Your thoughts on this passage?

[JBeukema]

A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.

I would not find fault with the assertions in principle, but I take it to be a very idealistic statement. For example, there are still people right now in Baltimore who are left to spend the night like dogs in alleyways. But the problem is more likely mental illness among the homeless than the indifference of society. Yet it still means that there are those who are elderly, or ill and infirm-who cannot provide or care for themselves- whose needs are not yet being tended to.

Thank you for taking the time to actually post a thoughtful reply.

there are still people right now in Baltimore who are left to spend the night like dogs in alleyways

Doubtless our system is imperfect at this time. I believe this stems largely from the overall lack of priorities and fiscal responsibility which has allowed corporations, corrupt unions, and crooked politicians to line their own pockets first while our society nears economic collapse at all levels. Clearly, we need to seriously reform our social programs and remove needless redundancy while striving for effeciency.

the problem is more likely mental illness among the homeless than the indifference of society

See above. This is largely a problem of funding for programs which would aid these persons. In turn, this is a symptom of our larger economic and fiscal foolheadeness at all levels of government.

In some specific instances, such as Detroit, the fundamental issue is one of the society and its economy not being built on a sustainable foundation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

We recently had a thread where the claim was made millions of Americans had starved to death in this Country in the last 30 years due to poverty. Of course through out that thread NEVER was a single name given as to the supposed people that starved to death.

You support Tyranny, you support the Government forcefully taking from those that have to support those that you claim need it. That is not OUR Government nor is it sanctioned by the Constitution.

The reality is that the Government is corrupt and incompetent. For every dollar they take for welfare they spend at least 50 cents of it or more on Government employees to "redistribute" the money. The reality is that before the Government started the programs we have now the poor WERE taken care of, the rich and the middle class provided charity to those in need.

 

[JBeukema]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Dregs?

Even with you people screaming about the tax rates, Bill Gates is hardly struggling to get by on the dregs of his income.

Using Bill Gates is an outlier. Somebody who could never spend his own fortune in several lifetimes is not at all representative of the vast majority who work for a living.

I never said that the majority of those who work should be subject to the same taxation as Bill Gates.

'As they are able', Bo


And how can altruism which seeks to prevent the starvation of children be 'destructive'?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dregs?

Even with you people screaming about the tax rates, Bill Gates is hardly struggling to get by on the dregs of his income.

Using Bill Gates is an outlier. Somebody who could never spend his own fortune in several lifetimes is not at all representative of the vast majority who work for a living.

I never said that the majority of those who work should be subject to the same taxation as Bill Gates.

'As they are able', Bo


And how can altruism which seeks to prevent the starvation of children be 'destructive'?

Perhaps YOU can give us some names of children in the US that have starved to death?

 

[JBeukema]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

The underlying message in the OP is collectivist.
.

The underlying message is that we as individuals and as a society can all be judged by what we do for the least among us.

Would you say Jesus of Nazareth was a good man for feeding the poor and healing the sick?

 

[Madeline]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

The underlying message in the OP is collectivist.

And your post is undeserving of any response other than to say a government whose purpose is Forced Charity does so by enslaving the productive.

Wealth accumulation is a "collectivist" activity. All societies are inherently "collectivist". Damning the social programs we rely on to prevent undue loss of life via starvation, etc. as "charity" begs the question.

IMO, these programs (the ones we should have, not the ones we actually have) are a legitimate expense of living together and serve the needs of us all. There is greater peace and security in a society in which no one (or very few) are left to starve, and that not only benefits all members, it benefits the wealthiest members disproportionately.

 

[JBeukema]

Using Bill Gates is an outlier. Somebody who could never spend his own fortune in several lifetimes is not at all representative of the vast majority who work for a living.

I never said that the majority of those who work should be subject to the same taxation as Bill Gates.

'As they are able', Bo


And how can altruism which seeks to prevent the starvation of children be 'destructive'?

Perhaps YOU can give us some names of children in the US that have starved to death?

What ever are you going on about? That hunger is not a problem for any sizable portion of our population is a testament to the success of socialism in the Unites States and the very sorts of measures advocated in the OP.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

The underlying message in the OP is collectivist.
.

The underlying message is that we as individuals and as a society can all be judged by what we do for the least among us.

Would you say Jesus of Nazareth was a good man for feeding the poor and healing the sick?

You are NOT arguing for charity you are arguing that the Government should seize private citizens property and wealth.

 

[Madeline]

The underlying message in the OP is collectivist.
.

The underlying message is that we as individuals and as a society can all be judged by what we do for the least among us.

Would you say Jesus of Nazareth was a good man for feeding the poor and healing the sick?

You are NOT arguing for charity you are arguing that the Government should seize private citizens property and wealth.

No, RGS. I at least am arguing that the wealthy enjoy far greater benefits from living amongst us and therefore, it is reasonable to expect them to pay more for the cost of maintenance of the society. IMO, preventing hunger is as legitimate a government function as paving roads.....possibly moreso.

 

[JBeukema]

The underlying message in the OP is collectivist.
.

The underlying message is that we as individuals and as a society can all be judged by what we do for the least among us.

Would you say Jesus of Nazareth was a good man for feeding the poor and healing the sick?

You are NOT arguing for charity you are arguing that the Government should seize private citizens property and wealth.

The government is the People

or do you not believe in representative government?

America today is a wonderful place to live. This is thanks to socialism. Compare England 1844 for an example of capitalism in action. Without the People acting through the State to enact reform and establish a more just society, the masses were left to starve.

 

[Revere]

What "socialism?" Public libraries, roads, police and fire protection?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The underlying message is that we as individuals and as a society can all be judged by what we do for the least among us.

Would you say Jesus of Nazareth was a good man for feeding the poor and healing the sick?

You are NOT arguing for charity you are arguing that the Government should seize private citizens property and wealth.

The government is the People

or do you not believe in representative government?

America today is a wonderful place to live. This is thanks to socialism. Compare England 1844 for an example of capitalism in action. Without the People acting through the State to enact reform and establish a more just society, the masses were left to starve.

Confiscation , outright theft by the Government is not an act of " we the people" Nor is it charity. You do not get to argue charity in the same breath you argue that a repressive Government should seize private citizens property and wealth for the "greater good".

 

[Revere]

The underlying message is that we as individuals and as a society can all be judged by what we do for the least among us.

Would you say Jesus of Nazareth was a good man for feeding the poor and healing the sick?

You are NOT arguing for charity you are arguing that the Government should seize private citizens property and wealth.

No, RGS. I at least am arguing that the wealthy enjoy far greater benefits from living amongst us and therefore, it is reasonable to expect them to pay more for the cost of maintenance of the society. IMO, preventing hunger is as legitimate a government function as paving roads.....possibly moreso.

They already do. Nobody is America is starving, and why is it the justficiation for bigger government is always "paving roads."

Whale oil was used for fuel before John Rockefeller cama along.

 

[JBeukema]

What "socialism?" Public libraries, roads, police and fire protection?

And minimum wage laws, unemployment benefits, SNAP, public education, rural electrification, public sewer systems, the Clean Air and Water acts, workplace safety laws...

 

[Truthmatters]

100 million people in this country make less than 40,000 a year.

Why in the fuck do you people think these people are lazy fuckers who dont work and suck off of rich people?

Where is your evidence this is true?


http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much...me-new-data-100-million-make-less-than-40000/

 

[Revere]

100 million people in this country make less than 40,000 a year.

Why in the fuck do you people think these people are lazy fuckers who dont work and suck off of rich people?

Where is you evidence this is true?

People who make 14,500 a year have more disposable income than people who make $60,000 a year, thanks to government.

 

[JBeukema]

You are NOT arguing for charity you are arguing that the Government should seize private citizens property and wealth.

No, RGS. I at least am arguing that the wealthy enjoy far greater benefits from living amongst us and therefore, it is reasonable to expect them to pay more for the cost of maintenance of the society. IMO, preventing hunger is as legitimate a government function as paving roads.....possibly moreso.

They already do. Nobody is America is starving, and why is it the justficiation for bigger government is always "paving roads."

Whale oil was used for fuel before John Rockefeller cama along.

Who's calling for 'bigger government'?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145606-weekends-without-hunger-act.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145447-defense-spending.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/145448-corn-ethanol-subsidies.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145449-farm-subsidies.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145445-amtrak.html

I'm calling for reform

 

[Madeline]

100 million people in this country make less than 40,000 a year.

Why in the fuck do you people think these people are lazy fuckers who dont work and suck off of rich people?

Where is you evidence this is true?

People who make 14,500 a year have more disposable income than people who make $60,000 a year, thanks to government.

Revere, your chart allegedly demonstrating this is crap. Please stop relying on it.

 

[Revere]

100 million people in this country make less than 40,000 a year.

Why in the fuck do you people think these people are lazy fuckers who dont work and suck off of rich people?

Where is you evidence this is true?

People who make 14,500 a year have more disposable income than people who make $60,000 a year, thanks to government.

Revere, your chart allegedly demonstrating this is crap. Please stop relying on it.

Post your own numbers that refute it or shut the fuck up, hilbilly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

Yes, because those people simply took all the money they inherited and used it to stuff the mattresses and pillows in their houses, and buried it in mayonnaise jars in the yard. They certainly haven't kept it invested and earning more money and fueling businesses, or anything like that.

Not to justify any strange notion that class warriors who are total strangers to the family somehow have more of a claim on that money than the family members do, but the Rockefeller family is quite famous for being heavily involved in philanthropy and charitable work, in addition to the extensive investments they have in a wide variety of businesses and industries, which employ I don't know how many thousands of people. The Du Pont family, I know less about, but I can definitely tell you that they're producing more wealth and employing more people than all the members of this message board put together.