which is working from sound principle and valid moral grounds... You're basically evoking might makes right here and I submit that if that is the case, the rich have the might and by waiving the principles of freedom you are setting yourself and the rest of up for a tyranny which I don’t believe you can even begin to get your head around… The best efforts of socialism lasted 70 years and crashed and burned in total failure; your second best effort is presently struggling to collapse under the pressure of market freedoms breaking out throughout their culture... and the balance are barely hanging on, with their socialist dreams failing across every cultural facet. Have you ever considered that your movement is incredibly well funded? Surely you aren’t buying into the notion that Hussein is getting these hundreds of millions of dollars through hundreds of thousands of little donations by Mr. and Mrs. Dumbass Liberal?

I think Publius Infinitum will argue that the individual has the right to pass down the fruits of his labor over generations, on this point we will have a fundamental disagreement as I believe that wealth should (with some limitations) revert to the community which generated the wealth.

Congrats... ya nailed that one. You have no right to another's property and to this point you've offered nothing but excuses which are serving as the foundation of your feelings... Let's see you cite a valid PRINCIPLE which gives you the right to the product of another's labor... be they dead or alive.

America and Britain have long supported the concept that, at some point, the labor of the individual becomes an asset of the Nation (limits on patents 7 copyright, the rule against perpetuities, etc.). I feel that it should be taken a step farther and that inheritance and passive income should be subjected to very onerous tax rates.

Super... your feelings do not a right make. What RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER'S LABOR?

I paid my way through school on my own (public school where 65% of the funding comes from the state), but I never would have been able to do so if I had 2 little ones depending on me. I guess that’s the benefit of being a man, we get the choice of sticking around or not.

I suspect you're correct... thus your decisions which lead to you NOT procreating were good decisions. And had you made poor decisions, you would have suffered the consequences of YOUR DECISIONS. Decisions which you could have worked to encourage your progeny to avoid... by having met your responsibilities by doing your level best to teach them that decisions often come with life altering consequences.

The fact is that people in poverty are people who tend towards accepting very little of themselves and those around them... as such, they tend not do not take on the responsibility to exert the effort to improve their personal skills necessary to take themselves OUT OF POVERTY... People in poverty tend towards invalid reasoning, where they accept unsound conclusions which set the responsibility for their life upon OTHER'S... That these and other fatal flaws in their individual lives are common to those who find themselves in chronic poverty has ZERO to do with that poverty and EVERYTHING to do with those fatal flaws in their individual lives.




I agree with Publius Infinitum on this one, the unfortunate thing is that once the cycle begins it is very difficult to escape because of the limitations some place on themselves.

Yep... Life's a bitch... But adding socialism to that life only takes life to a BITCH ON WHEELS... How does that help?

People that I have know to escape from poverty have the sense that they deserve more out of life and have the self esteem to work for it. The individuals that seem chained to poverty may be hard workers, but they just can’t see any other path for themselves. When I was growing up my mother was involved in charities that assisted battered women in getting suits and perfecting interview skills so they could escape dependence (on men or the state). The hardest thing to overcome was the individual’s lack of self esteem and low expectation level.

PRECISELY! It always is... BECAUSE THOSE WOMEN WERE DEPENDENT UPON OTHERS...

All your thesis presented here is doing is transferring that 'dependence mind-set' from one option prone to failure to an option which is CERTAIN TO FAIL.

So what? Whether they worked for it or not, it remains theirs and you've no right to take it from them... You may ask them to give it to you and where they are of a mind to do so you're perfectly within your right to ACCEPT THEIR GIFT.... You are perfectly within your rights to ask them to exchange it for goods and services which they may need or desire... and you're perfectly within your rights to accept that mutually agreed upon exchange.

But you are NOT WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO USE FORCE TO CONFISCATE THEIR PROPERTY WHICH IS WHAT HUSSEIN OBAMA IS ADVANCING AS HIS ECONOMIC PLAN: THE SHARE THE CONFISCATED WEALTH.


Here is another area of fundamental disagreement, I believe in the right of the state to tax citizens for the common good.

We don't disagree on that... we disagree on what represents 'the common good'

There can be no potential for good in the rejection of the fundamental principles of individual liberty. "Fundamental Principles of Individual Liberty" being that on which freedom rests... You erroneously believe that such is essential; I completely disagree and these are two parallel positions which will never intersect.

Your position is antithetical to individual liberty and will at some point be the impetus for a catastrophic civil war. I will point out however that such is not my wish... and such is clearly not the wish of those who think as I think; the proof of that is in the certainty that your policy goals are presently the status quo in US government. We just want to be left alone to do business, freely exchange goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties and to exercise our right to pursue the fulfillment of our lives, through the benefit of the unfettered use of the product of our labor.

I believe that without regard to who wins the upcoming election, the means to exercise that right will be substantially restricted; with the worst case; with the most restriction; to the point of infringement being realized by the Marxist Muslim, Hussein Obama. Whether or not he will cross the intangible line which passes for critical mass which results in full blown civil war, will not be known until it happens; but I'm calling the potential to be in the 70% range.

It’s much better than a system where the landowner taxes tenants for his own good. The philosophical basis of this is that the rights of all land ownership escheat to the state, therefore we are all only tenants on the governments land, fortunately in this day and age the government is usually run by and for the “people” through some form of republican democracy. At the most basic level all property belongs to the sovereign and it is the sovereign’s decision of what rights tenants are allowed to hold in property.

The sovereign (in the form of the state) is clearly within its rights (under statutory and common law) to confiscate property.

There's where you're wrong... The state owns nothing, in the US. Of course, since the onset of fascism in the early 20th century, the notion of "the People" has converted from the sum of the individuals, to "THE GOVERNMENT" and it was there that the US began to fail. But within the scope of valid principle: The Government; 'the state' OWNS NOTHING. The right of to own property is a fundamental right of the individual; where that right is usurped, individual liberty itself; individual liberty on the whole, does not and cannot exist.

Going to college does not come with a 'wealth warranty,' there is no end to the list of college educated people that live in poverty and squalor; this, a result of POOR CHOICES THAT THEIR COLLEGE EDUCATED ASSES MADE; which is not distinct in the slightest from their poor ignorant neighbors.

PubliusInfinitu is absolutely right on this one and I think it’s a shame that the American educational system seems to push collage at all costs. Clearly there are people who would be much better served by training in a trade, service in the armed forces, or any one of many occupations which can provide a good living but do not require a 4+ year sacrifice. I think we as a nation should focus more guidance on the students in the 10%-75% of their class rather than at the top end of the spectrum. It was always expected that I would go to college and for fun I would read books on history and engineering (yes, I was that much of a dork), the state did not need to throw money at me in public school, I would have been fine with a library and a light bulb.

Man... Education in the US was abandoned two generations ago. 'Public Education' today is little more than leftist indoctrination... there is virtually no attempt to educate these kids.

Any reasonable observation of the products coming out of home schooling -vs- public education proves that 'Public Education' is public enemy #1 in the cultural war to avoid the certain failure of collapse: AKA: Socialism.

As an employer I can tell you that today's college grad is the rough equivalent to the 8th grade education of only three generations ago and frankly that product was superior in every way, except that 8th grader was 12 years old... other than THAT, they could add, they could read, they could reason, they were respectful of others, thus one could set them in front of a customer and they would service that customer with respect and attentive desire to help them solve their problem.

On the other end I was in auto shop (bookworm & motor head, weird) with a bunch of 17-18 year olds who had no clue what they would do after high school, the most ambitious were set to go into the Navy but the other 85% had no idea what was out there for them.

They've no incentive to "DO" anything... because they feel entitled to everything their parents have, as if THEY earned it… through their very presence.

I agree, there are lots of folks who escape poverty and what they all had in common was the rejection of poverty as a way of life. It’s true that if you want to stay poor, no one will try and stop you (in your head). I think the solution is to focus on convincing people to reject their poverty and understand that they are entitled to a better way of life.

I agree... But I wonder if the best way to do that is to instill in them the sense that they're entitled to the product of the labor of those NOT PRESENTLY IN POVERTY?

I think there is a logical fallacy here that, while all people who accept poverty are destined to continue the cycle, but not all people who reject poverty are able to escape it and that’s where the state should focus its efforts. There is no point in throwing good money after bad, but there are situation (like state sponsored child care, etc) where the state can go a long way in helping those who want to succeed.

The State should stay the hell out of it. Poverty breeds natural incentive and some react to it positively and others negatively. The Culture should ENCOURAGE POSITIVE and REJECT NEGATIVE. It will NEVER SOLVE THE PROBLEM, because the 'problem' is a natural function of nature. But as our fellow board member has noted, we CAN and SHOULD reduce poverty to the cultural minimum; but we can NOT do so by encouraging that which can only INCREASE IT, by framing their NEED as the basis to a RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS...

Just because you are HUNGRY, does NOT ESTABLISH THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEONE ELSE'S FOOD. And YOU are not the arbiter of this distinction... YOU FEELING that something of a NEED does NOT give you the right to confiscate what you feel will satisfy that need from someone that has it.

In your opinion, under US and Common law this may be a valid defense in a civil tort, just like if you are freezing you can break into an abandoned building to seek shelter.

It may be, IF the law provides that such IS a specific legal defense. In any case, where law separates itself from valid moral principle it cannot serve justice... thus where an individual broke into an empty building to seek life saving shelter, they would have done so on a valid moral justification... but under no foreseeable circumstances would they be separated from their responsibility to pay fair compensation for any damage that their caused in the process. Just as a person who took food to prevent starvation (actual, not an overstated perception born from mere hunger...) would be liable for compensating those whose food they consumed... of course, it should also be noted that few would deprive someone threatened with freezing to death of shelter or those starving to death from food... and where such is the case, as in African nations where food is literally being withheld from those literally starving to death, it should be noted that those governments are socialist governments... as was The Soviet Union who intentionally starved tens of millions to death.

Of course you're invited to produce reasoning which would show that A NEED DOES PRODUCE A RIGHT TO USURP THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

Once again, in your opinion.

No... In point of FACT!

In America it depends on the extent of the need and the right you are infringing upon. There are volumes filled with incidents where a need produces a right to usurp the rights of others, from creating a fire break buy destroying a building, to conscripting citizens in a time of war. I don’t think you really agree with that absolute statement

You're confusing a valid right with the means of power... which again speaks to 'the ends justify the means.'

A fire break serves the building owner as well as it serves everyone else. Again, the owner of a building which is going to burn would have no moral ground to demand that his building remain whole and thus be the instrument by which his neighbors buildings would be destroyed... it would be his duty, where his building was in such a circumstance as you've implied, to tear his building down to defend the rights of his neighbors...

A national draft speaks to a culture which is realizing a tangible threat and it is the duty of each free sovereign to defend his own rights and those of his neighbors... that a sufficient percentage of the population does not agree with that responsibility (duty) that a sufficient force can be raised to adequately defend the nation; a draft rests upon solid moral justification.

Now is there room for debate on whether or not such was or would be necessary? Of course... but such is the function of sound moral leadership; thus the necessity for virtuous men and women to be seated in leadership and the dangers of allowing leftists, who are incapable of virtue, to be seated in such.

Welfare is morally bankrupt; the principle-less idiocy of the intellectually deficient; that which seeks to establish a RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER'S LABOR TO SATISFY A SUBJECTIVELY DETERMINED NEED! A philosophical ABSURDITY.

As you can probably guess from my previous statements, I disagree. There is a philosophical basis for a right to another’s labor to satisfy a subjectively determined need (all needs are subjective to some extent)..

Yes... and we're still waiting for you to cite the valid moral principle on which such a right would rest.

Murder is the taking of a human life in the absence of a valid moral justification. There can be no potential for murder where one is defending themselves from a threat to their life; where that threat is founded upon an invalid moral justification; a classic example of an invalid moral justification is to threaten someone's life for the purposes of usurping their rights to the use of the product of their labor...

In short, there are only two valid moral justifications for the taking of a human life: To defend that life against a threat to one's own life, which rests upon an invalid moral justification OR the defense from such a threat being perpetrated against someone in their immediate presence.

Thus killing a person assaulting you is not murder; it is in fact a perfect moral justification for taking a human life.



I think it would boil down to where you draw the line of “invalid moral justification”, in the above example some may believe that killing a person assaulting you is morally justified while others might find it unjustified if you had an opportunity to withdraw from the situation. I know that New York and Washington would have very different views on “standing your ground” as a justification for the use of deadly force.

Indeed... and I large measure that is the function of Federalism… however with that said, this speaks to the imperative that leftist NEVER be allowed to be seated in ANY Position which rests in the public trust or realizes power over the individual. They're idiots... and subject to abusing their power and influence by usurping the rights of the individual; a person who is infringing upon your rights and in so doing threatening your life has no moral leg on which to stand and that some addle-minded progressive feels otherwise is irrelevant. Their arguments will always be found to be absent of valid moral principle and will always seek to grant the benefit of the doubt towards rejecting the accountability of those infringing upon the valid and just rights of the individual. On what basis sir, should an individual change their course to accommodate those determined to infringe upon their rights? Are these not RIGHTS we’re discussing here… or are they merely good ideas subject to the consent of those who feel they’re otherwise?

Do you people have NO kinship with the principles of individual liberty?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Again friends... this very thread conclusively establishes that the Advocates of Social Science know damn well what Hussein is and that he and THEY stand wholly antithetical to the bedrock principles on which the United States was founded.

It can not be argued that these people, includung their Marxist Muslim candidate are nothing even approaching "American" and they represent nothing less than subversion to the very idea God given individual human rights.

 

[Odd1_Out]

I suggest you keep that in mind... As your well being is becoming very much tied to your erroneous misjudgment of what Americans are prepared to tolerate... do not under-estimate our resolve... as this is intrinsically tied to your well being.

Yeah... That's a great point. I suggest you get your head around the full scope of that point. Because my group is not prone to sit idly by and watch the world screw us... our track record is one wherein we take action to do what is necessary to obtain what we need.

I believe we can all live in peace and that as long as you tend to parting with the product of your labor to minister to those you deem less fortunate and do so respecting the rights of those around you; PARTICULARLY the right to one's own life and the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life through the unfettered use of the product of one's labor, then we shall all get along fine... but as I stated at the outset, the tendency of your crown is to set your priorities in the erroneous perception of never ending NEEDS... and you're worked your way to the last nerve of us who have patiently tried to accommodate you, but are growing quite weary of the burden which carrying you people has become.

You aren't carrying me, my family is wealthy, have been for quite some time. Quit lumping me in with the people I defend and acting like I'm speaking out of self interest because I'm not.

Since we can't agree on basic math, and you chose to misrepresent the goals of the left, I'll just address some the ideological hypocrisy of the right.

You talk about your resolve, when misunderstanding the meaning of all of our well-being being tied together. Choosing to continue to ignore the suffering of the poor, and falling back on the excuse that they are simply lazy, not fighting every day for survival and a better life, and not considering their well-being a part of yours.

You talk of life and the pursuit of fulfilling that life, when you no doubt would have supported prop 8 in California, not understanding that love and hapiness (as well as money) are a basic part of each individuals well-being that you are tied to.

Tell me more about how you really care about other people. That is the basic claim that I am making... that you don't care about other people, don't want to help the less fortunate, or extend the opportunities that you already have to others who are being refused them by society. This is my only issue with you.