I Got Mine - A Conservative Worldview

[Phyxius]

Source (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print/13562/)

I Got Mine - A Conservative Worldview
By Alicia Morgan
Created Mar 20 2008 - 5:17am

My kids are big fans of the 'Blue Collar Comedy Tour', and especially of Larry the Cable Guy, a comedian so conservative that he named his daughter Reagan (I kid you not.) They have Tivo'ed several of the shows and so I hear a lot of it from the living room. Most of the time I tune it out, but one bit of Larry the Cable Guy's caught my attention. He was extolling the virtues of Wal-Mart, and deriding liberals who don't like Wal-Mart because they pay their employees so little. His advice to those weenies who don't like how employees are treated at Wal-Mart is - "Don't work at Wal-Mart!"

Those four words (or five, depending on whether Wal-Mart is one word or two) sum up the basic precepts of conservative philosophy.

You'll hear conservatives say, "If you don't want to work at Wal-Mart, then get an education and work hard and you won't have to." Pull yourself up by your bootstraps; put your nose to the grindstone; have some self-discipline. The old 'personal responsibility' routine.

What that does not address is the question, "If I don't work there, then who else should be working there?"

In other words, a job that pays so little that a full-time worker is still below the poverty line and is eligible for welfare is fine and dandy - as long as it's not me working there?

That's the essence of the conservative worldview: as long as I've got mine, I don't care if you have yours. The idea of everyone pursuing his or her own self-interest, then by the invisible hand, the self-interest of all will be maximized, or in the parlance of the Eighties, "Greed is good!" - is the one-size-fits-all answer to poverty, to injustice, to inequality. But what it boils down to in real life is "I've got mine." The idea that every person that works full-time is due enough compensation to support themselves, let alone a family, doesn't even enter into the calculation. It's okay for other people to be underpaid, overworked, taken advantage of. All that matters is - it's not me.

This is why conservatism just plain doesn't work - at least for the kind of society we say we want as Americans. There has to be some kind of consideration for more than just 'me and mine'. The place we're at right now - teetering on the brink of an economic collapse that could easily become a depression, embroiled in a grotesque, bloody occupation with no end in sight, pretending to be 'liberators' with no concern as to whether the country we're occupying wants us there or not, with a Vice-President who doesn't care how many Americans object to the war (apparently the two-thirds of Americans who say it's not worth fighting are merely exhibiting 'fluctuations in opinion', like toddlers who don't like apple juice today, but loved it yesterday), with the largest divide between rich and poor since the robber barons of the Gilded Age - is a place that conservatism, with its selfish, childish and short-sighted "I got mine" has brought us to.

And eventually, my conservative friends, even you may find yourself holding the short end of the stick. You may end up being the one treading water while someone else roars away to safety in the speedboat, oblivious to your cries for help. The policy of "I got mine" only leads to fewer and fewer people who have "got theirs" and more and more people who get next to nothing. Sooner or later, you'll be one of the latter. It's just a matter of time.

If you don't object to the mistreatment of your brother or sister, what will happen when it's your turn? Maybe you'll end up competing with Larry the Cable Guy for that swell greeter job at Wal-Mart.

How uniquely American.

[Drocket]

Well, this thread is guaranteed to be fun, I suspect. :P Just to throw a bit more gasoline on the coming fire, though...

This assessment is pretty much what I've observed over the years. What I consider the strongest evidence, though, are conservatives who hold "liberal" positions. Any time you see that, you can pretty much instantly guarantee that they or someone very close to them is affected by that topic. Dick Cheney is far more accepting of homosexuals than most conservatives - and he just happens to have a lesbian daughter. McCain is against torture - perhaps that has something to do with the fact that he went threw it? Nancy Reagan is pro-stem cell research - perchance related to Ronald's condition. Jim Bradey by sheer coincidence suddenly acquires a belief in gun control.

A liberal is someone with empathy and imagination. They can put themselves in someone else's shoes, can feel for that person and wants to help them with issues that may not even directly affect the liberal. A conservative doesn't give a crap about anything, right up to the moment that it affects them. Then they experience a sudden revelation and miraculously acquire the liberal position on that issue. And usually ONLY on that issue.

[Easy90]

Yeah...same old liberal clap-trap...People who want to keep what they earn are "greedy..." and Liberals who want to steal it are "oppressed." Blah! Blah! Blah!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy90 said:
People who want to keep what they earn are "greedy..." and Liberals who want to steal it are "oppressed." Blah! Blah! Blah!

That about sums up the entire OP I think.

I call it misinformed, but would be glad to debate any issue in specificity. :love:

[ECW]

...People who want to keep what they earn are "greedy..." and Liberals who want to steal it are "oppressed." Blah! Blah! Blah!


I heard it a bit differently:

Conservatives who want to keep what they steal are "greedy."
Liberals who want them to return it are vilified for trying to hold them accountable.

I guess you didn't have any other objections to the article then...? OK. Fine.

[penmyst]

Threads like this are a microcosm of today's leftists (that is what today's "liberal" means) and classic liberals (what is called today "conservatives").

One side believes in the idea that gubmint can make your life wonderful. The other side believes that individuals make their lives wonderful.

It's obvious which one works. America didn't become the greatest nation to ever exist by subscribing to Karl Marx ideologies. But lefties keep thinking it's gonna be different this time... just like in the U.S.S.R..... and North Korea.... and Cooba... or every other socialist paradise on the scrap heap of history.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are the keys to a successful and prosperous society. And a gubmint that strives to protect those key tenets is a gubmint that will preside over a great nation. A gubmint that ignores those cornerstones will get fat on the backs of the people it professes to help. Jim Quinn states Quinn's first law: "Liberalism generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent." Truer words never spoken.

[Osborn F. Enready]

The greatest testament to american values and foundational law, is that it allowed places like "New Harmony Indiana" to exist at all, when it directly threatened the philosophy of individual rights, and our foundational system of law based on self-ownership.

The fact that it DID allow a full fledged "socialist uptopian" society to exist in the system, and that system STILL FAILED MISERABLY, shows the value of individual rights and capitalism in itself, in the sense it hardly affected those outside the "social experiment".

Check out the history of New Harmony Indiana, you will be suprised if never hearing of it before.

[Easy90]

...People who want to keep what they earn are "greedy..." and Liberals who want to steal it are "oppressed." Blah! Blah! Blah!


I heard it a bit differently:

Conservatives who want to keep what they steal are "greedy."
Liberals who want them to return it are vilified for trying to hold them accountable.


Well...sure....but liberals define capitalism as "stealing.." and they consider confiscatory taxation from people who work for their money..."returning it" (to people who didn't earn it.) So it's all a mater of viewpoint...and semantics. As for the rest of the article...see, when I can skim a few words in a typical liberal propaganda piece and immediately detect lies and demagoguery, I don't bother to read the rest of the piece. Really, you are all like a broken record...and just because you are half-way through your sociology 101 course at the community college, and think you've learned something new...we adults have seen it before.

[DMan]

OK, here's a great thread for me.

[A liberal is someone with empathy and imagination. They can put themselves in someone else's shoes, can feel for that person and wants to help them with issues that may not even directly affect the liberal. A conservative doesn't give a crap about anything, right up to the moment that it affects them]

About 6 years ago I owned my own computer company and developed a product that I thought was pretty good. I risked everything I had to make my company work. After one month marketing my product, a much larger company liked my product so much that they had me merge my company with theirs (*I became co-owner of both companies) with the idea of taking my product nationally. Within another month we were in the process of opening offices throughout the country. Things were looking great BUT honestly, I wasn't happy. I spent my days worried about business. Finishing the story, I walked away (*GAVE AWAY) everything to my partner and since then have worked for what is (*I believe) the largest charity in the world.

Not to long ago the organization I work for had me go and speak at a "Future Leaders of America" event. (*I believe that was their name) At the event I asked the question, "Have you ever done anything like cut the elderly couples lawn next door, not for money, but just to help them out or anything like that? How did it make you feel? That's how I feel every day."

Professionally my job is to help people. We help with rent, utilities, medical, clothing, furniture, baby needs, food (*both giving food away and running a 7 day a week soup kitchen), and MANY other social service and social programs.

My point? Don't for one second CLAIM that Liberals are the only people who care about the needs of others.

Want to know the 'dirty little secret' of my job? Most of the people that are in 'need' are in the position BECAUSE THEY PUT THEMSELVES INTO IT, because of choices they have made in life and choices they continue to make. Are there people in need? Of course! What makes my job is when we help that (*figuratively speaking) 'single parent mom' with three kids who didn't know that we could help who was about to be evicted or didn't have food for her kids. Funny thing is, she will be the one who 3 months later when she gets her tax return show up at our door to 'pay us back'. 'She' is "1 in 100" though.

Please don't think for one second I am saying that there aren't people in need out there, but, in my honest opinion, MOST are in the position they are in because of THEIR CHOICES. We help people 'in need' day after day who also happen to own cell phones, wear Nike shoes and other designer clothes I could never afford, who have big screen tvs, PS3's and XBOX 360's, who drive better cars than I do, who thrive off of the Liberal, 'Sniff, we gotta help those people." I gave up everything to help those in need AND LOVE MY JOB but people need to know THE FACTS before speaking. Liberals do tend to be "someone with empathy and imagination" but also someone who is on the outside telling everyone else what they should be doing BECAUSE OF EMOTION not because of experience or deep thought and consideration (*think the welfare system "We gotta help those people! Now we have a 'Welfare Society' where people refuse to work and think they are owed their 'benifits'. One gave an emotional response while the other gave a more thoughtful response. The thoughtful response sadly is often considered uncaring.

I went into my new career with rose colored glasses. I was going to help the world! This was going to be great. Again, I do love my job and there are people who are truly in need BUT I can honestly say from experience (*And I have attended inter-agency meeting after inter-agency meeting where others who work in our same field experience THE SAME THING day after day.

And finally... what I'll call, the PROOF of my point....

[Then they experience a sudden revelation and miraculously acquire the liberal position on that issue. And usually ONLY on that issue. ]

So they go through an EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE then start to REACT BECAUSE of that EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE.

Hmmmm....

[Drocket]

DMan: Where I disagree with you is that you're predominately arguing against a parody of a liberal, not an actual liberal. The old, "Oh yeah, everybody deserves to have all their wishes fulfilled even if they never do an ounce of work, and we'll just tax the rich to pay for it." That's a strawman argument.

You know what? I agree with you that most - virtually all - of the really poor people have made mistakes. A lot of them continue to make mistakes. Those that continue to insist on making mistakes you just can't help. Unfortunate, but that's their choice. The real problem are the ones that are just one step up from there. The ones that have made mistakes, but are trying to fix their lives. They're not dirt poor, usually not enough to qualify for charities and government programs, but they're most certainly poor.

There's millions, tens of millions, of people living here in the United States who don't have health insurance despite the fact that they work full time. And yeah, they've made mistakes: back when they were 14, they didn't pay enough attention in school, and so they didn't get to to to college, and now 30 years later they're working at Walmart for just above minimum wage, trying to ignore the fact that their teeth hurt every single day because they simply can't afford to go to the dentist. Their medical care, when there's no other choice, comes exclusively from emergency services because preventative medicine is only for those with money to spare.

Yeah, they made mistakes, back when they were young and stupid, but is it really fair that they pay for that for the rest of their lives? Because that's the world we live in - one where you have those lucky enough to have not made any serious missteps, and then you have everyone else. You know, the people who work retail, the people who are make up more and more of our failing economic base. Because they're not going to get ahead no matter how hard they work. And the conservative response continues to be 'fuck 'em, they should have been smarter back when they were young.'

[DMan]

Drocket,

First off, I love civilized debate but like you saying that the difference between "parody of a liberal, not an actual liberal" also apply's to my conservative views.

So many people want to say 'conservatives don't give a crap'. This is just not true. I honestly think the reason is because when a conservative stops to examine the issue and the best possible solution, a lot, not all, liberals want to start shouting "Conservatives don't a crap" when that is not the case.

Again welfare is a great example. Liberals cry "What are we going to do to help these poor people!?" So they create welfare to help them. Now we have a society where father's no longer take care of their children BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO, THE STATE WILL. We have people who refuse to work or try to better themselves BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO, THE STATE WILL. Then a conservative say's "I don't think this is a great solution" we are called all sorts of names and said to be uncaring (*or worse, how did you put it? Don't give a f^$@) because we think there is a better way.

As for people making mistakes while they are young. Guess when I got my degree? After I was thirty with a wife, kids and full time job. I have LOTS of friends who did the same thing. People do it all the time and there are more opportunities to do so every day.

Think of life like a muscle, if you work it the better shape it will be in. Some people have a natural fitness while others (*LIKE ME!) have to freakin WORK HARD to get the same results. (*In my opinion) Conservative say "Work the muscle if you want results!" Liberals blame those with natural fitness and cry how unfare it is. Then instead of telling those (LIKE ME) to WORK HARD they point figures at those who either have a natural fitness or those who do WORK HARD. They then try to come up with solutions that have nothing to do with HARD WORK then to top it all off they think those who have either WORKED HARD or been naturally gifted should pay for those who refuse to WORK HARD.

Again, conservatives point to those who have WORKED HARD and have MADE IT BECAUSE of their hard work. Liberals cry, "We've got to do something! People who are minorities (*for example) aren't getting a fair share!" Conservatives point to so many people (*minorities) who have WORKED HARD and MADE IT BECAUSE OF THEIR HARD WORK despite idiots (*racists) who may try and 'keep someone down' because of their race or nationality. So what do Liberals do? Again, point out how we don't care. Typical liberal response.

Once again you give an arguement that is (*in my opinion) typical and again I am someone who is proof against your argument. It took me years to realize how important an education is. Then, dispite low income and a family to take care of, I worked hard, went back to school, and used that education to better myself. Here's another thing, in order to do so guess who paid for it? ME! I didn't get grants or ANYTHING. That did mean I drove a vehicle that was AT LEAST 10 years old, it did mean that I didn't have the latest and greatest clothes, that my family watched an old tv on our basic cable, and we ate chicken and hot dogs way to often. It meant I got A WHOLE LOT less sleep than I needed and spent much of my free time either working or hitting the books. Lastly, my grades in high school, 75 -80 at best. In college? 90% and better. HARD WORK.

[RWallace]

In response to not only the original post, but also the liberal vs. conservative fight that broke out as a result, let me just say this. What it comes down to is that both sides have reasonable arguments, and that in general the best way to go is somewhere in the middle.
To use government economic regulation as a general example, think of it this way: Conservatives are right in wanting to maintain capitalism; that is what got America where it is today. However, liberals are right in seeing that sometimes the government needs to step in and make a few tweaks to keep that capitalist system working in a generally good direction.
It sounds almost contradictory, I know, but it's really not at all. Think of FDR during the Great Depression. I doubt that any sensible person would deny that FDR helped America greatly; however, he did have to tweak the system somewhat to do that.
America works by remaining capitalist, but now and then stepping in to keep things going good. We have got to both recognize that capitalism is the best economic system and that we must maintain it, but also not surrender our nation to no health care, vast poverty, and developmental stagnation.

[Go Fish]

Marx and Engels would be proud, that's all I have to say.
Git 'er done!

[RWallace]

Marx and Engels would be proud, that's all I have to say.
Git 'er done!


I don't know about the others here, but I hate communism with a fervent passion. As I said before, it is all about a compromise between the best economic system (capitalism) and the fact that we should be committed to bettering our nation (health care, poverty, etc.). And also that all issues and therefore positions are time-specific. If a candidate like FDR had run during the Eisenhower years, it wouldn't have made any sense. We were doing great in the 50's. But when FDR did run, his style of government control was desperately needed and when he implemented it- it worked.
In fact, I think America's problems can be summed up best by Napoleon:
"If one is to maintain one's superiority, one must change one's tactics every ten years."

[Go Fish]

You used to drive the #2 car, didn't you? (DON'T report me for that. I'm a die-hard NASCAR FAN!)
I have to politely disagree with your moderation theory. Nothing has ever been gained by not fighting for what you believe in. What if we had taken that tack WRT "taxation without representation"? What if we'd told Japan that we'd "work with them" after Pearl Harbor? Where would we be today if 96% of congress hadn't demanded that President Bush invade Iraq?
You gott'a do what you gott'a do, opinion polls and protests notwithstanding.
We DID change tactics at that 10 year interval. President Reagan shut down the USSR, brought the Islamic terrorist to their knees, got the economy rolling and built up our military. Then Clinton came along, got blowjobs in the Oval Office, jerked off before shaking hands with Yassir Arafat in the Rose Garden, Sold ICBM technology to China, got impeached, ran the military into the ground, and stole everything that wasn't bolted down when he left the White House. President Bush went BACK after the Islamic terrorists, unfucked the economy, shut down Saddam Hussein and Muammar Khadafi, trounced the Taliban, made Dan Rather slink off into retirement and earned the praise of Bono for his contributions to the victims in Darfur. It's roughly a 10 year span between Reagan going lame-duck and Bush hitting his stride. Your point is proven, and damned if you didn't hit it within a month or so.
Napoleon was headquartered in my home town for quite some time. He would have done well to have heeded his own advice.[/font]

[RWallace]

Let me be more clear about my so-called "moderation theory".
What I was trying to say was that we should not pick some belief such as "all regulation on a free-market system is evil" and stick with that regardless of the circumstances. As situations change, so too should positions. You can call that flip-flopping, or you can call that properly adapting to new dynamics. Once again, in 1955, that mantra of no economic regulation would have been beautiful. But what about in 1930? We should always make decisions based on the present situation. The "indomitable truths" laid out by our founding fathers our virtually the only indomitable truths when it comes to politics.
However, once a time-specific and smart decision has been made, then I completely agree with you that there is no compromise. Within the context of 1945, an atomic bomb (two, actually) on Japan was definitely the way to go. But let us say for a moment that some up-and-coming politician had subscribed to the notion "always use atomic force in a war".
The 1960's might have been a little different, and a lot worse.
That's the only indomitable tenet of my political theory- time-specific positions.
That can apply to my regulation argument like this: In general, we must remain safely between anarchy and totalitarianism. However, depending on the time and present situation, we must lean slightly towards one or the other.

[brien]

Soooo, Liberals are the only people on the planet who care about others in society and they are the self appointed altrusitic dogooders who know better than anyone else on how to regulate everyone's life to ensure all people are equal and satisfied in life. Sure...:worship:

Ohhhhkay. So who ya gunna tax when you finish taxing the so called rich, driving them out of the nation to tax shelters like Dubai? Then when you finish with the upper class, are you going to snatch what little you allow the middle class to keep in their meager salaries?

You see, your system will eat itself alive, and when you run out of people to tax, the system will implode from within. I guess you will all feel good about yourselves in your self congratulatory glory, but when you have reached your unintended goal of a bankrupted society, it will collapse upon you. Then what will you eat? :shock:

[potter]

A liberal is someone with empathy and imagination. They can put themselves in someone else's shoes, can feel for that person and wants to help them with issues that may not even directly affect the liberal. A conservative doesn't give a crap about anything, right up to the moment that it affects them. Then they experience a sudden revelation and miraculously acquire the liberal position on that issue. And usually ONLY on that issue.



This is what I've concluded as well.

[Osborn F. Enready]

You are spot on brien, and Dubai is the "perfect harbor, for the perfect storm" in many of these corporations eyes.

I can't agree with R.Wallace here either....Compromise is only acceptable if it is a volitional choice within the rights of those making the deal. Most of citizens rights, and Constitutional protection through checks on power, have been gutted by the bi-partisan monopoly, and both parties have been conspiring to weaken if not remove entirely the Constitution and BOR.

How can anyone call the courts "objective" when the entire basis of their selection has been controlled by two parties, who have isolated themselves in power through vote fraud, gerrymandering and legislation aimed DIRECTLY at removing any third parties chance for competition for over 100 years?

[Buck Laser]

I'd say that "I got mine" is about as succinct a statement of the conservative philosophy as I've heard. Like when Ayn Rand writes about the "virtue of selfishness.'

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck, I would love to debate the virtue of selfishness if you know anything about it other than heresay and bias.

Its a sound philosophy.

What philosophy do you ascribe to Buck?

[Deadshot]

Buck, I would love to debate the virtue of selfishness if you know anything about it other than heresay and bias.

Its a sound philosophy.

What philosophy do you ascribe to Buck?


Would you kindly inform me how the "sound philosophy" of selfishness coincides with the Right's embracing of Religion?

I simply don't see Jesus stating that selfishness and/or Greed is good. Please enlighten me.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Deadshot said:
Would you kindly inform me how the "sound philosophy" of selfishness coincides with the Right's embracing of Religion?

Certainly.

Individuals who find value in religion, have a selfish intrest in practicing and donating to religious needs. If an INDIVIDUAL sees value in something, they have a selfish intrest in seeing that thing do well, or work effectively in its stated goals.

Deadshot said:
I simply don't see Jesus stating that selfishness and/or Greed is good. Please enlighten me.

I don't believe in a religion, so that question is really not relevant from my perspective.

However, it is, or should be obvious that from the "story", Jesus' love for his fellow man was so much that he sacrificed himself for the mercy on his fellow man whom he selfishly loved more than his own life.

That is perfectly compatible with the "virtue of selfishness".

You mistakenly correlate "greed and callousness" incorrectly with the term "selfish".

Selfish is not a pejorative term, except when viewed from a perspective that places the ultimate value on "unconditional love" or selflessness, both of which are philosophicly flawed when showing where the VALUE for those emotions are originated.... in the self.

Can you show me a TRUE act of selflessness?
Can you show me a TRUE act of unconditional love?

[BoogyMan]

Would you kindly inform me how the "sound philosophy" of selfishness coincides with the Right's embracing of Religion?

Heh, I was wondering when this old canard would come out. Are there some who claim religion that are hypocritical, absolutely. This stereotype that you wish to propagate DS, does not take into account that most religious individuals give freely of their own accord without the need for the government to extract it from them by legislative means. Seldom have I ever seen this pointed out.


I simply don't see Jesus stating that selfishness and/or Greed is good. Please enlighten me.


What you call greed is the conservative view that the government should not decide to whom the religious give of their wealth, am I correct? As I stated in my previous comment above, the religious individuals that I know give of their means as they see the need, making this a red-herring type of scenario DS.

[Deadshot]

What's fascinating about your argument Boogey is that you consistently wish to use the Bible as your source, yet when it comes to the role of taxes you forget Jesus' words "Give unto Cesaer's what is Cesaer's." or something to that effect.

Even JC realized the need and duty of taxes. I would also remind you that much of what is given to churches is SPENT on churches. Salaries, utilities, building upkeep, etc. If you could show me how St. Ann's brought in $5000 this month and all $5000 of it went to charity then I might be ok with your analogy, but you can't do that because it isn't true.

I'd also point out that in the 1980's most church's would not have funded programs to stamp out the "gay" disease of AIDS. Eventually the Government did, but I don't think many churches ever would have.

Coming to the State for help and not having to worry about my moral standing appeals to me more then coming to a church. I'd also remind you that not all parishenor's tithe, ergo not everyone gives. But damn near everyone has to pay some kind of tax. That fact alone makes me have more "faith" in taxes then church charities...In God we Trust, all other pay cash!

[4Reaganomics]

I don't belong to a church for help or go to the state for help, I help myself.

[BoogyMan]

What's fascinating about your argument Boogey is that you consistently wish to use the Bible as your source, yet when it comes to the role of taxes you forget Jesus' words "Give unto Cesaer's what is Cesaer's." or something to that effect.

Even JC realized the need and duty of taxes. I would also remind you that much of what is given to churches is SPENT on churches. Salaries, utilities, building upkeep, etc. If you could show me how St. Ann's brought in $5000 this month and all $5000 of it went to charity then I might be ok with your analogy, but you can't do that because it isn't true.

I'd also point out that in the 1980's most church's would not have funded programs to stamp out the "gay" disease of AIDS. Eventually the Government did, but I don't think many churches ever would have.

Coming to the State for help and not having to worry about my moral standing appeals to me more then coming to a church. I'd also remind you that not all parishenor's tithe, ergo not everyone gives. But damn near everyone has to pay some kind of tax. That fact alone makes me have more "faith" in taxes then church charities...In God we Trust, all other pay cash!


Are you actually going to compare the tax situation in Rome which was a tribute to Ceasar with the Robin Hood taxation schemes that are floating around today? Never the twain shall meet DS.

I have no problem with paying my taxes and do so per the instruction so to do.

[bishop]

ditto.

and on my own end, i don't believe in the tooth fairy because there's no proof of its existence.. it's nice to wonder IF there was some magical creator-being, but to be 100% convinced that there is, is another story.. there isn't one shred of proof, yet billions believe in the tooth fairy.

i completely agree with os on the point of selfishness. people often turn to religion when bad things happen in their lives - a crutch to make them feel like everything's a-ok. for others, they dig deep within themselves and find their own energy/power - and they acknowledge that they themselves were the ones responsible for their own successes and failures.

the greeks used to believe in fate, as do today's religions. "god works in mysterious ways".. "god has a plan for all of us"...


now, i personally believe that there was some sort of creator solely because i cannot logically conceptualize a universe where time has no beginning. i also believe in universal virtues - in line with platonic philosphy (the key virtue being truth).

[BoogyMan]

Considering your mention of Matt 22:17-21, DS, I would recommend that you read it. Your commentary in this thread has tried to claim that the religious have a problem with selfishness because many are conservative and against the Robin Hood taxation schemes we are now discussing. This is truly is a red herring as I previously pointed out as the religious are giving of their own means without the need for a legislative demand so to do. Taxation is one thing as we both know, but punitive taxation is an entirely different thing and it isn't "rendering unto Ceasar," it is a redistribution of wealth.

[piratemonkey]

Considering your mention of Matt 22:17-21, DS, I would recommend that you read it. Your commentary in this thread has tried to claim that the religious have a problem with selfishness because many are conservative and against the Robin Hood taxation schemes we are now discussing. This is truly is a red herring as I previously pointed out as the religious are giving of their own means without the need for a legislative demand so to do. Taxation is one thing as we both know, but punitive taxation is an entirely different thing and it isn't "rendering unto Ceasar," it is a redistribution of wealth.



Show us that conservatives give any more money to charity than liberals.

[BoogyMan]

Show us that conservatives give any more money to charity than liberals.


I didn't say that conservatives did pm, I was speaking of the religious who also happen to be predominantly conservative. Most of the religious people that I know give quite freely, mostly to individuals who need help rather than large organizations who wish to do their good works for them.

[piratemonkey]

Ohhhhkay. So who ya gunna tax when you finish taxing the so called rich, driving them out of the nation to tax shelters like Dubai? Then when you finish with the upper class, are you going to snatch what little you allow the middle class to keep in their meager salaries?

You see, your system will eat itself alive, and when you run out of people to tax, the system will implode from within. I guess you will all feel good about yourselves in your self congratulatory glory, but when you have reached your unintended goal of a bankrupted society, it will collapse upon you. Then what will you eat? :shock:


Is it crazy?

How in almost every other industrialized nation in the world... they pay more taxes than we do?

And somehow, for some reason, their economies don't collapse?

Crazy, how that works... :shame:

[piratemonkey]

I didn't say that conservatives did pm, I was speaking of the religious who also happen to be predominantly conservative. Most of the religious people that I know give quite freely, mostly to individuals who need help rather than large organizations who wish to do their good works for them.


Ok, point taken.

Then show us that religious people, individually, give more to charity than non-religious people.

I don't buy it.

[BoogyMan]

I didn't say that conservatives did pm, I was speaking of the religious who also happen to be predominantly conservative. Most of the religious people that I know give quite freely, mostly to individuals who need help rather than large organizations who wish to do their good works for them.


Ok, point taken.

Then show us that religious people, individually, give more to charity than non-religious people.

I don't buy it.


Like I said previously. The religious giving that I know of is mostly to individuals in need, not to large orgs that do their giving for them.

How do you expect me to document that? I never said ANYWHERE that the religious give more than the non-religious, I was taking umbrage with the silly "religious people are selfish" commentary.

[Deadshot]

Considering your mention of Matt 22:17-21, DS, I would recommend that you read it. Your commentary in this thread has tried to claim that the religious have a problem with selfishness because many are conservative and against the Robin Hood taxation schemes we are now discussing. This is truly is a red herring as I previously pointed out as the religious are giving of their own means without the need for a legislative demand so to do. Taxation is one thing as we both know, but punitive taxation is an entirely different thing and it isn't "rendering unto Ceasar," it is a redistribution of wealth.



Well Boogey, neither of us has the access to the tithing records of the super rich who fall under the "Robin Hood" tax schemes. So both our opinions have merit, but are also quite moot.

As to Religious people giving to charities, I would argue that again, neither of us have proof of our opinions. I would simply point out that most people who tithe give to their CHURCH not so much a specific charity. Ergo, the entity of their faith, not a charity, receives the monies.

I would also point out the fact that the State will help you regardless of any moral ambiguties that would stop some Religious organizations. Please don't take this as disregarding what Religious org's do and their place in today's society. But as history has shown us, Religious org's do not always help ALL the people ALL the time. As recent history has shown us, while the Religious org's help stop Katrina from being worse then what it was, without Governmental help Katrina's aftermath would be much worse then what it was.

Let me end with the fact that one is voluntary and can be stopped or curtailed at a whim or when hard times hit the tithers. The other is manditory and will NEVER end (hence the old joke about death and taxes). I want something guaranteed and factual, not something that could evaporate like certain people's faith.

[4Reaganomics]

[quote] Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election. {/quote]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

Not proof in particular, but an interesting read

[Buck Laser]

Buck, I would love to debate the virtue of selfishness if you know anything about it other than heresay and bias.

Its a sound philosophy.

What philosophy do you ascribe to Buck?

I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, many years apart from each other. They made me literally ill. Over the years, I've seen a good many "Objectivists" make fools of themselves, mostly by their snotty attitudes.

My own philosophy is grounded in Whitehead's Process and Reality, and the Judaeo-Christian ethic. I've also been impressed by Kierdegaard and especially by Pierre Theilhard de Chardin.

I don't think I want to engage in any discussion of objectivism, because it annoys me so. I'm certainly willing to review new ideas, but not ideas more suitable to a college sophomore than to someone who's functioned in the adult world for awhile.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Pirate Monkey said:
Show us that conservatives give any more money to charity than liberals.

I would have to say show us liberals give any more than conservatives, not because I have vested intrests in either statistic, but I would like to see BOTH, and even then I would be skeptical of the sources funding and intent.

Deadshot said:
....remind you that not all parishenor's tithe, ergo not everyone gives....

I am glad you brought up the issue of "tithe".

"Tithe" was one of many sources for the dispute that brought about the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution. Unjust taxation, tithe, very similar in objectionable comparison.

Tithe is a noble thing to someone who values the church and its mission, ASSUMING the person respects the church and its mission. Tithe through force, and unjust taxation are in essence the same issue. Unjust taxation is the city, state or federal government, using force of government to thieve your income from your labor, for use and justification that is often times not within their constitutional realm of authority, but also often not with the express conscent of the people. (instead using the argument of sanction through lack of measurable dissent)

The fact is, almost EVERY person who is forced, or willingly pays taxes, disagree with where OUR government spends that money. The fact is, most people have no clue the intended spheres of authority intended by the forefathers and through the intent of the constitution, and its limiter, the bill of rights. The fact is, the bulk of the taxation that we pay is not constitutional, did not meet constitutional requirments for passage, and the bulk that do surpass constitutional bounds were NOT voted in directly by the people, were NOT voted on by the people. (in most cases)

“That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.”
Thomas Jefferson

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless...From the conclusion of this [Revolutionary] war we shall be going down hill. It will not be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”
-Thomas Jefferson

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, many years apart from each other. They made me literally ill. Over the years, I've seen a good many "Objectivists" make fools of themselves, mostly by their snotty attitudes.

If presentation irks you more than substance of composition, you obviously aren't interested in finding facts about the philosophy.

Buck Laser said:
My own philosophy is grounded in Whitehead's Process and Reality, and the Judaeo-Christian ethic. I've also been impressed by Kierdegaard and especially by Pierre Theilhard de Chardin.

So are you a supporter of "unconditional love" and "selflessness"?

Buck Laser said:
I don't think I want to engage in any discussion of objectivism, because it annoys me so.

That is how I feel of religion and its blind faith, or fundamentalist folowers. (no implication intended, I don't know your personal beliefs.)

Buck Laser said:
I'm certainly willing to review new ideas, but not ideas more suitable to a college sophomore than to someone who's functioned in the adult world for awhile.

I have trouble seeing that as anything other than an insult.

Was that intended as an insult, to me, as an Objectivist/Individualist?

I didn't attend any college but my military schooling for "Radioman" classification, which I would classify as Technical Schooling.

Do you only discuss issues with "collegiates"?
Am I "below" you?

[Buck Laser]

I have trouble seeing that as anything other than an insult.

Was that intended as an insult, to me, as an Objectivist/Individualist?

I didn't attend any college but my military schooling for "Radioman" classification, which I would classify as Technical Schooling.

Do you only discuss issues with "collegiates"?
Am I "below" you?

My, you have a tender skin, Osborn. All I said is the the "objectivists" I've met were annoying. If you want to take that as an insult, then be my guest.
And though I snipped it, yes I do believe in the golden rule and its corollaries. While I surely wouldn't fit your definition of a practicing Christian, I see loving your neighbor as yourself as the only defensible basis of human interaction. Being the fallible person I am, I fail most of the time, but God knows I try.

Y'know, I don't really give a horse's patoot whether you went to college or not. You asked what my philosophy was, and I told you. After I went to college (on the GI Bill), I continued to read. I've at least read Ayn Rand's fiction, and disliked it. What? Do I have to think it's good literature?

For what it's worth, I was an army guided missile electronics technician, so I'd guess that we have some similar training.

Why does it annoy you so that I disagree? I ask because the objectivists that I've encountered in my life all seem to get really annoyed when someone refuses to buy their ideas. By the way, I've never been in a one on one with an objectivist--it's all been in group sessions where other people have contradicted them successfully and positively.

PS: If it'll make you feel any better, I don't mind if you report me.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
My, you have a tender skin, Osborn. All I said is the the "objectivists" I've met were annoying. If you want to take that as an insult, then be my guest.

I am not upset, I just saw no way to read that except as an insult.

Buck said:
And though I snipped it, yes I do believe in the golden rule and its corollaries. While I surely wouldn't fit your definition of a practicing Christian, I see loving your neighbor as yourself as the only defensible basis of human interaction.

Love, respect and support are all different things.

I am all for respecting my neighbors rights, and helping them IF I can, IF I deem it within my means to do so, IF I think it will help. I have that right to determine however.

I am not trying to criticize you as much as ask about this concept of unconditional love, especially since most who profess it don't practice it with any regularity in daily life.

Buck said:
Being the fallible person I am, I fail most of the time, but God knows I try.

We're all fallible, nobody is perfect, so no argument there.

Buck said:
Y'know, I don't really give a horse's patoot whether you went to college or not. You asked what my philosophy was, and I told you. After I went to college (on the GI Bill), I continued to read. I've at least read Ayn Rand's fiction, and disliked it. What? Do I have to think it's good literature?

No, I don't expect anyone to like or dislike anything unless I know a bit about them to justify that guess. I just am just often amused at how many attribute her fictional works to be "interchangeable" with the philosophy, because they aren't in entireity. I respect you for reading them through, especially if you found them unenjoyable, but to read them and claim to understand the philosophy is not entirely true. That was my point.

Buck said:
For what it's worth, I was an army guided missile electronics technician, so I'd guess that we have some similar training.

Why does it annoy you so that I disagree?

Its not the "disagreement" in and of itself, its because I don't understand why you disagree, or anyone disagrees, and that is my intent, to understand why.

I have no problem living aside another man who is completely different than me, as long as respect for one another is maintained.
(the service being a prime example of how people of different philosophies, values, etc, can come together for a common goal, looking past certain differences.)
This is why I often find it so difficult to understand why christians, catholics, muslims, etc... are so offended, to the point of voting to use government force, to stop those who don't "live like them".
Religion is a philosophy, and I fail to see value in a philosophy that preaches peace out of one side of its mouth, but holds a cudgel in the other to use against those who don't "live like them".

I find it troubling, but moreso, entirely hypocritical, and a disservice to the "claimed" purpose of the various religions.

When I have a chance to ask questions to people who share these views, I do, especially if it has a chance of leading to meaningful debate. (intellectually honest)

Buck said:
I ask because the objectivists that I've encountered in my life all seem to get really annoyed when someone refuses to buy their ideas. By the way, I've never been in a one on one with an objectivist--it's all been in group sessions where other people have contradicted them successfully and positively.

I rarely see that happen, as far as rejections based in logic and reason, but I am sure it has happened so I don't doubt your story.

I don't see this as "buying or selling" ideas, I see it as a chance to learn where our differences are and why those differences exist, exploring how rational it is to continue to carry differences that really just harm everyone involved, when it enters POLITICAL POLICY.

Buck said:
PS: If it'll make you feel any better, I don't mind if you report me.

No intrest in reporting people for such minor stuff, and I was not offended anyway. :love:

I simply saw no other way to read your statement except as an insult, so I questioned if there was OTHER intent. You have clarified, and that is all I asked.

I do notice however, you seem to have little regard for my arguments, and often address me in such manner as I noted above. It doesn't bother me, but it does make me curious why you seem to dislike me.

[RWallace]

You are spot on brien, and Dubai is the "perfect harbor, for the perfect storm" in many of these corporations eyes.

I can't agree with R.Wallace here either....Compromise is only acceptable if it is a volitional choice within the rights of those making the deal. Most of citizens rights, and Constitutional protection through checks on power, have been gutted by the bi-partisan monopoly, and both parties have been conspiring to weaken if not remove entirely the Constitution and BOR.

How can anyone call the courts "objective" when the entire basis of their selection has been controlled by two parties, who have isolated themselves in power through vote fraud, gerrymandering and legislation aimed DIRECTLY at removing any third parties chance for competition for over 100 years?


As far as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights goes, it seems to me like a lot of people hold to them far too closely. I'm sorry, but they are living documents and should be interpreted as such. Like Napoleon says, "Constitutions should be short and obscure".

[Osborn F. Enready]

R. Wallace said:
As far as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights goes, it seems to me like a lot of people hold to them far too closely. I'm sorry, but they are living documents and should be interpreted as such. Like Napoleon says, "Constitutions should be short and obscure".

If my Constitution and Bill of Rights said anything different, I may agree with you.
As it stands, my Constitution and Bill of Rights signifies the greatest achievement toward individual liberty, or individual sovereignty known to man. For that reason, I will not sacrifice what is in MY OWN BEST INTREST to appease others who have the right to live as THEY SEE FIT, within the bounds of equal rights.

If my constitution was based in socialism, communism, fascism, etc, I would wipe my butt with it, set it afire, attach it to a stick and march down the street with it in proud display of my dismay and REFUSAL to comply.

No sheep here, and no cries for a nanny state. :fight: