What Really Divides Us?

[Pepe]

Or, to put it another way (but in the same derogatory vein) - those who value individual selfishness - "what's mine is mine and screw you" and those who feel that the individual, as part of a society, has a responsibility for that society.

That is an incredibly intellectually flawed argument. Everyone is entitled to what they rightfully earn. That is the very driver that breeds success and innovation. Nobody is going to go the extra mile if they aren't going to reap the rewards for doing so. It's basic human behavior and has been observed and proven time and time again. Collectivism only results in the halting of progress.

Nobody is entitled to take something of someone else's just because they may have more and think it's unfair. That attitude is childish and a trait of somebody emotionally weak who refuses to take responsibility for his own life and instead just blames somebody else for his failures.

If you feel that you have a responsibility to society then nobody is stopping you from helping society. Nobody is stopping you from being charitable to others. That doesn't obligate anybody else to engage in the same level of charity as you just because you think they should. The idea of America is that it is a nation built on individual freedom and liberty. That means that I have the right to spend a day helping build a Habitat house, which I do twice a year. It means the Levines, the wealthiest family here in Charlotte, have the right to donate millions of their personal fortune to public causes around the city. It also means that people like Ebenizer Scrooge have the right to keep every penny they earn and not give it out to anybody if that's their decision. It's not your decision. Your view doesn't promote liberty, it impedes it.

A clear and concise explanation of the differences between True Conservatives/Libertarians and the Collectivists/Statists who masquerade as Democrats and Neocon Republicans.

 

[editec]

Look...the American people cannot even agree on the basic facts anymore.

So, even if we all wanted the same outcomes for this nation, we cannot agree how to arrive at them.

And this confusion about what is real and what is not is NOT, in my opinion, an ACCIDENT.

 

[Coyote]

Or, to put it another way (but in the same derogatory vein) - those who value individual selfishness - "what's mine is mine and screw you" and those who feel that the individual, as part of a society, has a responsibility for that society.

That is an incredibly intellectually flawed argument. Everyone is entitled to what they rightfully earn. That is the very driver that breeds success and innovation. Nobody is going to go the extra mile if they aren't going to reap the rewards for doing so. It's basic human behavior and has been observed and proven time and time again. Collectivism only results in the halting of progress.

Nobody is entitled to take something of someone else's just because they may have more and think it's unfair. That attitude is childish and a trait of somebody emotionally weak who refuses to take responsibility for his own life and instead just blames somebody else for his failures.

If you feel that you have a responsibility to society then nobody is stopping you from helping society. Nobody is stopping you from being charitable to others. That doesn't obligate anybody else to engage in the same level of charity as you just because you think they should. The idea of America is that it is a nation built on individual freedom and liberty. That means that I have the right to spend a day helping build a Habitat house, which I do twice a year. It means the Levines, the wealthiest family here in Charlotte, have the right to donate millions of their personal fortune to public causes around the city. It also means that people like Ebenizer Scrooge have the right to keep every penny they earn and not give it out to anybody if that's their decision. It's not your decision. Your view doesn't promote liberty, it impedes it.

Buddy, it is indeed an incredibly flawed argument -- but it was in response to an incredibly flawed argument: "The conflict is between those who value individual liberty and accept individual responsibility vs. collectivist "take care of me" whingers." - as I noted when I stated: "but in the same derogatory vein"

I see no reason to waste a good debate on that sort of comment so I choose to respond "in kind".

 

[Sky Dancer]

Us vs Them instead of "We, the people"....

you only say "we the people" when the demonRats are in charge. the rest of the time it's "fuck you."

Your post is a good example of divisiveness. Calling fellow citizens 'demonrats'. You're so bitter. Don't you realize your party had eight years? These things cycle. Your party will have future Presidents and majority rule.

The one with a fuck you attitude is you.

 

[hortysir]

8yr old articles by lunatics

 

[007]

What divides us is words and actions... ******, kyke, ****, cracker, honkey, wetback, nip, slant eye, rag head, sand ******, beaner, dago... affirmative action, lynching, protests, marches, riots, shootings... eliminate all the slurs, eliminate all the actions, and no one will care one way or another, ever again, what color anyone else's skin is.

But I can tell you right now with absolute certainty, that will never happen. Racism is all but inbred, it's in our DNA, and it's taught. Government uses racism to it's advantage. There are no bigger race baiters on earth than a politician, especially the dems.

“I’ll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.”

Circa 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s vow after he signed into law civil rights legislation.

Inside the White House, Ronald Kessler, Simon & Schuster, p. 33.

LBJ called the Civil Rights Act “that ****** Bill.”

N-Word Preacher - Unveiling Hillary

 

[Avorysuds]

Quick question............does that mean we should take out all the speed limit signs and just let anyone drive any speed they want? After all, speed limits limit the individual's right to get to where they are going as fast as they want, right? I mean, who doesn't mind someone driving 75 mph down their residential street?

While you're at it, let's legalize DUI, because after all, that limits the individuals right to get drunk and make it home, right?

These examples are ridiculous. Having individual rights doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do what ever you want. You don't have the right to engage in behavior that can physically harm someone in the name of individual rights, but you already knew that, so why waste our time asking the question?

Okay then.......we limited the rights of corporate shareholders to make obscene profits until Bush Jr. de-regulated a lot of the Wall St. stuff.

Result? Stockmarket crash.

We limited the rights of BP to drill anywhere and any way they wished. Regulations were removed and BP was able to maximize profits by drilling shoddy wells.

Result? Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Yeah.....tell me again how it's bad to limit individuals.

Hahaha, and your defense is more made up crap.

 

[Avorysuds]

I like Dr Paul's MJ stance, here he is a grand wizard though.

Prove it, I dare you... When we see people like your self so full of hate, a responce like yours makes sense. RP is KKK because he believes everyone should be treated equal by the Government, maybe the government should tax everyone but white people? Wait, to not tax only white people would be RACIST!!! Maybe the Government should tax only white people..... YAY topspin agrees!

At least you have the spin in your name, you're not hidding your real objective.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What divides us? Simple. Those of us who work for what we want and need divided against those who feel we owe them something. Demoncrats play a war on economics, race, class and of course business. they preach racial hatred and division.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh?? ​

 

[editec]

What Really Divides Us?

By Rep. Ron Paul, MD

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE @
What Really Divides Us? by Rep. Ron Paul

The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

It wasn't "uncomfortably obsessed with racism 200 years ago?

I think it was.

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Undoubtably the FEDERAL government has gained the upper hand in terms of power.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

I think this is mostly BS.

The tension was there long before the FEDS got involved.

Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Straw man alert!

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

This guy is an idiot. I cannot understand why people think he's a deep thinker.

Mankind is a social animal.

All the ruggest individualism mythos in the world isn't going to change that fact.

If rugged individualism was such a powerful force, why is most of the power centralized in corporations?

Corporations are, after all, SOCIAL instiutions.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

That's goofy on om many levels it defies logical refutation

The true antidote to racism is liberty.

Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

Liberty would be nice.

Social justice is about as close as we can come to every finding it.