[quote]Sloth wrote:
If anything did, it was the liberal ideals of the sexual revolution. [/quote]
What exactly are the ideals of the “liberal sexual revolution”, exactly? Please provide specific examples as well as dates that this alleged revolution took place. I guarantee you the “liberal sexual revolution” is not the blame–considering it is just a media myth. Try again.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It is the INDIVIDUAL who works and creates. It is the best of humanity — and you want to enslave them because they 'consume too much energy’and ‘cause too much chaos’. Entropy says that the best of humanity is the most destructive.
[/quote]
Name one individual that has ever accomplished anything on his or her own–without the support of another individual or group. Individuality does not exist.
[quote]orion wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
This is an important point.
Most progress was made in spite of society, not because of it, yet somehow we owe “socity” something?
No, we owe the light bulb to Edison and he got paid.
Are you people really this dense?
We also owe the light bulb to Edison’s parents. We also owe it to his third grade teacher. We also owe it to the founders of our nation. We also owe it the guy that delivered his grocery’s and the woman that cooked his lunch. We owe the soldier that defended his borders and the policeman that protected his property. We even owe it to the guy who invented writing and the god damned wheel.
Most progress being made in spite of society is an idiotic concept.
Put Edison alone marooned on an island and see what he produces. If he is lucky he’ll survive past thirty. And even then he will be an illiterate wretch.
And if you think we would still be reading by candle light if Edison had died in child birth all I can say is please bring back science and it’s history into the curriculum of public education.
Of course no man is an island but the woman cooking his lunch got paid.
The man delivering his groceries go paid as well as them man defending his countries borders.
All these people were individuals that had contractual obligations they entered on their own free will.
If you somehow conclude that this means that there is an entity called “society” that we owe someting you lose us along he way.
There is no society, there is only the sum of interacting individuals.
[/quote]
I agree with what you are saying and see your point.
Both views are correct however and should be respected and appreciated.
Let me explain. The individual is always the more important in the intrinsic, essential sense. If you remove all individuals the society ceases to exist. Remove the society and the individual can still exist. The individual is the essential element. The very definition of intrinsic value.
The same analogy of intrinsic value can be applied to an atom in relation to a molecule. Destroy all atoms and you destroy all molecules. Destroy all molecules and atoms still exist. Atoms are essential.
This same relationship advances. Cells exist to make organs but organs are not essential for cells to exist. Organs make up organisms etc.
And of course individual humans make up societies. Societies make up the global society that has become a concept that has meaning in the current time.
Extrinsic or nonessential value is also a fact however. A cell may be essential to an organ but while that cell is alive it obeys the needs and demands of the organ. Its existence is dependent on the organ to a large extent.
Of course human individuals and societies are much more complex than cells and organs but the relationship has similarities.
Entropy implies extropy. Intrinsic value implies extrinsic value.
It is more accurate to say that a society “owes” its existence to the individual.
It is also accurate to say that an individual receives most of it’s success from the prosperity of the society it finds itself attached to.
There is a reason why people dream about a land of opportunity. If societies didn’t provide anything to an individuals success this cliche would lose it’s meaning.
There is a reason why self made billionaires are common in Europe and North America and not as common in Africa and South America and it is not because the the intelligence and talent bell curve of humanity doesn’t apply to members of those continents.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Never did I say that consuming energy is a crime. And most certainly did I not say the best of humanity should be enslaved for consuming energy. In fact I readily stated that all human progress has so far been dependent on an upper class consuming more than it’s fair share of resources.
There’s the dirty little secret to your philosophy. You have a pre-capitalist ethos and mindset. To you, a capitalist is equivalent to some Hindu potentate who robs a few grains of rice from each of his millions of slaves and turns that into jewels for his fingers.
Fast forward to today — suppose that you work as a janitor in a factory. You get the benefits of the brain power of all those above you — the manager who runs the place, the engineers who designed the machines, the investors who built the factory, the scientists who discovered the physical laws to make the product possible, the capitalist who funded everything, and the philosopher (Aristotle) who taught humans wtf logic is.
Workers exploit everyone above them. Do you honestly think that your paycheck is solely a result of your pushing a broom? Try pushing that broom out in the forest and see what you get for your efforts.
This post has clearly proven my own point. Unfortunately you still fabricate ideas about what I believe and that are contradictory to what I actually say.
Yes slaves exploit their masters and masters exploit their slaves. I fully realize that my intestines work for my brain just as much as my brain works for my intestines.
Your comprehension skills lack any subtlety or perhaps you just blindly respond without even reading all of what I post.[/quote]
Certainly I read your posts. You say that ‘society’ should provide for ‘weaker’ members of that society and that human beings need to be ruled. This means that the more intelligent and ambitious are to be enslaved to the stupid and lazy, and to administer this atrocity, we have gents like you.
[quote]orion wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Never mind that a society based on your fantasy is impossible and has never existed in human history and likely never will. I guess you missed out on history, civics, anthropology, psychology, and science.
It did, less than 100 years ago.
US state quota less than 5%, gold currency, etc.
There is also Hong Kong, Suisse, for the most part of her existence, Great Britain, up to WWI.
Since you have no grasp of history, should we trust your version of " civics, anthropology, psychology, and science."?.
Especially since you should know that whenever states started in the welfare direction and to issue paper currencies they failed, not starting with, but inlcuding, renaissance Italian city states or would that be too much history for you?
[/quote]
You clearly misunderstand my point.
Let me rephrase. What society has ever existed without hierarchy?
Humans are social beings and it is an easily demonstrated fact that they vary in talent, intelligence, and leadership capacity.
A society based on supermen each self governing themselves based on their personal freedom is not based in reality.
Here is an easy example to substantiate my point. Find a study that has measured the IQ or whatever aptitude test you believe in of U.S. military generals.
Surprise they are all within a similar range.
The fact that some people want to be lead or lack the talent doesn’t negate the fact that some people want to be leaders and posses it.
Mountain lions are solitary free creatures that have no social structure. Humans as a whole however are not like mountain lions even though some behave similar them.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is the INDIVIDUAL who works and creates. It is the best of humanity — and you want to enslave them because they 'consume too much energy’and ‘cause too much chaos’. Entropy says that the best of humanity is the most destructive.
Name one individual that has ever accomplished anything on his or her own–without the support of another individual or group. Individuality does not exist.[/quote]
Who just wrote that last sentence?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is the INDIVIDUAL who works and creates. It is the best of humanity — and you want to enslave them because they 'consume too much energy’and ‘cause too much chaos’. Entropy says that the best of humanity is the most destructive.
Name one individual that has ever accomplished anything on his or her own–without the support of another individual or group. Individuality does not exist.
Who just wrote that last sentence?
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that I learned the concept of language without hearing someone else speak or without reading some one else’s written word?
Do you think these are my original ideas? You’d be wrong. There is no such thing as individuality. Try to exist on your own. It cannot be done.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Your view of human beings, as beasts that have to be forced, to be taxed ‘for their own good’, that anarchy will result if we rely on freedom, lies at the root of authoritarianism.
Freedom’s a bitch, eh?
Answer clearly please.
Do you or do you not want a society of elected officials to decide if taxation of individuals to fund the type and scope of policy for our society?
If the answer is no what alternative do you propose?
If the answer is no then why don’t you just get the fuck out because this is a democracy and we have agreed to elect representatives to lead our society.
Rule of majority’s a bitch eh?
Wait and weren’t you also spouting something inane about the roots of authoritarianism?
Yes you are right. Clearly allowing elected reps to legislate taxation is authoritarian rule.
Go on believing in your fairy tails of freedom and that individuals prosper in spite of society trying to ensure they fail. And that humans are not social animals with a social structure including leaders and followers.
Never mind that a society based on your fantasy is impossible and has never existed in human history and likely never will. I guess you missed out on history, civics, anthropology, psychology, and science.
Oh well what could society’s education teach such a specimen as you anyway.
[/quote]
I have been answering clearly. I’ve shown that you have no respect for your fellow human beings and that you regard them as cattle. I’ve shown that you have NO concept of capitalism. I’ve shown that you have the same views of man and freedom as some feudal baron would, or of some fat slobbering Hindu prince of old.
Hiding behind the cover of benevolence, you’re kind has created a society of cannibals, where those who produce are exploited for the benefit of those who produce nothing. You want to give economic power to politicians in your wonderful mixed economy — power to those who enjoy exercising power over others. You want to empower vermin (who hold military power as well) over the mind of man.
Most people who ride along on the plunder can be forgiven; they don’t know any better. But those, like you, intelligent enough to know what you’re doing, are beyond forgiveness.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is the INDIVIDUAL who works and creates. It is the best of humanity — and you want to enslave them because they 'consume too much energy’and ‘cause too much chaos’. Entropy says that the best of humanity is the most destructive.
Name one individual that has ever accomplished anything on his or her own–without the support of another individual or group. Individuality does not exist.
Who just wrote that last sentence?
Are you suggesting that I learned the concept of language without hearing someone else speak or without reading some one else’s written word?
Do you think these are my original ideas? You’d be wrong. There is no such thing as individuality. Try to exist on your own. It cannot be done.[/quote]
What was it that thought up everything you just wrote?
[quote]orion wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
This “baggage” as you call it of some individuals being forced to support others is actually rooted much further than pre-capitalist. It is clearly rooted in the prehistoric concept of family and tribe the, first human societies.
How shocking that such values might find there way into a modern government.
If you had any idea who Hajek is you`d know that he adressed this long before evolutionary psychology was even a idea.
Yes we have adaptions to work as a group but we also have strong built-in psychological adaptions to prevent other people from taking advantage of us.
Unfortunately these adaptions stop to work if the group gets so large that direct social pressure is no longer possible.
To build a million people society with the instincts of an ape that lived in groups of up to 200 is impossible, your herd instincts fool you.
Not that there should not be artificial “herds”, it just should not and cannot be the state that provides them.
Because if it does, the results are indeed shocking.
[/quote]
I agree completely with you on the point of the difficulty of adapting our more primitive nature to to the current factors of modern multi million nations.
There is a huge difference between a family supporting it’s black sheep than a huge centralized bearacracy collecting vast resources to supposedly perform this function.
Such an enterprise is a magnet for corruption and opportunism. I have said this repeatedly. Welfare is clearly corrupt and a slippery slope.
The confusion I see is where should the state draw the line in it’s involvement. This is where disagreement is so rampant.
Most people can agree that the government is better suited to control national defense than a private militia of unpaid volunteers for example.
It also stands to reason that some social services might be better handled by the government.
Having faith that elected officials will decide these things is a hard thing to swallow for any individual.
Unfortunately I accept that this is the case.
You may be correct that it should not be the state and cannot even be the state that provides these larger groups of support.
This seems rather difficult to be certain of at this time.
Does a state anywhere near as large and developed as a G8 nation have a government model without extensive social programs of various types?
Or is such a state a hypothetical experiment that has never been tested in the unprecedented factor of our modern post industrial society?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What was it that thought up everything you just wrote?
[/quote]
I wouldn’t have written it had you not asked the question. Individual conversations are fruitless–unless you’re some sort of wackjob.
As far as brain function, yes that is an individual process, just like eating, breathing, and sleeping. But to say the ideas that come to fruition in my brain are completely original and insular to the outside world is false. The concept of originality is flawed. Everything is learned from experience.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
orion wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Never mind that a society based on your fantasy is impossible and has never existed in human history and likely never will. I guess you missed out on history, civics, anthropology, psychology, and science.
It did, less than 100 years ago.
US state quota less than 5%, gold currency, etc.
There is also Hong Kong, Suisse, for the most part of her existence, Great Britain, up to WWI.
Since you have no grasp of history, should we trust your version of " civics, anthropology, psychology, and science."?.
Especially since you should know that whenever states started in the welfare direction and to issue paper currencies they failed, not starting with, but inlcuding, renaissance Italian city states or would that be too much history for you?
You clearly misunderstand my point.
Let me rephrase. What society has ever existed without hierarchy?
Humans are social beings and it is an easily demonstrated fact that they vary in talent, intelligence, and leadership capacity.
A society based on supermen each self governing themselves based on their personal freedom is not based in reality.
Here is an easy example to substantiate my point. Find a study that has measured the IQ or whatever aptitude test you believe in of U.S. military generals.
Surprise they are all within a similar range.
The fact that some people want to be lead or lack the talent doesn’t negate the fact that some people want to be leaders and posses it.
Mountain lions are solitary free creatures that have no social structure. Humans as a whole however are not like mountain lions even though some behave similar them.[/quote]
I have never seen a libertarian dispute the idea of a natural elite.
We just doubt very much that they end up in governmet.
The whole idea of competing companies is that you can choose which master to serve, or to become one yourself.
The very fact that we INSTINCTIVELY organise in groups and develop rules within them is a strong point against government coercion.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I have been answering clearly. I’ve shown that you have no respect for your fellow human beings and that you regard them as cattle. I’ve shown that you have NO concept of capitalism. I’ve shown that you have the same views of man and freedom as some feudal baron would, or of some fat slobbering Hindu prince of old.
Hiding behind the cover of benevolence, you’re kind has created a society of cannibals, where those who produce are exploited for the benefit of those who produce nothing. You want to give economic power to politicians in your wonderful mixed economy — power to those who enjoy exercising power over others. You want to empower vermin (who hold military power as well) over the mind of man.
Most people who ride along on the plunder can be forgiven; they don’t know any better. But those, like you, intelligent enough to know what you’re doing, are beyond forgiveness.
[/quote]
What alternative do you propose? This is the question you do not answer clearly.
I can appreciate your contempt for the imperfectness of human hierarchy and it’s current system of electoral politics but sometimes life spits you a, “It is the absolutely worse system except for all the others”.
What do you suggest I do? Should I vote and exercise a right that I have or should I abstain because I don’t want to embolden the plundering politicians of a mixed economy?
How exactly have you manged to avoid “riding along on the plunder”?
How exactly does one go about joining or renouncing such an insidious activity as riding along on the plunder?
Please enlighten us how you have managed to rise above the foulness and corruption of your miserable society.
Or could it be that you in fact are a mere mortal human complete with all the weaknesses and failings of our race both human and animal?
Could it be that you too have participated in and reaped the benefit of all that you so loathe?
Reality got you down then just make up a delusional fantasy and project it on to some one else.
I love and respect the Christian teaching that all men are sinners unworthy of life yet by grace we some how have it.
Why? Because it is true we will all fall short of our ideal’s, even you. Life is a mysterious gift that no one has ever earned. Not even you. Deal with it.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
I agree completely with you on the point of the difficulty of adapting our more primitive nature to to the current factors of modern multi million nations.
There is a huge difference between a family supporting it’s black sheep than a huge centralized bearacracy collecting vast resources to supposedly perform this function.
Such an enterprise is a magnet for corruption and opportunism. I have said this repeatedly. Welfare is clearly corrupt and a slippery slope.
The confusion I see is where should the state draw the line in it’s involvement. This is where disagreement is so rampant.
Most people can agree that the government is better suited to control national defense than a private militia of unpaid volunteers for example.
It also stands to reason that some social services might be better handled by the government.
Having faith that elected officials will decide these things is a hard thing to swallow for any individual.
Unfortunately I accept that this is the case.
You may be correct that it should not be the state and cannot even be the state that provides these larger groups of support.
This seems rather difficult to be certain of at this time.
Does a state anywhere near as large and developed as a G8 nation have a government model without extensive social programs of various types?
Or is such a state a hypothetical experiment that has never been tested in the unprecedented factor of our modern post industrial society?[/quote]
I doubt that the complexity of our society has anything to do wth it.
It lies in the nature of Democracy that people begin to conspire against it each other, voting people into power promising them more and more of their neighbours income.
It is basically a version of caesarism/fascism, people at the bottom conspire with the people at the top against those in between.
Since the average voter allways earns less than the average employee, re-distribution allways sounds good to a significant portion of voters especially is you exploit powerful human instincts like the search for “equality”.
Since there is allways a bastard that promises more and more, though the coffers are allready empty, a democracy is not able to maintain a balanced budget.
The US and the EU are allready going down they just don`t know it yet.
Paper money not only made this development possible it will also deliver the final blow.
All a government needs to do is to let the printing presses work overtime and all their billions worth of debt will be gone in an instant, meaning they will be only worth a loaf of bread.
So, to answer your question, when even less complex societies were not able to live with socialised money and a mandatory welfare system, why should we be able too?
In a society that grows ever more complex, the allmighty central bureau can only plan less and less and not more and more.
[quote]orion wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
orion wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
Never mind that a society based on your fantasy is impossible and has never existed in human history and likely never will. I guess you missed out on history, civics, anthropology, psychology, and science.
It did, less than 100 years ago.
US state quota less than 5%, gold currency, etc.
There is also Hong Kong, Suisse, for the most part of her existence, Great Britain, up to WWI.
Since you have no grasp of history, should we trust your version of " civics, anthropology, psychology, and science."?.
Especially since you should know that whenever states started in the welfare direction and to issue paper currencies they failed, not starting with, but inlcuding, renaissance Italian city states or would that be too much history for you?
You clearly misunderstand my point.
Let me rephrase. What society has ever existed without hierarchy?
Humans are social beings and it is an easily demonstrated fact that they vary in talent, intelligence, and leadership capacity.
A society based on supermen each self governing themselves based on their personal freedom is not based in reality.
Here is an easy example to substantiate my point. Find a study that has measured the IQ or whatever aptitude test you believe in of U.S. military generals.
Surprise they are all within a similar range.
The fact that some people want to be lead or lack the talent doesn’t negate the fact that some people want to be leaders and posses it.
Mountain lions are solitary free creatures that have no social structure. Humans as a whole however are not like mountain lions even though some behave similar them.
I have never seen a libertarian dispute the idea of a natural elite.
We just doubt very much that they end up in governmet.
The whole idea of competing companies is that you can choose which master to serve, or to become one yourself.
The very fact that we INSTINCTIVELY organise in groups and develop rules within them is a strong point against government coercion.[/quote]
I like this response but it leaves me with more questions.
What about the military? It is one of the primary establishments and extensions of our government and to a large extent it is a meritocracy.
And whatever corrupting influence that may prevent a natural elite from government office wouldn’t a large private corporation be susceptible to such influences?
And what about regulation of private industry? Surely checks and balances is a sound theory of management.
I am certain you don’t have any naive notions that a business can do no wrong and is not in need of forces to police and restrain it’s behavior.
Black market businesses are not suitable models for human society.
The state seems like the best entity for such a job but having a flaw such as inhibiting the rise of a natural elite is certainly a mark against it.
The question is, if not the state who regulates?
And if it is the state how do we improve such a weakness as lacking talent amongst it’s rank’s?
It’s amazing to see how easily politics and ideology trump people.
Poor people who want opportunity? Fuck them.
Educate the masses and broaden the tax base? Fuck them.
Health care? Fuck them.
This should be the conservative motto when it comes to their fellow man. Fuck them!
What really amazes me is the lack of traction of concepts concerning creating more productive people who raise the effectiveness of the workforce, increase the tax base and make the country better.
I too hate taxes. I too find income tax to be partial financial slavery. I hate it. However, I’m enough of a man to realize that most recipients of my taxes are deserving. Particularly, children who may as well be given a chance at a future. A chance to get educated, get a good job, and rise above the lifestyle of their parents.
What do I mean by phrasing it that way? I mean that I’m not so petty and mean that I’d want to deny all the good that comes from my taxes because some people are misusing it.
Instead of hopping up on your anti-social ideology, how about instead finding ways to fix systems, plug the leaks, or invent new systems.
Some of you people disgust me. Life is about people, not ideologies. Shoot, I’m incredibly pro citizens rights and anti-tax, but I still know that people are what matters. It’s not all about cash or right vs left ideologies.
[quote]orion wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:
I agree completely with you on the point of the difficulty of adapting our more primitive nature to to the current factors of modern multi million nations.
There is a huge difference between a family supporting it’s black sheep than a huge centralized bearacracy collecting vast resources to supposedly perform this function.
Such an enterprise is a magnet for corruption and opportunism. I have said this repeatedly. Welfare is clearly corrupt and a slippery slope.
The confusion I see is where should the state draw the line in it’s involvement. This is where disagreement is so rampant.
Most people can agree that the government is better suited to control national defense than a private militia of unpaid volunteers for example.
It also stands to reason that some social services might be better handled by the government.
Having faith that elected officials will decide these things is a hard thing to swallow for any individual.
Unfortunately I accept that this is the case.
You may be correct that it should not be the state and cannot even be the state that provides these larger groups of support.
This seems rather difficult to be certain of at this time.
Does a state anywhere near as large and developed as a G8 nation have a government model without extensive social programs of various types?
Or is such a state a hypothetical experiment that has never been tested in the unprecedented factor of our modern post industrial society?
I doubt that the complexity of our society has anything to do wth it.
It lies in the nature of Democracy that people begin to conspire against it each other, voting people into power promising them more and more of their neighbours income.
It is basically a version of caesarism/fascism, people at the bottom conspire with the people at the top against those in between.
Since the average voter allways earns less than the average employee, re-distribution allways sounds good to a significant portion of voters especially is you exploit powerful human instincts like the search for “equality”.
Since there is allways a bastard that promises more and more, though the coffers are allready empty, a democracy is not able to maintain a balanced budget.
The US and the EU are allready going down they just don`t know it yet.
Paper money not only made this development possible it will also deliver the final blow.
All a government needs to do is to let the printing presses work overtime and all their billions worth of debt will be gone in an instant, meaning they will be only worth a loaf of bread.
So, to answer your question, when even less complex societies were not able to live with socialised money and a mandatory welfare system, why should we be able too?
In a society that grows ever more complex, the allmighty central bureau can only plan less and less and not more and more.[/quote]
These ideas make a lot of sense.
It is clear that democracy and rule of majority is tragically flawed.
It is a basic principle of physics that the more complicated a system becomes the more likely it is to malfunction.
My mother use to say half the people are not as smart as the average person. It’s a silly word game that plays on statistics but it can almost sum up why democracy and rule of majority worries me.
It is not hard to see the many ridiculous failings of our current system in the U.S. and to feel a certain sense of doom that our leaders are grossly inept.
This constant struggle and brutal politics surrounding upward mobility is quite constant in human history.
What form of government will find itself the successor of our current form of democracy and how will it deal with this issue?
I have heard it said, “It is not he with the money that makes the rules, but he that makes the rules that will soon have the money.”
What form of government is truly effective at mitigating such an idea?
All governments seem weak to something that seems so entrenched in human nature.
I regret that I must remain skeptical that there has yet been discovered a system that will be impervious to that quote.
However, I am not skeptical that our current system could be much improved.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If anything did, it was the liberal ideals of the sexual revolution.
What exactly are the ideals of the “liberal sexual revolution”, exactly? Please provide specific examples as well as dates that this alleged revolution took place. I guarantee you the “liberal sexual revolution” is not the blame–considering it is just a media myth. Try again.[/quote]
Are you serious? Take a look at sexual attitudes today. Simply watch music videos, listen to music, look at the dress of young girls. Don’t forget mainstream movies and novels. It’s vastly different than what my grandfather grew up with.
The idea of being an unwed mother is much different than, let’s say, in the 50’s. Do I really need to get more specific?
[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s amazing to see how easily politics and ideology trump people.
Poor people who want opportunity? Fuck them.
Educate the masses and broaden the tax base? Fuck them.
Health care? Fuck them.
This should be the conservative motto when it comes to their fellow man. Fuck them!
What really amazes me is the lack of traction of concepts concerning creating more productive people who raise the effectiveness of the workforce, increase the tax base and make the country better.
I too hate taxes. I too find income tax to be partial financial slavery. I hate it. However, I’m enough of a man to realize that most recipients of my taxes are deserving. Particularly, children who may as well be given a chance at a future. A chance to get educated, get a good job, and rise above the lifestyle of their parents.
What do I mean by phrasing it that way? I mean that I’m not so petty and mean that I’d want to deny all the good that comes from my taxes because some people are misusing it.
Instead of hopping up on your anti-social ideology, how about instead finding ways to fix systems, plug the leaks, or invent new systems.
Some of you people disgust me. Life is about people, not ideologies. Shoot, I’m incredibly pro citizens rights and anti-tax, but I still know that people are what matters. It’s not all about cash or right vs left ideologies.[/quote]
Very well said.
I enjoyed reading Ayn Rand. I enjoyed what she called objectivism.
I was still left wondering a few things. What about children?
Children don’t fit very well with certain individualistic philosophies.
Neither do the old. Our so called elders.
Or what about our lame? The veterans that fight our wars?
Our current system certainly doesn’t get an A+ no room for improvement in how the weak and unwanted of society are cared for. Or an A+ in being omnipotent in knowing who deserves what and why but we are trying.
Hopefully we can create a system that will do it better.
Like I keep saying keep striving for perfection but lets get real it is always out of reach.
Keep arguing with me. I truly hope someone proves me wrong and perfection is just around the corner and they will some how lead me to it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s amazing to see how easily politics and ideology trump people.
Poor people who want opportunity? Fuck them.
Educate the masses and broaden the tax base? Fuck them.
Health care? Fuck them.
This should be the conservative motto when it comes to their fellow man. Fuck them!
What really amazes me is the lack of traction of concepts concerning creating more productive people who raise the effectiveness of the workforce, increase the tax base and make the country better.
I too hate taxes. I too find income tax to be partial financial slavery. I hate it. However, I’m enough of a man to realize that most recipients of my taxes are deserving. Particularly, children who may as well be given a chance at a future. A chance to get educated, get a good job, and rise above the lifestyle of their parents.
What do I mean by phrasing it that way? I mean that I’m not so petty and mean that I’d want to deny all the good that comes from my taxes because some people are misusing it.
Instead of hopping up on your anti-social ideology, how about instead finding ways to fix systems, plug the leaks, or invent new systems.
Some of you people disgust me. Life is about people, not ideologies. Shoot, I’m incredibly pro citizens rights and anti-tax, but I still know that people are what matters. It’s not all about cash or right vs left ideologies.[/quote]
You’re ignoring a big piece of the debate. Which is, that behaviors contributing to poverty, are reinforced under welfare. That is, what sounds on the surface like a solution for poverty, is in fact a catalyst for a cycle of poverty. It’s not as simple as the right saying “Fuck people.”
And, wanting to do away with welfare isn’t anti-social. It’s an involuntary system where the government takes care of everything, after all. Now, deliberately giving to one’s charity of choice, time or money, is a wonderful social endeavor.