 |
|
- Groucho -
|
|
To give them a bit of credit ...
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
- Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
I wonder who came up with the thought first, Emerson or Whitman?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
The GOP only champions individual rights when it is convenient and in line with their moral philosophy. They are anti-individual rights on drugs, gay rights, the flag burning ammendment, the war on terror, etc. It's not consistent |
The same can, of course, be said with regards to liberals and the Democrats.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats only support liberty when it is in line with their political beliefs of acceptable behavior. Therefore, neither party is pro-liberty, so I won't vote for either at this stage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
DF and I got into a little spat about it in this thread, though I must warn you that I remained on-topic and talked about reforming Social Security and not abolishing it. If you feel like adding something to the conversation, please do - I'd like to hear your opinion.  |
I don't know that much about SS, that's why I said my plan was childish, simplistic, and ignorant. I agree with DF, and that's probably because we think so very much alike. I really don't understand why everyone dogs so much on him, all he was trying to do was bring logic, ethics, and morality to the discussion. Apparently that's not what anyone wants to hear, and they continually batter him with, "You're just selfish." What everyone is failing to realize is that we are talking about the use of government force here... the power to take away your life and freedom, and just like no one should be forced at gunpoint to live a Christian lifestyle, no one should be forced at gunpoint to conform to someone else's standard of morality. I happen to be a very generous person, (although I hate it when strangers come up to me ask me for money) but that isn't really an issue. The government does not have the right to force me to be generous. If you are, donate to a charity that will at least use your money more wisely than the government, or, even better, find people in your own life who can and will use your help.
What I REALLY don't understand is why you are in apparent agreement with the suggestion that SS should be abolished, when you dismiss all legitimate arguments as to the morality of doing so. Upon what morality do you base your opinion? That it just isn't working? And if only we could find a program that works, then it's OK? You flip-flop within the same post! Maintain some sort of purity, or I'm just going to get confused about who you are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
If they aren't pro-liberty - why call them liberals?
Why not socialists? Or amoral secular humanists? Or anything that is half way close to having some sort of content.
Oh. Guess I just answered my own question. If your discourse has content then it can be debated and debate is not all that popular amongst the political elite. So if you use a word like "liberal" as an insult, the fact that it has no content other than "something vaguely bad, leftist and unamerican" makes it perfect because there is no way of saying "No, I'm not!" When the word "liberal" has no solid meaning, there is no way of saying it doesn't apply to you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
Back in the day, "liberal" did mean someone who espoused liberty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
In American politics, though, it simply means "left winger".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Back in the day, "liberal" did mean someone who espoused liberty. |
More specifically: in the 19th and maybe the early 20th century, it meant taking the side of individual rights vs. government power across all issues, pretty much like today's libertarians. (My understanding is that it still has that meaning in Europe.) Somewhere between the Roosevelts, the term got hijacked by the Left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
I only knew that because I like English novels. I didn't know that it ever meant the same thing in America.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I happen to be a very generous person, (although I hate it when strangers come up to me ask me for money) but that isn't really an issue. The government does not have the right to force me to be generous. If you are, donate to a charity that will at least use your money more wisely than the government, or, even better, find people in your own life who can and will use your help.
|
Tandee- you haven't had the benefit of what I'm about to post before. It's a post I made on this forum about 3 years ago, and I dig it out when well-intentioned people suggest abolishing social security.
"Let me follow up my last post with my explanation of why I feel tax-funded welfare is essential.
Unlike (I suspect) most of the regular posters on this forum, I have been on the dole (receiving welfare for unemployment) twice. The first period was for 7 months after leaving school while the second period was for 5 months after I graduated from University. I claimed unemployment benefit during both periods, and the fact that I didn't have to worry about eating or keeping a roof over my head allowed me to concentrate on going to nightschool and seeking work during the day. At the end of each period of unemployment I found a permanent job and for the vast majority of my adult life I have been in stable employment and paying taxes.
My unemployment was due to economic factors in Britain at the time. There simply weren't enough jobs around so myself and 3 million others were on the dole. I'm educated, I have a sound work ethic and I pay my way.
Resorting to "charitable donations" in such circumstances really means one thing- begging. I would have had to spend my days scraping together a pittance to survive on with little hope of obtaining a job. I suspect that under such circumstances I would still be on the streets today, or dead. Instead I am a manager for a major British bank and feeding much-needed funds back into the state. I consider it my duty as a citizen in a democratic country, and consider those who evade taxation to be parasites.
A nation without welfare funded by taxation is a nation where shantytowns and begging children are depressingly familiar sights. The atrocious social conditions result in high crime rates and a huge social underclass which breeds malcontent.
I owe my education to state funded education. I owe my health to the National Health Service. I owe my current affluence to the welfare state. I pay my taxes willingly and think that the income tax rates in Britain should be higher for the good of the country.
I consider tax-funded welfare to leave the nation a better place, and this far outweighs the individual irritation of paying tax. I feel this way because the streets are a cold and unforgiving place to sleep."
I'm glad to hear you're a generous person, tandee, but I think the few pennies you and your kind might throw my way would just prolong my starvation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Laz, here's the problem Libertarians have.
The government is still resorting to force and theft in order to get the money they want for social programs.
I also don't think it's fair for people to bring personal experiences such as yours into a debate. It has the effect of using an emotional appeal to make people who oppose whatever program the other side is supporting look like jackasses.
Without getting into a pissing match over other matters, the issue at hand is the use of force and coercion - forcing people into giving away their hard earned money. You say that this force is nothing more than "individual irritation". That's your opinion - to YOU, force is nothing more than individual irritation.
Of course, that's not what you really think, and I don't mean to suggest it. You would surely oppose use of government force in stamping out, say, peaceful dissent.
So what you are, in effect, saying is that you support one sort of coercion, but oppose other sorts of coercion. You seem to be drawing a distinction as to degree of coercion, and also making unconscious judgements as to which types of coercion are worse than others (in this example, stamping out dissent is worse than taking your money). But I don't think this is really intellectually honest. Coercion IS coercion. I don't see how it is reasonable to support one form of coercion on the one hand, while categorically rejecting another form on the other hand.
Another side of the debate will simply say that stamping out dissent is a good form of coercion, for whatever reasons, while taking your money is a bad form of coercion, for whatever reasons. But their reasoning is no more consistent or logical than the other side's. Neither side can really say the other is wrong, without compromising their own position.
And that, as I see it, is a big problem with the argument that taxing people for social programs is OK because it "benefits society" (whatever benefitting society means).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
What the hell exactly is my kind? Do tell. I'm a 20 year old mother with a husband who has as little education as I do. I'm about to go back to school while my husband and I switch off taking care of our child so we don't have to pay for a babysitter, which we can't afford and don't want. I'm not blaming this on anyone because I made my choices and I'm going to live with them. I was valedictorian of my high school class, and that's why I get to go to school. My parents divorced before I was born, my dad and his wife are pawnbrokers, my mom and her husband don't speak to me and are on and off of welfare and help from my rich grandparents. I grew up in about 7 different apartments and rented homes. Don't tell me your sob story. It's bullshit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
Oh and btw, we need $150 for bills that we don't have. Can I come to your house with a gun today and steal your wallet?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
Oh, I read it. And it's bullshit. I'm sorry that you couldn't wean yourself from the nanny state. Perhaps the reason you had trouble getting a job is because your economy has been ****ed over by socialism-- just a guess. You have too much pride to beg, but stealing is A OK in your book. Skip asking, and just steal. Yes, it's stealing when you take something from someone else who didn't give it to you voluntarily. You are a thief. Thief. Thief. There's no other word for it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Certainly not. Feel free to drop by at the Social Security Centres or Citizen's Advice Bureau that my taxes paid for, however. You'd have my blessing and best wishes. |
Potatoes, patahtahs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I don't know that much about SS, that's why I said my plan was childish, simplistic, and ignorant. I agree with DF, and that's probably because we think so very much alike. |
And since David also knows nothing about SS, I can see how the both of you are in agreement.
quote:
What I REALLY don't understand is why you are in apparent agreement with the suggestion that SS should be abolished, when you dismiss all legitimate arguments as to the morality of doing so. Upon what morality do you base your opinion? That it just isn't working? And if only we could find a program that works, then it's OK? You flip-flop within the same post! Maintain some sort of purity, or I'm just going to get confused about who you are. |
Given that you didn't see fit to reply to the original thread in the *a-hem* original thread, I haven't the slightest idea where my flip-flop is. I do recall telling both you in this thread and David in the original that my intention was to remain on-topic - why do the both of you have a problem with that?
You obviously (purposely?) missed the substance of my disagreement with David, namely, that his arguments were designed not to persuade but merely to antagonize. There was no factual base to them, instead, they showed that the "thinker" had no inkling of:
1. The way the world (the one we live in, not the ideal world in your minds) works.
2. The way people think or feel, and how to use that understanding to further your own ends.
3. How to present his case to make it appealing to people whom (however erroneously) believe that they would have a lot to lose with the abolition of SS.
4. Any knowledge of the issue at hand. But then, you both admitted that, didn't you?
5. No concern about the consequences of the rash and hasty implementation of your "ideas."
You see, neither of you have any idea how your nostrums of "morality" clash with the vast general public out there. When you mention abolishing SS, most decent people would fear for the fact that you are removing a sizable percentage of income from a segment of the population that has little means to get it back and their initial response of shock and horror to your "arguments of morality" is quite correct: y'all do sound like selfish children whose only concern is yourself, all others be damned!
I, too, used to be a Randian when I was 20 and I got over it. You will too.
My daughter is crying. Though she is being selfish in demanding my time, I do subscribe to the "false morality" that she can make claims upon my time so I must leave.
Last edited by JohnT on 03-11-2002 at 03:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
And since David also knows nothing about SS, I can see how the both of you are in agreement. |
I don't need to know how the Mafia works to know that it's wrong.
quote:
Given that you didn't see fit to reply to the original thread in the *a-hem* original thread, |
It's an old thread, I don't see the need to drag it up again. People just have such a problem about quibbling over my right to my own life.
quote:
I haven't the slightest idea where my flip-flop is. |
I didn't think you would. DF mentioned it at the time, and you didn't take notice then either. One minute abolish, one minute reform.
quote:
I do recall telling both you in this thread and David in the original that my intention was to remain on-topic - why do the both of you have a problem with that? |
This is what I have a problem with -- You believe one thing. You either believe in reforming or you believe in abolishing. If you think you believe in both, you're misunderstanding what a belief is. And I personally don't think you should argue something you don't believe in simply to remain "on topic."
quote:
1. The way the world (the one we live in, not the ideal world in your minds) works. |
I'm sorry I can't give up as easily as you can on making things as they ought to be. I'm not interested in cowtowing to wrong ideas simply because you and your half-ass majority believe in them.
quote:
2. The way people think or feel, and how to use that understanding to further your own ends.
3. How to present his case to make it appealing to people whom (however erroneously) believe that they would have a lot to lose with the abolition of SS. |
I can't work within a system of thought that is wrong. It is impossible for me to "go inside your head." And here's the thing. I don't want to.
quote:
5. No concern about the consequences of the rash and hasty implementation of your "ideas." |
Since you don't what my plan is (understandably because I haven't explained it), you don't know what the implementation of my ideas entails. All you know is that I support the philosophy of abolishing social security because it is wrong. And it is.
quote:
You see, neither of you have any idea how your nostrums of "morality" clash with the vast general public out there. |
 So you're saying that if most people thought like I did, you would too? You wouldn't, and I wouldn't ask you to.
quote:
y'all do sound like selfish children whose only concern is yourself, all others be damned! |
I do have a concern for other human beings, and my concern is mostly that we all have the rights to which we are entitled. You have no idea what I am I like IRL, and you probably never will. If you can't get past "what I seem like" to the truth of my arguments, that is, most decidedly, your problem.
quote:
I, too, used to be a Randian when I was 20 and I got over it. You will too. |
**** you, you arrogant *****. Just because you chose the wrong things, you have no special knowledge that I will too.
quote:
My daughter is crying. Though she is being selfish in demanding my time, I do subscribe to the "false morality" that she can make claims upon my time so I must leave. |
I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but it's irrelevant to our discussion. The entire population is not my baby. I didn't choose to conceive and give birth to the entire world. I did not choose to take on that responsibility. The world and your child are two very different things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
I have to disagree, because I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. I have a wealth of life experience that I draw on when talking about my opinions, and to suggest it's wrong to do so is a suggestion I think'll pass on. We don't live under belljars and espouse opinions of pure theoretical concepts.
I'm a pragmatist, David. I view everything in practical terms, drawing on my own experience to do so. I express myself in the same way. I don't feel that's a fault. |
My point was really this. If you personalize a debate by saying "I was once on welfare and I had to have it to live", etc., that is a method that can be used to make the opposition look like a bunch of jackasses. It puts the other side in a lose-lose situation (if they care at all about the feeling of others, anyway), and that's really why it's not fair.
quote:
Certainly not. Feel free to drop by at the Social Security Centres or Citizen's Advice Bureau that my taxes paid for, however. You'd have my blessing and best wishes. |
And if you didn't voluntarily give your money to those bureaus, it would be the same as coming to your house and stealing it.
JohnT,
quote:
And since David also knows nothing about SS, I can see how the both of you are in agreement. |
There are, I'm sure, quite a few subjects about which you have no inkling of the inner workings, yet still have an opinion on. Knowing how a system works is irrelevant to having an opinion about the system, if your opinion is primarily about the base the system is built on.
quote:
There was no factual base to them, instead, they showed that the "thinker" had no inkling of:
1. The way the world (the one we live in, not the ideal world in your minds) works. |
Not relevant to me. I can (and will) easily say that the world is run immorally.
quote:
2. The way people think or feel, and how to use that understanding to further your own ends. |
I'm not gonna persuade anyone here anyway, especially with the frequent demonizations people like you give me, so why the **** should I care?
quote:
3. How to present his case to make it appealing to people whom (however erroneously) believe that they would have a lot to lose with the abolition of SS. |
Actually I did present my case in such a way, with my "voluntary savings" concept.
quote:
4. Any knowledge of the issue at hand. But then, you both admitted that, didn't you? |
I certainly did. I have no clue about the inner workings of Social Security. But that doesn't mean jackshit, because I *DO* know that Social Security is based upon forced transfer of wealth, which I know to be wrong.
quote:
5. No concern about the consequences of the rash and hasty implementation of your "ideas." |
You're right about that. I don't really give a **** about what problems you think a free society would cause.
quote:
You see, neither of you have any idea how your nostrums of "morality" clash with the vast general public out there. |
Again, don't give a ****.
quote:
When you mention abolishing SS, most decent people would fear for the fact that you are removing a sizable percentage of income from a segment of the population that has little means to get it back and their initial response of shock and horror to your "arguments of morality" is quite correct: y'all do sound like selfish children whose only concern is yourself, all others be damned! |
Yes, but the ****ing morons who say that don't seem to see that it is themselves who are the selfish bastards. Those old people are their parents, and family should be the primary source for help. Oh, they can't afford it? Well who the **** are they to say I can?
quote:
I, too, used to be a Randian when I was 20 and I got over it. You will too. |
Wow. What an arrogant, patronizing thing to say.
Or maybe you have special powers. Thank you very much, Nostra-****ing-damus. I'll just call you instead of Miss Cleo next time I want to know my future.
quote:
My daughter is crying. Though she is being selfish in demanding my time, I do subscribe to the "false morality" that she can make claims upon my time so I must leave. |
Damn good thing, too, seeing as how having sex in the first place was a voluntary act.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
And yes, my above post was fairly hostile. My apologies. I tend to get that way when people make patronizing posts directed towards me that also imply that said people are ever so much smarter than me.
Don't make posts like that, and we won't have problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
Ok - I only glanced at the stuff above, but am I right in thinking DF and Tandee are both against all "forced transfers of wealth"? Or just those used for social security?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2002 20:48
|