Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[kwc57]

First, there have always been unethical, dishonest, and unprincipled people in the world. There always will be unethical, dishonest, and unprincipled people in the world. These people exist among all socioeconomic and political classes. And in my opinion, they are pretty rare. We can choose to focus on these as a red herring to distract from the topic, or we can choose to focus on the topic which takes in all Americans rather than the few unethical, dishonest, and unprincipled to be found both among the rich and among the much less rich.

There is nothing in the OP that villifies education by anybody. Another red herring.

There is nothing in the OP that characterizes the less advantaged as leeches or which group holds the high moral ground. The third and fourth red herrings of your post.

The cultural divide is essentially a disparity between how we see people as deserving of anything. You may see the very rich who cut jobs as being undeserving. I may see the guy who won't take the unattractive job that would get him off food stamps as undeserving. I might take the Biblical view of he who will not work, let him not eat. You may take the Biblical view of he who feeds the one who is hungry serves the Lord.

There are two legitimate points of view to be debated here.

But it's easier to screw your fellow American in the quest for wealth. Therefore, any guilt associated with that can be easily dismissed as 'quaint'. Sure there have always been the unethical, the criminal, the dishonest. But without the encumbrance of ethics, more folks will follow that path than not. And here we are. 1% vs 99%.

You listed 'local' education. Yet 'public' education is the whipping boy of everyone willing to cede power to the market rather than the public. What a shame. If they had their way, only those with means could get an education. A permanent subclass of uneducated poor would forever languish while others can snidely comment "Get a job, bum!" Ah! Freedom to exploit! Get the state out of the police game and let the corporations rule as they are mandated to by Conservatism. gobbledygook.

Actually, 53% vs 47%.

 

[syrenn]

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


It is every americnas right to have all of these things. It is also every americans right to work and pay for these things


I voted 10 becasue what i think you are saying/asking is:


Are Adult Americans entitled to be provided with

This goes to the heart of it and also the excellent explanation of what unalienable/inalienable rights are in PC's last post.

The question in the OP/poll is "Do adult Americans have a fundamental right to be provided with. . . ."

Whenever we are provided such things, it requires participation by or a contribution from one or more other people. Once we are adults, do any of us have a fundamental right to demand any product or service from another human being? To be provided that product or service by other human beings?

If we do, other than the degree of slavery, what separates us from the slave masters of the 19th century? If I can demand that you do something for me or give me something, do you really have any rights at all?

The only God given, unalienable rights, as the Founders saw it, are what require no participation or contribution by any other person. If we are to be a free people, everything else must be established in a social contract with others and, the experiment in American exceptionalism requires that social contract be agreed on and be of mutual benefit to those entering into it.

Whenever government can establish and dictate the social contract, we no longer have American exceptionalism but are reverting back to the monarchy and/or other totalitarian government from which the Founders sought to free us.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with voluntary charity or concern for the less advantaged which is a totally different subject.

again..

do they have the right to be provided with..

or

do they feel entitled to be provided with...


Huge difference. IMO they do not have the right to anything they do not pay for themselves. That does not stop them from feeling entitled to everything they want.

 

[Foxfyre]

But, these are hardly rights.
Rights are God-given, and require no one else to participate in their assignment. Speech is a right.

A nice sentiment, perhaps, but in reality rights don't exist without a government to enforce them. "God-given" rights aren't worth much, if they can be violated with impunity. For example, if I'm stronger than you, you have the right to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes I might leave you some scraps.

I hope that helps and clears up your misconceptions about where rights come from.

You are right. Without a government to secure and defend the unalienable rights of the people, you have anarchy in which nobody's rights are recognized or protected. The American Constitution was a great experiment however and to date produced the only nation that has ever existed in the world in which the unalienable rights of the people are known to be God given and the government is assigned the duty to recognize, secure, and defend them rather than the government arbitrarily assigned what rights the people would have.

The American Constitution produced the greatest, most altruistic, most efficient, most effective, most prosperous, most free nation that world has ever known.
The Founders intended the U.S. Constitution to secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. And for the last hundred years or so, we have slowly been whittling away at the core principle of the Constitution and reverting back to the European monarchal/totalitarian form of government the Constitution was designed to free us from.

 

[rightwinger]

Are they? Please explain the virtue in a concept in which Citizen A who stayed in school and educated himself, who stayed away from illegal activities and substances, who worked at whatever Mcjobs he could get to develop a work ethic, references, and marketable skills until he could qualify for a career opportunity, who waited until he got married to have kids and therefore achieved a nice place in the American dream. . . . .

. . . explain to me how leftist virtues demand that he be responsible to provide all those things on the list to Citizen B who chose not to do any of the things necessary to achieve a place in the American dream?

No fair changing or altering the question to give yourself one easier to answer.

Citizen A (your example) is not directly responsible for providing all those things to Citizen B anymore than Citizen A is directly responsible for maintaining the Pacific Fleet or Yellowstone National Park. But the common government of both Citizen A and Citizen B should provide for those services. The framing of your question infers that all the tax dollars of one person should go directly into the pocket of another.

Well, my tax dollars have shown up on the balance sheets of McDonald Douglas, Grumman, General Dynamics and Halliburton. They have also been used to provide a warm home, an education for other's children, meals for the hungry and medical aid to the sick and elderly.

Now I can argue that those are more virtuous than giving money to defense contractors so they can enjoy a conference in Hawaii or bonuses for their corporate leaders.

I think that if Citizen B is never helped, there are more dire consequences than if Halliburton gets a no bid contract. Call me crazy, but I have been told that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'm just following those principles.

No, no, no. You changed the question and I did not give permission to do that.

The question is not what benefit is there to society if Citizen B is helped. The question is not whether there are merits in helping Citizen B.

The question is on what moral authority do you require Citizen A to provide for Citizen B whether individually or collectively and how do you justify the choice of who is given the moral authority to confiscate what Citizen A rightfuly earned or acquired it and give it to Citizen B?

Both Citizen A and Citizen B are members of our society. Citizen A does not give money directly to Citizen B.....he contributes to our society and our society provides programs that help the society as a whole. It does not mean that all members contribute equally or that all receive equally....but that the society as a whole benefits

 

[Decepticon]

What I find just AWESOME is how CONZ rail that no one should be protected against losing their homes if they get sick or lose their jobs like those socialists in Europe get. Heaven forfend people be unburdened by FEAR. What will CONZ use to control you if not FEAR?

 

[rightwinger]

Citizen A works and has no kids
Citizen B works and has five kids

Under what authority does society have the right to take money from Citizen A to pay to educate Citizen Bs children?

Is that welfare?

 

[Claudette]

Deception, what a dope.

 

[Foxfyre]

But, these are hardly rights.
Rights are God-given, and require no one else to participate in their assignment. Speech is a right.

A nice sentiment, perhaps, but in reality rights don't exist without a government to enforce them. "God-given" rights aren't worth much, if they can be violated with impunity. For example, if I'm stronger than you, you have the right to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes I might leave you some scraps.

I hope that helps and clears up your misconceptions about where rights come from.

But if you have a nation as the Founders designed this one in which the government is charged with the duty to respect your right to what you legitimately killed (worked for), then the stronger bully who takes it from you is subject to consequences for violating your rights. Because you did the work, because you lawfully and ethically acquired the property, if your rights are recognized and protected, it is your prerogative and not the government's prerogatibve as to whether you will share your kill with the guy who decided to not hunt for himself and hopes you'll leave him some scraps.

The Founders saw your ethically and legally acquired property as inviolate and it is your choice how much of it, if any, you wish to share with others.

 

[Foxfyre]

Could I be blessed with a mod taking the unwanted "f" out of 'right' in the poll question? (I have a new laptop and the keyboard is just enough different than what I'm used to that I seem to add unwanted letters here and there.)

 

[Foxfyre]

What I find just AWESOME is how CONZ rail that no one should be protected against losing their homes if they get sick or lose their jobs like those socialists in Europe get. Heaven forfend people be unburdened by FEAR. What will CONZ use to control you if not FEAR?

This is your concept of civility?

So, please explain the justification for the principle that I can expect you to pay my mortgage or my hospital bill or replace my income no matter what. I'm sure you can, and hey thanks for your unselfish generosity. It is pretty neat that I no longer need to prepare for those contingencies or rely on private charities for help. Please send me your full name, address, and bank account number so I won't have to worry about a thing.

Isn't liberalism wonderful?

 

[Nosmo King]

Are they? Please explain the virtue in a concept in which Citizen A who stayed in school and educated himself, who stayed away from illegal activities and substances, who worked at whatever Mcjobs he could get to develop a work ethic, references, and marketable skills until he could qualify for a career opportunity, who waited until he got married to have kids and therefore achieved a nice place in the American dream. . . . .

. . . explain to me how leftist virtues demand that he be responsible to provide all those things on the list to Citizen B who chose not to do any of the things necessary to achieve a place in the American dream?

No fair changing or altering the question to give yourself one easier to answer.

Citizen A (your example) is not directly responsible for providing all those things to Citizen B anymore than Citizen A is directly responsible for maintaining the Pacific Fleet or Yellowstone National Park. But the common government of both Citizen A and Citizen B should provide for those services. The framing of your question infers that all the tax dollars of one person should go directly into the pocket of another.

Well, my tax dollars have shown up on the balance sheets of McDonald Douglas, Grumman, General Dynamics and Halliburton. They have also been used to provide a warm home, an education for other's children, meals for the hungry and medical aid to the sick and elderly.

Now I can argue that those are more virtuous than giving money to defense contractors so they can enjoy a conference in Hawaii or bonuses for their corporate leaders.

I think that if Citizen B is never helped, there are more dire consequences than if Halliburton gets a no bid contract. Call me crazy, but I have been told that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'm just following those principles.

No, no, no. You changed the question and I did not give permission to do that.

The question is not what benefit is there to society if Citizen B is helped. The question is not whether there are merits in helping Citizen B.

The question is on what moral authority do you require Citizen A to provide for Citizen B whether individually or collectively and how do you justify the choice of who is given the moral authority to confiscate what Citizen A rightfuly earned or acquired it and give it to Citizen B?

The moral authority is granted in the preamble of the constitution. There's a part that goes along with "provide for the common defense' that says 'promote the general welfare'

The general welfare of the citizens of the united States suffers when some of its citizens live in poverty while others game the system and benefit beyond their capacity to enjoy.

Taxes are 'confiscated' to provide compensation to private companies, to large agricultural interests, the separate states and the bureaucracies established to serve them. There is a morality to aiding disadvantaged citizens as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Citizen A (your example) is not directly responsible for providing all those things to Citizen B anymore than Citizen A is directly responsible for maintaining the Pacific Fleet or Yellowstone National Park. But the common government of both Citizen A and Citizen B should provide for those services. The framing of your question infers that all the tax dollars of one person should go directly into the pocket of another.

Well, my tax dollars have shown up on the balance sheets of McDonald Douglas, Grumman, General Dynamics and Halliburton. They have also been used to provide a warm home, an education for other's children, meals for the hungry and medical aid to the sick and elderly.

Now I can argue that those are more virtuous than giving money to defense contractors so they can enjoy a conference in Hawaii or bonuses for their corporate leaders.

I think that if Citizen B is never helped, there are more dire consequences than if Halliburton gets a no bid contract. Call me crazy, but I have been told that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'm just following those principles.

No, no, no. You changed the question and I did not give permission to do that.

The question is not what benefit is there to society if Citizen B is helped. The question is not whether there are merits in helping Citizen B.

The question is on what moral authority do you require Citizen A to provide for Citizen B whether individually or collectively and how do you justify the choice of who is given the moral authority to confiscate what Citizen A rightfuly earned or acquired it and give it to Citizen B?

The moral authority is granted in the preamble of the constitution. There's a part that goes along with "provide for the common defense' that says 'promote the general welfare'

The general welfare of the citizens of the united States suffers when some of its citizens live in poverty while others game the system and benefit beyond their capacity to enjoy.

Taxes are 'confiscated' to provide compensation to private companies, to large agricultural interests, the separate states and the bureaucracies established to serve them. There is a morality to aiding disadvantaged citizens as well.

I have not advocating providing compensation to private companies, to large agribultural intersts, or the separate states and the bureaucracies to serve them. I see that as just as unconstitutional as providing unearned compensation to private citizens. Your fourth or fifith? red herring of the day.

The Constitution indeed mandates that the federal government provide the common defense. Not for it. Provide it. Why? Because that is how our rights are secured. When we know that the government recognizes, protects, and defends our unalienable rights against all enemies, within and without, we are people truly free to live with liberty to pursue whatever will make us happy short of violating anybody else's rights.

Even the most cursory reading of the federalist and anti-federalist papers will find the Founders essentially 100% in agreement with a 'general welfare' of ALL citizens meaning what promotes benefit to all equally without prejudice and without respect for socioeconomivc, religious, or political standing. And they were all quite clear on the principle that the federal government violates unalienable rights when it confiscates lawfully and ethically acquired property from one citizen for the benefit of another.

It is no more ethical for the government to take your property and give it to me because somebody decided I needed it more than you do than it is for me to make that decision myself. It is not benevolence or charity to help people with somebody else's money.

 

[rightwinger]

No, no, no. You changed the question and I did not give permission to do that.

The question is not what benefit is there to society if Citizen B is helped. The question is not whether there are merits in helping Citizen B.

The question is on what moral authority do you require Citizen A to provide for Citizen B whether individually or collectively and how do you justify the choice of who is given the moral authority to confiscate what Citizen A rightfuly earned or acquired it and give it to Citizen B?

The moral authority is granted in the preamble of the constitution. There's a part that goes along with "provide for the common defense' that says 'promote the general welfare'

The general welfare of the citizens of the united States suffers when some of its citizens live in poverty while others game the system and benefit beyond their capacity to enjoy.

Taxes are 'confiscated' to provide compensation to private companies, to large agricultural interests, the separate states and the bureaucracies established to serve them. There is a morality to aiding disadvantaged citizens as well.

I have not advocating providing compensation to private companies, to large agribultural intersts, or the separate states and the bureaucracies to serve them. I see that as just as unconstitutional as providing unearned compensation to private citizens. Your fourth or fifith? red herring of the day.

The Constitution indeed mandates that the federal government provide the common defense. Not for it. Provide it. Why? Because that is how our rights are secured. When we know that the government recognizes, protects, and defends our unalienable rights against all enemies, within and without, we are people truly free to live with liberty to pursue whatever will make us happy short of violating anybody else's rights.

Even the most cursory reading of the federalist and anti-federalist papers will find the Founders essentially 100% in agreement with a 'general welfare' of ALL citizens meaning what promotes benefit to all equally without prejudice and without respect for socioeconomivc, religious, or political standing. And they were all quite clear on the principle that the federal government violates unalienable rights when it confiscates lawfully and ethically acquired property from one citizen for the benefit of another.

It is no more ethical for the government to take your property and give it to me because somebody decided I needed it more than you do than it is for me to make that decision myself. It is not benevolence or charity to help people with somebody else's money.

The founding fathers never advocated that everyone must give equally or benefit equally from the general welfare provided by the government

 

[bripat9643]

Citizen A works and has no kids
Citizen B works and has five kids

Under what authority does society have the right to take money from Citizen A to pay to educate Citizen Bs children?

Is that welfare?

Society (government) has no such authority, actually. You just perfectly enunciated the moral argument against public education.

 

[Foxfyre]

Citizen A works and has no kids
Citizen B works and has five kids

Under what authority does society have the right to take money from Citizen A to pay to educate Citizen Bs children?

Is that welfare?

Society has no right to take money from anybody to educate anybody's kids EXCEPT by social contract agreed to by the whole society.

A community can of course choose to home school all the kids. But when some/most parents do not feel qualified or just choose not to do that, they can hire tutors to do it for them. Or, they can get together and build a schoolhouse and share in the cost of construction, upkeep, and the salary of a teacher to teach all the kids. Countless communities across the land chose to educate via social contract in exactly that manner.

In time as the communities grew, the school system expanded with the population and school districts were formed. Via bond elections--again all the citizens choose the social contract--the schools are funded. This is social contract at its best. And the schools developed in this way were some of the very best in the world. Even childless people are willing to pay their share in order to have an educated society rather than an ignorant one. Those who chose not to participate simply moved into unincorporated areas with no school system.

Once the federal government got involved in a dictatorial or coercive manner, the social contract was shelved. And because a one-size-fits-all approach to education has proved to be disastrous, the USA now has some of the highest per capital expenses for education while producing one of the poorest public education systems in the developed world.

In short I cannot justify any government intiative to take money from Citizen A to educate Citizen B's children until Citizen A chooses to do that and agrees for the government to administer that function.

 

[bripat9643]

The general welfare of the citizens of the united States suffers when some of its citizens live in poverty while others game the system and benefit beyond their capacity to enjoy.

By "game the system" you mean work harder and smarter and thereby achieve more. How do I benefit when the government writes checks to alcoholics lying in the gutter or sluts who get pregnant because they can't keep their legs closed?

Taxes are 'confiscated' to provide compensation to private companies, to large agricultural interests, the separate states and the bureaucracies established to serve them. .

You won't find advocates of capitalism supporting any of that. They've been criticizing it since this nation was founded.

There is a morality to aiding disadvantaged citizens as well.

Only if it's voluntary. Welfare is theft.

 

[JDzBrain]

A right to what? Justice.

Actually...we do NOT have a right to justice. We have a RIGHT to EQUAL PROTECTIONS under the law. Not justice. Justice is dependent on the morels of a given society at the time. A right to EQUAL protections under the legal system is not. A small, but IMPORTANT distinction! ;~)

But, these are hardly rights.
Rights are God-given, and require no one else to participate in their assignment. Speech is a right.

A nice sentiment, perhaps, but in reality rights don't exist without a government to enforce them. "God-given" rights aren't worth much, if they can be violated with impunity. For example, if I'm stronger than you, you have the right to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes I might leave you some scraps.

I hope that helps and clears up your misconceptions about where rights come from.

In America...we ARE the government! The ONLY reason our rights are protected is because WE have determined that the founders were right, our rights are divine and therefore inalienable and are willing to fight to protect them. Otherwise, we would have chucked the Constitution and renounced the Declaration of Independence a LONG time ago!

Power in our system of government...unless progressives are allowed their head...power flows from the people UP. NOT the ruling elite down.

The assumption by FAR to many that the government is a separate entity from "We the People" is the biggest problem we have in this country right now. WE...elect our representatives. WE...are the ones who have to claim and reclaim responsibility for this mess!

And we conservatives have to claim a large portion of the responsibility for it. Conservatives by the very definition of the word are...well, conservative. Non confrontational. That fact has lead too many of us to stand on the sidelines for far to long. We ARE the majority in this country.

80% of Americans believe in a god...which maintains the divinity of our rights. Nearly that many, 78% believe the government has grown too big and too far from our founding principles and the Constitution. A big part of the problem is that too many are functionally illiterate about the Constitution.

Allowing that to happen is the fault of those who have failed to participate. FORTUNATELY for the future of this country...more and more constitutional conservatives have begun to wake up. Learning the difference between a REAL constitutional right and the progressive wish list of rights IS a personal responsibility, but it doesn't mean conservatives can't help...and help is on the way!

That's why the huge jump in libertarianism and the growth of the TEA Party. Help IS on the way!

FDR never proposed that those rights be given to every American for free but that every American has a right to expect to be able to obtain those necessities in life. When our society has reached a level where those basic rights are no longer obtainable by our citizens we need to reasses our priorities

Actually...that is EXACTLY what FDR proposed! He told his financial adviser at the time, who by the way said later in his biography that it (SS) was the worst mistake made in American history, but FDR told him that if he could get congress to provide the seed money for Social Security...the "people, being the lazy creatures they are" would never let them do away with it. See, Social Security was SUPPOSE to be temporarily funded with the original 48 million dollars congress authorized. It was SUPPOSE to be privatized within 6 years...which as we all know NEVER HAPPENED. Privatized....huh? Where have we heard that lately?

FDR intended that ALL those should be rights and would do ANYTHING to make it happen!

Folks...for the sake of this country...PLEASE...read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. NOT just skim over it. READ it....cause it is painfully obvious that far to many of us have NEVER seen the document!

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[bripat9643]

The founding fathers never advocated that everyone must give equally or benefit equally from the general welfare provided by the government

They certainly never advocated the government writing checks to anyone simply because they are breathing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What I find just AWESOME is how CONZ rail that no one should be protected against losing their homes if they get sick or lose their jobs like those socialists in Europe get. Heaven forfend people be unburdened by FEAR. What will CONZ use to control you if not FEAR?

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”

"...relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of he effort associated with living.”

Do you understand that the "immense, tutelary power" is the progressive government that you worship?

 

[LoneLaugher]

So many constitutional scholars all in one place. This is certainly impressive.