Ayn Rand is right. There is no higher state than

[OODA_Loop]

So you can't come up with a single real life example of where your formula for human society has actually made human society better?

Might that not be cause to reconsider the merits of your position?

I see examples of it all around me both in application and failure of application.

Examples that apparently you aren't capable of sharing with the class.

I want you to name the countries past or present where neglecting the needy made their societies better.

Neglecting the needy is not the premise.

Entitlement causing survival de-evolution is the premise.

Safety net.

Not safety hammock.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you imagine you are proving?

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians


"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.



When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

 

[OODA_Loop]

So if more of America's poor were starving or dying of disease for lack of affordable care,

we'd be a better place?

In place of assigning any level of self-accountability you can go hyperbolic.

Yet , Natural Law remains in play no matter how smartly you think you can emotionally rationalize it away.

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm not sure how that issue would be handled. But some means could be devised to ensure that Vets can get a reasonably priced policy without creating some vast welfare bureaucracy.

Well, it's kind of a big issue, wouldn't you say? This isn't a minor detail to be filled in. If you want to keep them from being turned away by private insurers, then you need a guaranteed issue rule. And if you want to "ensure that Vets can get a reasonably priced policy" then you're going to need some kind of rating rules to prevent vets from getting hosed simply for being vets.

Except if you're going to apply a guaranteed issue rule to just one particular segment of the population, you risk prompting insurers to exit the market for that segment. See the market for child-only policies in many states following the imposition of guaranteed issue rules (not even with any rating restrictions attached to it). And I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the child population generally has a more insurer-friendly risk profile than does the population of veterans (particularly in wartime). Which means you've now got to take steps to avoid that.

The point here being that there isn't a magical policy switch to flip and get just the results you want, you're going to employ a little more finesse in designing your approach. The world is complex.

That's why we have a VA, so private insurance companies wont have to carry the load on this.

Indeed! There's no reason vets shouldn't have the best care available.

 

[Big Fitz]

No one is "forced" to pay taxes.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That has to be one of the all time idiocies ever posted to this forum.

By definition, taxes are paid under compulsion.

Taxes are the price of a civil society. Don't like it..you can move out of the country. Sorta like rent..don't pay that..and you'd be in trouble too. Unlike so many countries in this world...you have free will.

The federal government doesn't own the country, dipstick.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bripat9643 again.

How can a government own anything not first ceded to it by it's citizens who are it's rightful owners? Is not every single scrap of public land put in trust with the government from individual citizens who must first decide that it is right to put it in public trust? When the government misuses that public trust, is it not the right and duty of the public to take back what is there and look to find another more trustworthy caretaker or keep it themselves?

The left complains about corporations being viewed as 'personal entities' while they try to attribute the same type of existence (but it is Oh So Innocent and Good) to the government while they commit even worse sins than corporations they complain about do.

Once again, double standards in place of real standards.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if more of America's poor were starving or dying of disease for lack of affordable care,

we'd be a better place?

In place of assigning any level of self-accountability you can go hyperbolic.

Yet , Natural Law remains in play no matter how smartly you think you can emotionally rationalize it away.

That was exactly your claim, now you're running away from it?

Name those societies where neglecting the poor has made those societies better.

I'm still waiting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not in numbers.

In quality.

Where on earth is the quality of life for any given society better because the needy have been left to fend for themselves,

without social intervention, or entitlement, or charity, or assistance?

Name those places.

The question is one of the quantity of personal responsibility and the level and kind of welfare state- not absolutes (all or nothing), like your question tries to do
No one is calling for no gov't, except you in your misleading question

Using that basis, one could easily as ask...

Where on earth is the quality of life for any society better because the state
provided everything one needed?

One only needs to look at North Korea or Cuba to see the answer

The other poster was claiming that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taxes are like rent. Don't like it?

Move.

Dipstick.

Don't let the door slam you on the ass.

No, taxes are not like rent. The federal government doesn't own the country. Taxes are extortion money. Government and a mafia protection racket are indistinguishable in every detail.

If you don't like the taxpayers voting to reduce your allowance, you get the fuck out of the country. Find some other host you can stick your fangs into.

You want no government? lolol.

You are perfect for the Leader of USMB Conservatism. You are its best example.

 

[Big Fitz]

So if more of America's poor were starving or dying of disease for lack of affordable care,

we'd be a better place?

In place of assigning any level of self-accountability you can go hyperbolic.

Yet , Natural Law remains in play no matter how smartly you think you can emotionally rationalize it away.

That was exactly your claim, now you're running away from it?

Name those societies where neglecting the poor has made those societies better.

I'm still waiting.

False dichotomy and choice.

If we do not create safety hammocks where anyone who desires can make a 'living wage' by being indigent, we are abandoning the poor. If we demand personal accountability and at least an EFFORT towards self sufficiency, creating a safety net for those who have unfortunate incidents preventing them from being personally accountable and putting forth effort, we're sociopath racist homophobe sexists who eat puppies and boil the homeless.

Are you willing to go to Syria, Cuba, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Honduras, Pakistan, Azirbaijan or North Korea and decry the plight of the poor and homeless to their right to color TVs, cell phones, a full on American Middle Class Diet, home, appliances and cars?

Hmm?

Semantic social hypocrite and ignoramus cum laude.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Denies, not at all

The questions is one of who should be more in charge of those "social" functions

man or state

That makes no sense whatsoever.

To someone on the Left of course

they can't image a world where the State is not taking position over the individual
for all things

I can imagine the State Police arresting individuals for driving drunk. Can you? You have a problem with 'the state' being in charge of the individual in that case?

That's a yes or no question btw.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In place of assigning any level of self-accountability you can go hyperbolic.

Yet , Natural Law remains in play no matter how smartly you think you can emotionally rationalize it away.

That was exactly your claim, now you're running away from it?

Name those societies where neglecting the poor has made those societies better.

I'm still waiting.

False dichotomy and choice.

If we do not create safety hammocks where anyone who desires can make a 'living wage' by being indigent, we are abandoning the poor. If we demand personal accountability and at least an EFFORT towards self sufficiency, creating a safety net for those who have unfortunate incidents preventing them from being personally accountable and putting forth effort, we're sociopath racist homophobe sexists who eat puppies and boil the homeless.

Are you willing to go to Syria, Cuba, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Honduras, Pakistan, Azirbaijan or North Korea and decry the plight of the poor and homeless to their right to color TVs, cell phones, a full on American Middle Class Diet, home, appliances and cars?

Hmm?

Semantic social hypocrite and ignoramus cum laude.

You're in a conversation where you don't know the positions of the individual I was talking to.

 

[Big Fitz]

No one is "forced" to pay taxes.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That has to be one of the all time idiocies ever posted to this forum.

By definition, taxes are paid under compulsion.

Taxes are the price of a civil society. Don't like it..you can move out of the country. Sorta like rent..don't pay that..and you'd be in trouble too. Unlike so many countries in this world...you have free will.

The federal government doesn't own the country, dipstick.

Taxes are like rent. Don't like it?

Move.

Dipstick.

Don't let the door slam you on the ass.

How about a little fire, Scarecrow?

Name a SINGLE nation in the world that takes donations instead of taxes.

Talk about setting up a strawman.

 

[Big Fitz]

That was exactly your claim, now you're running away from it?

Name those societies where neglecting the poor has made those societies better.

I'm still waiting.

False dichotomy and choice.

If we do not create safety hammocks where anyone who desires can make a 'living wage' by being indigent, we are abandoning the poor. If we demand personal accountability and at least an EFFORT towards self sufficiency, creating a safety net for those who have unfortunate incidents preventing them from being personally accountable and putting forth effort, we're sociopath racist homophobe sexists who eat puppies and boil the homeless.

Are you willing to go to Syria, Cuba, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Honduras, Pakistan, Azirbaijan or North Korea and decry the plight of the poor and homeless to their right to color TVs, cell phones, a full on American Middle Class Diet, home, appliances and cars?

Hmm?

Semantic social hypocrite and ignoramus cum laude.

You're in a conversation where you don't know the positions of the individual I was talking to.

You make the incorrect assumption I wasn't reading it.

So let me respond with a similar intellectual level.

How's it feel to be intellectually pantsed... again?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[You make the incorrect assumption I wasn't reading it.

So let me respond with a similar intellectual level.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/funny-pictures-ill-aim-for-your-bed-next-time.jpg[/IMG

How's it feel to be intellectually pantsed... again?[/quote]

Now you're lying, because if you were reading it you would have seen this, for example:

[B]Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer

So you won't stand behind [SIZE="3"]your own prescription for the betterment of the human species, i.e., survival of fittest via the law of the jungle[/SIZE]??

Poster's response:

[B][I]I must stand behind it[/I][/B].

At the end of the day, irrespective of any belief or political structure it is truly the ultimate law at play. [/B]

 

[editec]

Mankind does NOT move mostly via social darwinism.

If that were the case then mankind would not have bothered to form into societies to nurture and protect its members.

Gzeus where on earth did you folks go to school, Misinformation U?

 

[Big Fitz]

[You make the incorrect assumption I wasn't reading it.

So let me respond with a similar intellectual level.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/funny-pictures-ill-aim-for-your-bed-next-time.jpg[/IMG

How's it feel to be intellectually pantsed... again?[/quote]

Now you're lying, because if you were reading it you would have seen this, for example:

[B]Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer

So you won't stand behind [SIZE="3"]your own prescription for the betterment of the human species, i.e., survival of fittest via the law of the jungle[/SIZE]??

Poster's response:

[B][I]I must stand behind it[/I][/B].

At the end of the day, irrespective of any belief or political structure it is truly the ultimate law at play. [/B][/QUOTE]
His decision to fall for your obvious intellectual fallacy is not my concern. I at least see through the bullshit you pander. If he believes in social darwinism, that's his own lookout. I don't see you defending your false dichotomy or being an advocate for the hundreds of millions if not billions of poor in other nations being given the same level of poverty as is enjoyed in this nation.

This statement is dead on.

[quote]Neglecting the needy is not the premise.

[B]Entitlement causing survival de-evolution is the premise[/B].

Safety net.

Not safety hammock.[/quote]

Emphasis mine.

You made the assertion that nations deliberately neglect the needy for the sake of society's improvement. You fail to define what is neglect. In the US if you look at the poor in almost every other non-western, non-capitalist nation, the condition of the poor is squalor and illegal if it were in the US. You ignore all the benefits begotten by the societal costs here from building codes to blue laws we have built in to make EVERYONE'S life better. We don't have corrugated hut cities, or dirt floors in tenements or no running water or lacks of public sanitary facilities. No, those are all third world (as well as less advanced/developed cultures like China and India) issues. The poor here can get a microwave for 10 bucks at a thrift store and hook it up to government subsidized electricity in their Section 42 housing that has carpeting heat and A/C. I'm sure that some poor slob in Mumbai would consider that heaven.

I demanded intellectual consistency of you. Not a defining trait of yours, of course, to both define the concept of 'neglect for the poor' to all nations, and to stand for your definition IN all nations, and not play social relativist for your own guilty conscience for not doing enough to give of yourself.

Now pull your pants back up, go get your passport and get organizing in Cuba for human rights. We're sick of seeing your acorn sized doodle in here.

 

[Big Fitz]

Mankind does NOT move mostly via social darwinism.

If that were the case then mankind would not have bothered to form into societies to nurture and protect its members.

Gzeus where on earth did you folks go to school, Misinformation U?

Survival of the fittest is contrary to social order, it's true, but it does have it's own influence through many means and flows. It's a social version of the laws of thermodynamics. Conservation of energy, energy is not created only converted, entropy and loss of energy by conversion. These forces can be seen in social aspects as well as the physical. The most efficient creatues with the best tactics and methods for achieving and growth win. Same goes for societies.

It's why feudalism failed, mecantilism failed, caste systems failed, phalanxes falling to legionaires, arrows to muskets, horse power to steam and knights to welsh bowmen... all results of encountering cultural, economic, strategic, military and technological forces that did the job better.

 

[Neotrotsky]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

To someone on the Left of course

they can't image a world where the State is not taking position over the individual
for all things

I can imagine the State Police arresting individuals for driving drunk. Can you? You have a problem with 'the state' being in charge of the individual in that case?

That's a yes or no question btw.

Driving is not a right
I have no problem with the states regulating drunk driving

 

[Big Fitz]

To someone on the Left of course

they can't image a world where the State is not taking position over the individual
for all things

I can imagine the State Police arresting individuals for driving drunk. Can you? You have a problem with 'the state' being in charge of the individual in that case?

That's a yes or no question btw.

Driving is not a right
I have no problem with the states regulating drunk driving

You can even being arrested for walking down the street drunk as a lord. It's called "Drunk and Disorderly". You've made yourself into a potential hazard to others and yourself by acting so irresponsibly.

Shall we get rid of those laws too for the freedom of others to kill and maim themselves on the hoods of cars, falling off of bridges or down embankments, passing out and strangling on their own vomit in their neighbor's yards?

 

[OODA_Loop]

That was exactly your claim, now you're running away from it? Name those societies where neglecting the poor has made those societies better.

I'm still waiting.

Not advocating neglecting the genuinely needy.

The countries which have the most effective safety nets and societal programs (the very ones touted by US liberals as what to strive for) are countries whose native stock lead self-accountable lives founded on strong work ethic.