World Politics

[buckwheat]

Thomas Jefferson-

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

Pretty insightful given these words were penned 230 (or so) years ago.

Here's another one...

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Or,

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Or,

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."


What do you think Tom would say about our govt today? I'm thinking you guys would call him every name in the book.

And these quotes support your insane selfish vision of things?

I'm sure you're thinking of your business now? Most working people don't have the time to devote to this nonsense that you seem to have, but you're always thinking of the business.

LMAO.

 

[Anonymous]

Me and ole Tommy boy are going to be hostin' a few a them Negro ladies up at the big house! You know what they say, once you go black you never go back!

I'm all straight up and $hit except when I be hittin on the colored ladies and then writing stuff down about all men being created equal.

What's a colored lady, 2/3rds of a human, 1/2? I can't remember.

How much you have to pay for one a dem colored folks anyway?

It was pretty funny how a couple of years ago Jerry Krause reminded Michael Jordan how "they owned him."

You're right, things don't change.

Why is it the bigots always scream the loudest about bigotry? Somehow I can imagine you being extremely proud of this post.

 

[Anonymous]

And these quotes support your insane selfish vision of things?

I'm sure you're thinking of your business now? Most working people don't have the time to devote to this nonsense that you seem to have, but you're always thinking of the business.

LMAO.

See now, your Alinsky BS just don't work anymore. BTW, you are not very good at it.

You lob bombs at me and have exactly zero idea of what and who I am, what I do in my community, how I conduct business, who and what organizations I support both with time and money.

Typical.

 

[buckwheat]

Why is it the bigots always scream the loudest about bigotry? Somehow I can imagine you being extremely proud of this post.

You're projecting here!

BTW, Pride is a sin.

 

[buckwheat]

See now, your Alinsky BS just don't work anymore. BTW, you are not very good at it.

ok

You lob bombs

What is calling me a bigot, based on nothing?

Was your boy TJ a bigot?

at me and have exactly zero idea of what and who I am, what I do in my community, how I conduct business, who and what organizations I support both with time and money..

Just remember, as soon as you announce it, it's no longer charity, it's public relations.

Typical.

Of what, standing up to a bully?

 

[Anonymous]

ok



What is calling me a bigot, based on nothing?

Was your boy TJ a bigot?




Just remember, as soon as you announce it, it's no longer charity, it's public relations.





Of what, standing up to a bully?

Who brought up the non-sensical racial rant post?
Was Jefferson a bigot? You seem to think so, so why the rhetorical question? BTW, this was not relevant to the topic on any level.

I've announced nothing other than you being clueless about me.

PR? On a webnet cycling forum? Amazing...

I'm a bully? That's rich. Have you actually read any of your posts?

Again, your Alinsky-isms just don't work.

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon" (Alinsky 1972: 128).

"Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical (Alinsky 1972: 35-6). Alinsky sees one of the tactics of those in a battle is to judge the other side as being immoral. We will find ways to judge their methods as unethical even if they are also used by our side."



The bully calling a non-bully a bully simply because they disagree.

 

[ravens]

For the record...

Let the record show that I have had nothing to do with the thread's invective for today.

 

[usedtobefast]

Let the record show that I have had nothing to do with the thread's invective for today.

yer still a "raven" lunatic...

 

[buckwheat]

Who brought up the non-sensical racial rant post?.

You sarcastically suggest I'm bold for arguing with Thomas Jefferson. First off, your interpretation of Jefferson to support your arguments is absurd. Secondly, I'm not an idolater and it's very easy to prove Jefferson wrong on important topics, which I demonstrably did.

Was Jefferson a bigot? You seem to think so, so why the rhetorical question.

Please keep up, you called me a bigot based on nothing.

BTW, this was not relevant to the topic on any level.

The relevance is, you quote Jefferson as if he's unassailable. Clearly that's not the case.

I've announced nothing other than you being clueless about me.

Wrong, you promote your community service to counterbalance your desire to have no tax liability.

PR? On a webnet cycling forum? Amazing....

You did announce your alleged charitable works and community service. Anyway, I guess you're not familiar with the Bible. You're not supposed to sound the trumpets before you give alms.

When you sound the trumpets, make announcements, whatever, it's no longer charity because that's supposed to be done in secret. When it's announced it's PR. You're going to be bold and argue with Jesus?

I'm a bully? That's rich. Have you actually read any of your posts? .

Yes, I engage in spade calling.

The bully calling a non-bully a bully simply because they disagree.

Nah, your side likes to distort and pick on people who can't defend themselves.

 

[Anonymous]

You sarcastically suggest I'm bold for arguing with Thomas Jefferson. First off, your interpretation of Jefferson to support your arguments is absurd. Secondly, I'm not an idolater and it's very easy to prove Jefferson wrong on important topics, which I demonstrably did.





Please keep up, you called me a bigot based on nothing.




The relevance is, you quote Jefferson as if he's unassailable. Clearly that's not the case.




Wrong, you promote your community service to counterbalance your desire to have no tax liability.




You did announce your alleged charitable works and community service. Anyway, I guess you're not familiar with the Bible. You're not supposed to sound the trumpets before you give alms.

When you sound the trumpets, make announcements, whatever, it's no longer charity because that's supposed to be done in secret. When it's announced it's PR. You're going to be bold and argue with Jesus?



Yes, I engage in spade calling.




Nah, your side likes to distort and pick on people who can't defend themselves.

I'm going to try and take this down a notch. If we can't discuss stuff on this forum without degenerating to petty crap (both our faults) then we ought to ignore each other.

For the record, I believe in the 'teaching a man to fish' argument. I believe that a rising tide lifts all ships. I believe in taking care of those need to be taken care of. I believe no limits be placed on achievement, individualism, excellence, liberty or happiness. I believe the govt has a necessary and vital role to play. I believe the US govt is so far past what the founders envisioned that it threatens the republic.

I don't pretend to have all the answers and, like you, my views have been shaped by my experiences and perceptions. One thing I can say though is I don't know many people on 'my side' that want people to fail or kick people when they are down. I think we could agree that there are bad players on 'you side' and 'my side' but that we both want to see people and country succeed we just believe in different approaches, No?

 

[ravens]

yer still a "raven" lunatic...

dohhhh!!!! hilarious

"Oh Todd, so funny I forgot to laugh...."

 

[buckwheat]

I'm going to try and take this down a notch.

Ok, good, thanks.

If we can't discuss stuff on this forum without degenerating to petty crap (both our faults) then we ought to ignore each other.

Right.

For the record, I believe in the 'teaching a man to fish' argument.

I agree with you. But, I'll give an example here. After 9/11 Americans became much more conscious of security, in all phases of our lives. Prior to that date people who worked as security guards didn't get a lot of respect or pay. I still don't think they get much pay but as we all know or should know, security is an absolutely critical function. A lot of people do see security, say in an office building, condo, and they're thinking, that guy/gal isn't doing much, sitting on their behind etc, but it's always best to have someone with experience there who knows the tenants, vendors, whoever is supposed to be in that building. How much, should these people get paid? Is it good to always have security companies bidding for contracts in buildings and having the security staff continually turn over, which continually squeezes wages downward, which attracts less qualified people?

I believe that a rising tide lifts all ships.

But what if you're not afloat or you're damaged from hitting the rocks?

I believe in taking care of those need to be taken care of.

Ok, but I think you're opposed to HCR? If I'm mistaken sorry, but what would you propose as a best case scenario in the health care arena? Do you believe the system is broken or needs to be repaired? I think it's evident it does need repair. You disagree?

I believe no limits be placed on achievement,

Are there really any now?

individualism,

Really, aren't there some societal constraints which are a good thing?

excellence,

Isn't that human nature? If a worthwhile program is in place which people place value in,Country, Church, school, job, arts, sports, don't most buy in and make a good effort?

liberty

Isn't **** Cheney always trying to get us to sacrifice liberties for security? How do you define liberty precisely? Is it the paring down of OSHA regulations which results in more injuries in order to increase productivity? Are there competing liberties?

or happiness.

I agree but I'm seeing a lot of unhappy people who thought they played by the rules and they were ruined by macro foreseeable phenomenons like illness or injury which personally destroyed them.

I believe the govt has a necessary and vital role to play. I believe the US govt is so far past what the founders envisioned that it threatens the republic.

Well, which founders are you talking about? Thomas Paine? Didn't he advocate guaranteed minimum income, progressive taxation, and a precursor to social security?

Yeah, the Titanic may be going down, but do the most able scramble and compete for the lifeboats or do we try to get the infirm on first.

This is one area where Republican politics really offends me. The Republicans claim to be the repository of Christian values and yet it's rhetorically asked by Jesus, if you have one hundred sheep and one falls in to the pit, do you stay with the 99, or do you rescue the one? An incredible amount of Jesus preaching was about serving the poor, and the infirm, and visiting those in prison. The Republicans seem to blame those who have fallen down in opposition to every Judeo-Christian value around. The Koran says "you are not a believer until you love for your brother what you love for yourself." Every great religion has a version of the Golden Rule.

As GWB put it, his constituency is the "have's and have more's."

I don't pretend to have all the answers and, like you, my views have been shaped by my experiences and perceptions. One thing I can say though is I don't know many people on 'my side' that want people to fail or kick people when they are down. I think we could agree that there are bad players on 'you side' and 'my side' but that we both want to see people and country succeed we just believe in different approaches, No?

I hope so. I just think that the "live or die" competition has to be limited to areas like sports or the really top positions. It seems kind of odd that top execs get nice golden parachutes, where the guy living paycheck to paycheck gets a boot in the a$$ and some unemployment, which btw, if it were up to most Republicans, he wouldn't get that.

If you remeber Darryl Strawberry had his drug problems and Limbaugh was all over him saying he should be in jail. Well, look at ole Rushbo. There's not much difference from hillbilly heroin to Afghanistan heroin, or cocaine.

I've been up and I've been down and it's not that hard to fall.

 

[fatandfast]

Buckwheats, Are you mad at the IRS? Do you have a pilot's license? Play in a band?

 

[ihavenolimbs]

I believe in the 'teaching a man to fish' argument.

I agree with increasing funding for education too. Has a strong multiplier effect as well. Maybe you're a closet liberal after all.

 

[buckwheat]

Buckwheats, Are you mad at the IRS? Do you have a pilot's license? Play in a band?

Did you pay to attend the last Palin speech?

 

[usedtobefast]

 

[rhubroma]

Really, aren't there some societal constraints which are a good thing?

And this touches upon the very essence of the problem with the conservative world-view, in light of the advancements of modern society. I mean we're not in the Middle Ages anymore (at least, not stricktly speaking anyway)...in terms of civil liberties.

The conservative world-view discounts society and sees it as a mere obstacle to individual "self-determination," which in the capitalist system is exclusively measured in terms of financial earnings, and nothing else (not cultural, intellectual or, even, health). Margaret Thatcher let us know that this is so when saying, blatently: "the State doesn't exist." Although her radical brand more properly meant: "society doesn't exist (in the eyes of the State)." Yet in terms of the British ex-Prime Minister's power, prestige and, above all, paycheck: the state surly did exist, and how!

Consequently their world-view is thoroughly base and wholely self-serving, while, at the same time, is completely enimical to both ethical practice and progressive democracy: in which any individual member of society's freedom stops where it begins to infringe upon that of another's. This is a very simple, though critical, concept, which differentiates two world views diametrically opposed to eachother: and therefore an ignoble world of individuals only capable of thinking egotistically, from a noble one in which the collective assumes the higher value. A choice thus between government outright dismissing society (to summerize Thatcher's harsh sentinment) and one that gives proper importance to the collectivity in terms of establishing the rules determining how individuals might work toward their own life's fullfillment.

Yet theirs is a false myth which says that if the collectivity is thought of first then that curtails my right to a more complete self-realization and sets a limit upon my achieving exellence. The reality is quite to the contrary, when self-realization is additionally considered in terms of education and health, for example, which should be democratic and accessible to all, not just something for the priviledged and those that can afford it.

And again, in today's world the problem isn't in having the freedom to be successful, but rather in ensuring that the interests of the wealthy and powerful do not limit, if not completely demolish, the aspirations and rights of the masses from living with the basic dignity that the constitutions of the modern democratic State has considered their birthright.

What the conservatives forget is that nobody lives in a vacume, and that their wealth was generated partly through the same society that they find so abhorant when taxes are to be paid and only has meaning when set against the lack of it of others. Yet for convenience sake and purely self-serving interests, they would love nothing more for themesleves to be isolated from the rest of society, so as not to have to be forced by government to give something back toward the general well-being.

 

[buckwheat]

And this touches upon the very essence of the problem with the conservative world-view, in light of the advancements of modern society.

Wow, that whole post was very impressive. You very tactfully articulate my beliefs. My problem is that I can't believe the conservatives can't see this, which seems to me to be pretty obvious. I become exasperated with them quickly and move past the explanations, right into conclusions and insults.

The other thing that frustrates me is that people who have these beliefs argue them so relentlessly. They really seem to have the perspective of the Billy Zane character in the movie "Titanic." This isn't said to offend conservatives on this forum. It is what I really believe about them though.

 

[fatandfast]

Wow, that whole post was very impressive. You very tactfully articulate my beliefs. My problem is that I can't believe the conservatives can't see this, which seems to me to be pretty obvious. I become exasperated with them quickly and move past the explanations, right into conclusions and insults.

The other thing that frustrates me is that people who have these beliefs argue them so relentlessly. They really seem to have the perspective of the Billy Zane character in the movie "Titanic." This isn't said to offend conservatives on this forum. It is what I really believe about them though.

The fact that you know the mental makeup of Titanic characters is super sweet. Happy belated Valentines Day.

 

[Hugh Januss]

And this touches upon the very essence of the problem with the conservative world-view, in light of the advancements of modern society. I mean we're not in the Middle Ages anymore (at least, not stricktly speaking anyway)...in terms of civil liberties.

But.....but.... all that can't be true, Ayn Rand proved it.

 

[Anonymous]

And this touches upon the very essence of the problem with the conservative world-view, in light of the advancements of modern society. I mean we're not in the Middle Ages anymore (at least, not stricktly speaking anyway)...in terms of civil liberties.

The conservative world-view discounts society and sees it as a mere obstacle to individual "self-determination," which in the capitalist system is exclusively measured in terms of financial earnings, and nothing else (not cultural, intellectual or, even, health). Margaret Thatcher let us know that this is so when saying, blatently: "the State doesn't exist." Although her radical brand more properly meant: "society doesn't exist (in the eyes State)." Yet in terms of the British ex-Prim Minister's power, prestige and, above all, paycheck: the state surly did exist, and how!

Consequently their world-view is completely base and wholely self-serving, while, at the same time, is completely enimical to both ethical practice and progressive democracy: in which any individual member of society's freedom stops where it begins to infringe upon that of another's. This is a very simple, though critical, concept, which differentiates two world views diametrically opposed to eachother: and therefore an ignoble world of individuals only capable of thinking egotistically, from a noble one in which the collective assumes the higher value. A choice thus between government outright dismissing society (to summerize Thatcher's harsh sentinment) and one that gives proper importance to the collectivity in terms of establishing the rules determining how individuals might work toward their own life's fullfillment.

Yet theirs is a false myth which says that if the collectivity is thought of first then that curtails my right to a more complete self-realization and sets a limit upon my achieving exellence. The reality is quite to the contrary, when self-realization is additionally considered in terms of education and health, for example, which should be democratic and accessible to all, not just something for the priviledged and those that can afford it.

And again, in today's world the problem isn't in having the freedom to be successful, but rather in insuring that the interests of the wealthy and powerful do not limit, if not completely demolish, the aspirations and rights of the masses from living with the basic dignity that the constitutions of the modern democratic State has considered their birthright.

What the conservatives forget is that nobody lives in a vacume, and that their wealth was generated partly through the same society that they find so so abhorant when taxes are to be paid and only has meaning when set against the lack of it of others. Yet for convenience sake and purely self-serving interests, they would love nothing more for themesleves to be isolated from the rest of society, so as not to have to be forced by government to give something back toward the general well-being.

I agree in some part with the spirit of what you write. You do however leave out a couple of things:

1. Philanthropic activities by corporate entities and the wealthy (yes, I know much is because of tax breaks, and some is geared only to activities whose real purpose if proselytization), but regardless, there is a genuine spirit of giving in many of the people who hold conservative views.

2. The paternalistic prejudice involved with systematically treating the poor as though they are children needing to be taken care of, rather than taught how to live. Yes, I know that the excesses of the wealthy, and the methods which they use to maintain their wealth create a very slanted playing field. I also recognize that there is an absolute necessity for unskilled, uneducated people to fill positions that produce services and products cheaply so that the profit for the few at the top can be maximized. Capitalists have to have people who will accept poverty so that they may live in luxury, and they manipulate many with talk of flag burning, abortion, patriotism, and Ford trucks in an effort to ensure then that they are voting the right way on issues such as taxes.

All of that may be true, but it is also true that when you create a class of people beholden to the government for their sustenance and livelihood, you also create a group of people who believe they are entitled to do little in order to receive those benefits. Johnson's "Great Society" was the most paternalistically racist idea in the 20th century. The idea that "oh, those poor black people need help from us because they cannot help themselves. Here, let me give you some stuff to assuage the guilt I feel over having so much more" is as racist an idea as "they are inferior to us because they are black." It just feels better because you handed them some candy instead of just turning your back.

When they are told that the system is against them, that they have no real choice (completely different from acknowledging the bias in the system as a real component that may limit, but in no way completely limit their choices), and that they will have to rely on the benevolent hand of the government to sustain themselves, many will accept that and live only by the welfare provided. They were told that they had no chance, they accepted that because that is what you told them when you gave them the check, so they take it and live on it as best they can. It was striking to me how many African American students I had that detested what welfare did to their community.

There will always be people who need and deserve help from our collective system of government. There will always be people who have to be forced into providing the money for that help. There is also a balance there that is a moving target, but one that must be aspired to that allows people the dignity and respect of being treated as a capable person rather than a victim. A person receiving a helping hand rather than a guilt offering.

I don't doubt for one second that there are conservatives that couldn't care less about anyone but themselves. They don't care if people die because of poverty. I also believe that some of those people have very influential voices (namely people like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Santorum). I also believe that the majority are not so selfish. Many of those people who listen to Rush also help their neighbors in need, and are not some capitalistic automaton incapable of feeling human emotion.

I also don't doubt for a second that there are liberals that believe that because the system is top weighted, that is should be scrapped in favor of one that provides the same for all. That system is just as damaging to humanity as is the other. This is the third time I have quoted Galbraith on this thread, and I stand by it "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." There will always be an imbalance of power under ANY system. I for one do believe that Capitalism checked by some Socialist principles is the best idea out there.

I know that was rambling and a bit disorganized, but I am on cold meds today and am not my sharpest. I hope I expressed my thoughts clearly enough, but probably not.

 

[rhubroma]

But.....but.... all that can't be true, Ayn Rand proved it.

Her ideology is based upon her father's business losses at the expense of the Bolsheviks. Naturally, she found "salvation" in the US capitalist culture and was, consequently, a fervrent supporter of McCarthyism against the US ideological sympethizers of her father's native communist Russia.

Yet it is also a ruthless ideology which promotes a hyper-individualism which has led, over the decades, to that exaggerated materialism in the West we have today. A West which has litterally been choking on its own wealth, while many parts of the rest of the world (which it has often exploited politically, resource and labor wise) are litterally starving. One doesn't need to be a moralist to understand that this, in addition to the radicalization of Islam against primarily US interests caused by it's foreign policies in the Middle East to get at the oil coupled by an unconditional support of Israel, is an unsustainable world order. The impossibility of "managing" Iraq, Iran's brazen defiance of international nuclear non-proliferation accords as well as the continued popularity of the Taleban in Afghanistan (to say nothing of the growing anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism by political leadership around the glob like Chavez in Venezuela, at North Korea, Indonesia or in dictatorial Africa) are all signs that it is not. The conservative capitalist world had thought that "History Was Over" when the Berlin Wall fall in 1989, a notion that was as positively inane (as if human civilization could cease to evolve, simply because the opposing ideology had been defeated) as it was arrogant.

Like in so many instances of the past, the costs of final victory in one war often lead to a much more dangerous conflict that was never foreseen while the ruthless measures were being taken to win the previous one.

 

[rhubroma]

I agree in some part with the spirit of what you write. You do however leave out a couple of things:

1. Philanthropic activities by corporate entities and the wealthy (yes, I know much is because of tax breaks, and some is geared only to activities whose real purpose if proselytization), but regardless, there is a genuine spirit of giving in many of the people who hold conservative views.

2. The paternalistic prejudice involved with systematically treating the poor as though they are children needing to be taken care of, rather than taught how to live. Yes, I know that the excesses of the wealthy, and the methods which they use to maintain their wealth create a very slanted playing field. I also recognize that there is an absolute necessity for unskilled, uneducated people to fill positions that produce services and products cheaply so that the profit for the few at the top can be maximized. Capitalists have to have people who will accept poverty so that they may live in luxury, and they manipulate many with talk of flag burning, abortion, patriotism, and Ford trucks in an effort to ensure then that they are voting the right way on issues such as taxes.

All of that may be true, but it is also true that when you create a class of people beholden to the government for their sustenance and livelihood, you also create a group of people who believe they are entitled to do little in order to receive those benefits. Johnson's "Great Society" was the most paternalistically racist idea in the 20th century. The idea that "oh, those poor black people need help from us because they cannot help themselves. Here, let me give you some stuff to assuage the guilt I feel over having so much more" is as racist an idea as "they are inferior to us because they are black." It just feels better because you handed them some candy instead of just turning your back.

When they are told that the system is against them, that they have no real choice (completely different from acknowledging the bias in the system as a real component that may limit, but in no way completely limit their choices), and that they will have to rely on the benevolent hand of the government to sustain themselves, many will accept that and live only by the welfare provided. They were told that they had no chance, they accepted that because that is what you told them when you gave them the check, so they take it and live on it as best they can. It was striking to me how many African American students I had that detested what welfare did to their community.

There will always be people who need and deserve help from our collective system of government. There will always be people who have to be forced into providing the money for that help. There is also a balance there that is a moving target, but one that must be aspired to that allows people the dignity and respect of being treated as a capable person rather than a victim. A person receiving a helping hand rather than a guilt offering.

I don't doubt for one second that there are conservatives that couldn't care less about anyone but themselves. They don't care if people die because of poverty. I also believe that some of those people have very influential voices (namely people like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Santorum). I also believe that the majority are not so selfish. Many of those people who listen to Rush also help their neighbors in need, and are not some capitalistic automaton incapable of feeling human emotion.

I also don't doubt for a second that there are liberals that believe that because the system is top weighted, that is should be scrapped in favor of one that provides the same for all. That system is just as damaging to humanity as is the other. This is the third time I have quoted Galbraith on this thread, and I stand by it "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." There will always be an imbalance of power under ANY system. I for one do believe that Capitalism checked by some Socialist principles is the best idea out there.

I know that was rambling and a bit disorganized, but I am on cold meds today and am not my sharpest. I hope I expressed my thoughts clearly enough, but probably not.

First of all I'm always suspect about corporate "philanthropy," if only because I find nothing that self-sacrifiing about what they do, to say nothing of the propagandistic aspect of such gestures in regards to casting them in a positive light before a buying public. There is also the tax insentive you indicate. Mine is surly a tasteless ideological position, however I'm too philosphically ruthless to think otherwise. And in any case, I'm all for anonymity in such aid, as it eliminates the diagreeable propagandistic aspect. That they don't give anonymously, only reinforces my suspicions.

Secondly, I really don't fear the "dangers" of creating a "wellfare State" as you seem to do. On the one hand because we are soooo far from a socialized State in America that to me the hypothesis becomes unfathomable and thus irrelevant. And, on the other hand, because I have more faith in humanity (in this, at least, I'm surly an optomist) than those that consider any social assistence as an insentive toward lazziness and free-loaderdom. In reality, more credit I think is due to people's propensity at applying themselves for their own personal realization and for the good of the commuinty at large. It thus becomes a convenient excuse to say "by not providing social assistance" we encourage more individual responsibility. No doubt some, even many, though decidedly not most, will take advantage of an "easy ride," however I don't think that having the State investing in social programs always encourages the phenomenon, whereas it provides much needed asssitance to those, who, for a variety of reasons, actually can't manage without it. And besides the encouraging lazziness argument is most often the convenient rational for the conservatives to explain why society should be left to take care of itself.

More often than not, consequently, it is the right thing to do, in addition to it being simply a more philosophically and ideologically nobel position.

I always find it striking and abhorent that in the US their exists a political movement made up of bigoted conservatives called the "Moral Majority," that never tires of telling us about the "true Christian identity" of the American State. Their religious bigotry, like all religious bigotries, is wrapped up in a tasteless self-righteouness and serves as an alibi to justify the imperfect behavior of the believer, while at the same time is all the more nauseating because eminantly hypocritical being connected as it is to an ultra-conservative political and economic ideology that defies every Christian precept starting with that fundamental teaching of the Christ: namely that one must give up his own wealth to help his neighbor.

Not being religious, but being thouroughly grounded in Western culture, this concept of bigoted and conservative America makes the whole notion of faith seem a brand of insipid ideology to be worn by those who think they are the paladins of a divine justice, and, as such, are excused from all misdoings simply because on the "righteous side" of a develping new World Order that they are no doubt destined to shape.

I'll continue to abide, therefore, by my lay and rationalist philosphies, that allow me to at least try and see things objectively, while eliminating the infinite number of paranoias that afflict the conservative world view. Begining with the first terror that social programs will result in a nation of do-nothing, free-loader parasites.

 

[Anonymous]

First of all I'm always suspect about corporate "philanthropy," if only because I find nothing that self-sacrifiing about what they do, to say nothing of the propagandistic aspect of such gestures in regards to casting them in a positive light before a buying public. There is also the tax insentive you indicate. Mine is surly a tasteless ideological position, however I'm too philosphically ruthless to think otherwise. And in any case, I'm all for anonymity in such aid, as it eliminates the diagreeable propagandistic aspect. That they don't give anonymously, only reinforces my suspicions.

Secondly, I really don't fear the "dangers" of creating a "wellfare State" as you seem to do. On the one hand because we are soooo far from a socialized State in America that to me the hypothesis becomes unfathomable and thus irrelevant. And, on the other hand, because I have more faith in humanity (in this, at least, I'm surly an optomist) than those that consider any social assistence as an insentive toward lazziness and free-loaderdom. In reality, more credit I think is due to people's propensity at applying themselves for their own personal realization and for the good of the commuinty at large. It thus becomes a convenient excuse to say "by not providing social assistance" we encourage more individual responsibility. No doubt some, even many, though decidedly not most, will take advantage of an "easy ride," however I don't think that having the State investing in social programs always encourages the phenomenon, whereas it provides much needed asssitance to those, who, for a variety of reasons, actually can't manage without it. And besides the encouraging lazziness argument is most often the convenient rational for the conservatives to explain why society should be left to take care of itself.

More often than not, consequently, it is the right thing to do, in addition to it being simply a more philosophically and ideologically nobel position.

I always find it striking and abhorent that in the US their exists a political movement made up of bigoted conservatives called the "Moral Majority," that never tires of telling us about the "true Christian identity" of the American State. Their religious bigotry, like all religious bigotries, is wrapped up in a tasteless self-righteouness and serves as an alibi to justify the imperfect behavior of the believer, while at the same time is all the more nauseating because eminantly hypocritical being connected as it is to an ultra-conservative political and economic ideology that defies every Christian precept starting with that fundamental teaching of the Christ: namely that one must give up his own wealth to help his neighbor.

Not being religious, but being thouroughly grounded in Western culture, this concept of bigoted and conservative America makes the whole notion of faith seem a brand of insipid ideology to be worn by those who think they are the paladins of a divine justice, and, as such, are excused from all misdoings simply because on the "righteous side" of a develping new World Order that they are no doubt destined to shape.

I'll continue to abide, therefore, by my lay and rationalist philosphies, that allow me to at least try and see things objectively, while eliminating the infinite number of paranoias that afflict the conservative world view. Begining with the first terror that social programs will result in a nation of do-nothing, free-loader parasites.

All I would suggest is that you visit some neighborhoods where there used to stand monuments to the idea that a Great Society was possible, and ask the people who used to live in government housing how it affected their communities. Honestly, I didn't really begin to change my mind until I heard if from them. LBJ and the ideas he promoted were wrong, and as racist as any they claimed to be fighting against. Again, taking the vaunted attitude that "I am smart and know what is best for you" is paternalism, and inherently supposes the characteristic of superiority. Personally, I do believe people should be responsible for their own lives once reaching adulthood, taking into account the need to provide for the mentally and physically challenged and disabled, that responsibility is taken from adults by a state derived economy. Again, I am also fine with safety nets, and the fluid manner in which they need to be implemented based on a given time period. I just don't think everyone needs to be tied up in the net so that they are left with the inability to swim in the open water.

As for religion. It is as easy to compartmentalize the religious as it is people of a different color. I would suggest that your take on it is affected by those with the loudest voices, and does not take into account the earnest beliefs and actions of the majority. Some of the most bigoted people I have ever known were people who hated Christians. The interesting thing is that many times the hate stems from a perceived lack of tolerance in Christians themselves. Intolerance and hatred based on the fact that another is intolerant and hateful merely makes you brothers, not opposites. I am also well aware of the intolerance preached in many churches, and the ideas that are contrary to the teachings of Christ that are passed off as being fundamentally derived. The sermon on the mount was a radical teaching then as it is now, and many of the people who see themselves as the spearhead of Christ would scream to crucify him for his teachings were he to say those things today. Today's Fundamentalists are yesterdays Pharisees. Let me stop there though for fear of being branded an evangelical. I certainly am in no position to question your faith or lack thereof, and you didn't ask me what my belief regarding Christ is.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

ask the people who used to live in government housing how it affected their communities.

In my country, govt housing was very successful. The current prime minister (sort of like a prez, but not, since we're still officially a monarchy) grew up in govt housing.

You seem to have the order wrong. It wasn't the govt housing that destroyed these communities, it was the fact that these people didn't have a lot of money so govt housing was the most affordable option.

Poor communities have a lot of problems because they're poor, not because of who owns the deed to the house they live in.