Laws that are morally wrong?

[RageD]

What do you guys think some laws or things that are legal are morally wrong? I can think of one off the top of my head, abortion, I feel, is morally wrong. You are destroying a life. This life has done absolutely nothing, this life is the consequence of your own action and your not going to even give it a chance to grow and flourish? Well, anyone else have any kind of laws or things that are legal that they feel are morally wrong?

-RageD

[bobbylien]

Affirmative action, maybe its not a law, but its morally wrong.

[mis_chiff]

What do you guys think some laws or things that are legal are morally wrong?Â*Â*I can think of one off the top of my head, abortion, I feel, is morally wrong.Â*Â*You are destroying a life.Â*Â*This life has done absolutely nothing, this life is the consequence of your own action and your not going to even give it a chance to grow and flourish?Â*Â*Well, anyone else have any kind of laws or things that are legal that they feel are morally wrong?

-RageD


"this life is the consequence of your own action "

are you kidding me?....if a woman gets raped and almost murdered,
that's an action that was her fault?????
She is supposed to have this child created by a violent encounter??

I'm sorry, you must be a man right?
Because only a man would say it's a woman's fault!!!!!!

[Old Corps Gunny]

Boy, does this question open a can of worms! First, one has to define what is morally right or wrong, and that in itself is a question that has been around for at least as long as written history. If you think abortion is morally wrong, then say so; don't invite discourse about laws in general that may or may not be morally wrong. Perhaps there should be a category labelled philosophy where morals and ethics could be discussed.

[AlonzoMourning23]

A lot of this is a gray area. For example, immigration laws are generally moral. But when you take the case of someone who crossed the border illegaly because his/her family is malnourished (very high rates in some parts of mexico and countries south of that) and there were no jobs available (or no jobs that paid enough to correct the situation) where he was from, and no way to enter legally, then I think it's morally wrong to deport him/her.

Most of the time the law is generally moral (or at least not immoral), but will have exceptions where its application I find immoral.

Though laws against same-sex marriage I find immoral. So, uh..... yay MA!

[bobbylien]

"this life is the consequence of your own action "

are you kidding me?....if a woman gets raped and almost murdered,
that's an action that was her fault?????
She is supposed to have this child created by a violent encounter??

I'm sorry, you must be a man right?
Because only a man would say it's a woman's fault!!!!!!

Rape is different. He said nothing about rape. Of course its not the womans fault if she is raped and gets pregnant, I have no objection to the morning after pill or early-stage abortions in that case. But when a woman consents to the acts even when she knows the risk, I don't think she should just be able to kill the baby to make her life easier. Lets not forget that there are alternatives to abortion too. These women are just selfish.

[George W Bush]

I think "Eminent Domain" is morally wrong.
I find it outrageous that some have to lose their property because some capitalist wants to make money for his strip mall.

[Athena]

I think "Eminent Domain" is morally wrong.
I find it outrageous that some have to lose their property because some capitalist wants to make money for his strip mall.


Absolutely! And our forefathers would be horrified! I don't think anything was more important to them than the rights of private property, except maybe the right of freedom of speech, and I don't think people can have liberty without garentteed rights of private property.

[longjonsilver]

I agree that using Eminent Domain to promote private enterprise is immoral, unjust and unconstitutional, however I wouldn't generalize eminent domain on the whole as immoral.

I would say a progressive tax system is immoral.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You're not going to get any argument from me on the progressive tax system being immoral.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that there's a flat tax on SSI, Medicaid/medicare, state income tax (If you even have one.), local income tax (If you even have one.) but the Federal government can decide your tax rates can float between 15-38%.

That is NOT moral, nor fair.

By default, on a flat tax, you pay 10 times more in taxes if you make $300,000 as opposed to $30,000. Why is it fair to make that amount say 30 times more?

You're certainly not receiving any more government services. In fact chances are you're using even less.

Does not seem at all moral yet we're told during every tax argument that "the rich" aren't paying "their fair share". Seems to me on the progressive tax model it's the poor that aren't paying their fair share. They use far more government services than they pay for, which in many cases is they pay for none at all.

[Athena]

You're not going to get any argument from me on the progressive tax system being immoral.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that there's a flat tax on SSI, Medicaid/medicare, state income tax (If you even have one.), local income tax (If you even have one.) but the Federal government can decide your tax rates can float between 15-38%.

That is NOT moral, nor fair.

By default, on a flat tax, you pay 10 times more in taxes if you make $300,000 as opposed to $30,000.Â*Â*Why is it fair to make that amount say 30 times more?

You're certainly not receiving any more government services.Â*Â*In fact chances are you're using even less.

Does not seem at all moral yet we're told during every tax argument that "the rich" aren't paying "their fair share".Â*Â*Seems to me on the progressive tax model it's the poor that aren't paying their fair share.Â*Â*They use far more government services than they pay for, which in many cases is they pay for none at all.


Why is it fair to pay 10 more? Because it is unfair for anyone to have an income over $300,000 in the first place. Our values are screwed up to think it just to pay some people around $5 an hour and others over $300,000 a year.

[longjonsilver]

Athena, your detest of capitalism scares me. It is in no way unfair to pay someone $5.15 an hour while others earn $300,000 a year. Working in the drive-thru of Wendy's, earning your enterprise a couple bucks off of a sandwhich sale, is a skill that everyone over the age of 10 possesses. While hitting 70 home runs a year, to earn your franchise millions, is something only a select few can do. For the government to punish success through a higher tax rate, is a disservice to all those who strive to become more. It is an attempt to tax all those progressing, right back to the lowest common denominator. It kills our economy and complicates our tax code; the shear logical reasons of the abonment of a progressive tax are inescapeable, however it is the immorality in the code that relates to this thread. The idea of placing a higher tax percentage on certian groups is descrimination based on class.

[Nathan Brazil]

Why is it fair to pay 10 more?Â*Â*Because it is unfair for anyone to have an income over $300,000 in the first place.Â*Â*Our values are screwed up to think it just to pay some people around $5 an hour and others over $300,000 a year.Â*Â*


You're just jealous. If someone works smart, he can get an income of $300,000 fairly easy. What's fair about stealing more money from him just because he's better than the boob earning minimum wage at a Circle K?

And yeah, when I said he's better, that's exactly what I meant. It's a character judgement. I'm so evil.

[Nathan Brazil]

Immoral laws?

Laws criminalizing recreational drug usage.

Laws restricting the freedom of individuals to live their own lives in ways that do not harm others or limit the freedom of others.

Laws that are selectively enforced.

Laws that take property from one private enterprise and gives it to another equally private enterprise. If GW Bush and pals want to build a baseball stadium, they should have to buy the land at the seller's price, not get the government to condemn it via abuse of the Eminent Domain powers of the Constitution.

Laws that take money from some individuals to be re-distributed to other individuals for no other reason than the first group had more.

[Athena]

Why is it fair to pay 10 more?Â*Â*Because it is unfair for anyone to have an income over $300,000 in the first place.Â*Â*Our values are screwed up to think it just to pay some people around $5 an hour and others over $300,000 a year.Â*Â*


You're just jealous.Â*Â*If someone works smart, he can get an income of $300,000 fairly easy.Â*Â* What's fair about stealing more money from him just because he's better than the boob earning minimum wage at a Circle K?

And yeah, when I said he's better, that's exactly what I meant.Â*Â*It's a character judgement.Â*Â*I'm so evil.


Your values appear materialistic, and I do not think materialistic values are the best for civilizations. I don't think a person who realizes a large income is unquestionablely a superior person, but in some cases such gain involves immorality, making the person undesirable in the seat of power.

I would not say I am jealous of anyone with a large income, because I am not a materialistic person, and I know what my choices are. However, I am concerned with justice and social well being. Personally, I am very comfortable, but I am concerned for those who are not. My life is about so much than myself. It is about family, community, country, all of humanity around the world. My consciousness reaches back in history and stretches forward in time, and my voice reaches around the world. That makes my life pretty rich. I would not trade my life for the life of someone focused on money. I know if money were my greatest desire, that is what I would have.

[Nathan Brazil]

Why is it fair to pay 10 more?Â*Â*Because it is unfair for anyone to have an income over $300,000 in the first place.Â*Â*Our values are screwed up to think it just to pay some people around $5 an hour and others over $300,000 a year.Â*Â*


You're just jealous.Â*Â*If someone works smart, he can get an income of $300,000 fairly easy.Â*Â* What's fair about stealing more money from him just because he's better than the boob earning minimum wage at a Circle K?

And yeah, when I said he's better, that's exactly what I meant.Â*Â*It's a character judgement.Â*Â*I'm so evil.


Your values appear materialistic, and I do not think materialistic values are the best for civilizations.Â*Â* I don't think a person who realizes a large income is unquestionablely a superior person, but in some cases such gain involves immorality, making the person undesirable in the seat of power.Â*Â*

Depends on what you mean by "superior". You're making an emotional value judgement, while I'm making a material judgement. He's superior in his ability to produce wealth, to support his family, to be creative, and to "contribute to society" (the phrase tends to make me want to vomit).

The burger jockey nothing more than a machine that makes unpleasant noises and produces unpleasant smells, for all that he may or may not care for his wife and kids. (There's clearly something wrong with a woman that will marry something as low as a burger jockey.)

I would not say I am jealous of anyone with a large income, because I am not a materialistic person, and I know what my choices are.

Doesn't matter, you're following people who are motivated by jealousy, not to mention you're emulating the odd ironic spectacle of multi-millionaire silver-spoon senators talking about how the rich don't pay their fair share.

Frankly, I AM better than burger jockeys. In all respects. I'm not ashamed to state facts.

[Athena]

Why is it fair to pay 10 more?Â*Â*Because it is unfair for anyone to have an income over $300,000 in the first place.Â*Â*Our values are screwed up to think it just to pay some people around $5 an hour and others over $300,000 a year.Â*Â*


You're just jealous.Â*Â*If someone works smart, he can get an income of $300,000 fairly easy.Â*Â* What's fair about stealing more money from him just because he's better than the boob earning minimum wage at a Circle K?

And yeah, when I said he's better, that's exactly what I meant.Â*Â*It's a character judgement.Â*Â*I'm so evil.


Your values appear materialistic, and I do not think materialistic values are the best for civilizations.Â*Â* I don't think a person who realizes a large income is unquestionablely a superior person, but in some cases such gain involves immorality, making the person undesirable in the seat of power.Â*Â*

Depends on what you mean by "superior".Â*Â*You're making an emotional value judgement, while I'm making a material judgement.Â*Â*He's superior in his ability to produce wealth, to support his family, to be creative, and to "contribute to society" (the phrase tends to make me want to vomit).

The burger jockey nothing more than a machine that makes unpleasant noises and produces unpleasant smells, for all that he may or may not care for his wife and kids.Â*Â*(There's clearly something wrong with a woman that will marry something as low as a burger jockey.)

I would not say I am jealous of anyone with a large income, because I am not a materialistic person, and I know what my choices are.

Doesn't matter, you're following people who are motivated by jealousy, not to mention you're emulating the odd ironic spectacle of multi-millionaire silver-spoon senators talking about how the rich don't pay their fair share.Â*Â*

Frankly, I AM better than burger jockeys.Â*Â*In all respects.Â*Â*I'm not ashamed to state facts.


Whoo, ethical judgements also involve objectivity, and do not judge someone superior based on the size of a person's bank account.Â*Â*Mother Teressa did not die rich, but she was know around the world for her works.Â*Â*I refer you to the civil rights forum and the subject of civic duty.Â*Â*

Saints are those who do the most good, and all the Christian denominations that colonized the US were in competition with each other to produce the most saint like people.Â*Â*The superior person is the one who does the most good for the most people, regardless of economic reward or the lack of it.Â*Â*This is a mathematically measurement of good, not an emotional one.Â*Â*It is based on the largest benefit to the whole of society.Â*Â*

The recent materialistic priority of the west, has put it at odds with Muslims, and the cost is our military budget and other efforts to prevent terrorism.Â*Â*The most cost, effective way to defend against this terrorism, is to take the moral high ground.Â*Â*The cost of defense dependent on weapons, starting and stopping agression, is extremely high, both monetarily and in human terms.Â*Â*The cost of neglecting human needs that results in the spread of disease, and other social problems, is very high.Â*Â*I could go on and on.Â*Â*Not only are modern values in the west distorted by the mentality of affluence, but so is the reasoning that goes with it, because the modern reasoning leads to the destruction of civilizations, and was once known as evil.Â*Â*

[Athena]

Athena, your detest of capitalism scares me.Â*Â*It is in no way unfair to pay someone $5.15 an hour while others earn $300,000 a year.Â*Â*Working in the drive-thru of Wendy's, earning your enterprise a couple bucks off of a sandwhich sale, is a skill that everyone over the age of 10 possesses.Â*Â*While hitting 70 home runs a year, to earn your franchise millions, is something only a select few can do.Â*Â*For the government to punish success through a higher tax rate, is a disservice to all those who strive to become more.Â*Â*It is an attempt to tax all those progressing, right back to the lowest common denominator.Â*Â*It kills our economy and complicates our tax code; the shear logical reasons of the abonment of a progressive tax are inescapeable, however it is the immorality in the code that relates to this thread.Â*Â*The idea of placing a higher tax percentage on certian groups is descrimination based on class.


I don't think I am totally opposed to capitalism, however, I get very nervous when people are materialistic and have lost sight of the greater evils and good of society. Caring for people is not equal to working in fast foods and yet it is the lowest paid work. These people save lives both physcially and socially and this is a huge contribution to the whole of society.

Perparing young people for life is socially far more than hitting home runs, and beginning a commodity for a those who own a ball club. Are you in favor of teachers who succeed in motivating children earning $300,000 a year?

Lastly, anyone who is working for money, isn't a person to trust with our health, our investments, or our day in court! If people are not working for the love of the healing arts, the love of humanity, the love of justice, they probably aren't doing what we want them to do. Those who are working for money, and not higher values, are corrupt and dangerous people, and this is the condition of the US today, and why it is said the country is in moral decay.

[Nitrus]

I know sometimes you guys have very long posts, but could you try not to double post please. The "Edit" button is at the bottom of the post if you need to change anything.

-N

[Mayberry]

they probably aren't doing what we want them to do.
Who's we? And why do We get to choose what someone else does for a living? We might not like me stocking the bays with redfish, but I would tell We to get bent! I'm doing what I do to earn a living. For MONEY. Can't live without it. If I didn't need money, I wouldn't work at all! I'd go fishing every day, instead of stocking fish for other people to catch. If someone claws their way up to 300k a year, congratulations. Good for them. That's the cool thing about America, you can do whatever the hell you want, that is, until someone comes up with another b.s. liberty robbing law that stops you from doing whatever you want. That is as immoral as immoral can be. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. What part don't they get?

[Nathan Brazil]

Whoo, ethical judgements also involve objectivity, and do not judge someone superior based on the size of a person's bank account.Â*Â*Mother Teressa did not die rich, but she was know around the world for her works.Â*Â*I refer you to the civil rights forum and the subject of civic duty.

I don't judge anyone on their bank account, I judge them on their abilities. Frankly I don't care if someone is the Spongebob of patty flipping, he's still just a flipper.


Saints are those who do the most good, and all the Christian denominations that colonized the US were in competition with each other to produce the most saint like people.

When did Ford, Edison, Bell, or Gates become sainted? Okay, we gotta wait for Gates to die first, but when it he going to become a saint after that?

OOOH! You mean "did the most good with other people's money". How quaint. No wonder church attendance is slipping.

The superior person is the one who does the most good for the most people, regardless of economic reward or the lack of it.

See? Edison, Ford, Gates, the Wright Brothers, etc, have done far more good than any religious kook ever thunk of doing. Thanks to those four, a man can be driven in his limo to his Cessna Executive Jet at night and be able to see the cold beers he's taking out the cabin 'fridge while flying off the Monaco for the weekend.

Those are all superior people. What did Thomas Aquinas do for anyone except torture logic to make the unreal seem credible?

This is a mathematically measurement of good, not an emotional one.Â*Â*It is based on the largest benefit to the whole of society.

Mathematically? You mean like how many millions of people who found profitable employment working for those four men, or in the industries those four men founded? Or the number of retirees who've invested money profitably in those industries? Or just maybe the number of people who don't have to walk to school, read by candlelight, or die of starvation on a trip to California? Those are measurable objective values.

So again, why isn't Edison a saint?

The recent materialistic priority of the west, has put it at odds with Muslims,

That's only because the towelheads want to continue living in the 13th century, and the rest of the world has grown up. When the muslimes growup, they'll stop being resentful of the bounties true freedom of thought has given the rest of us.

and the cost is our military budget and other efforts to prevent terrorism.Â*Â*The most cost, effective way to defend against this terrorism, is to take the moral high ground.Â*Â*The cost of defense dependent on weapons, starting and stopping agression, is extremely high, both monetarily and in human terms.Â*Â*The cost of neglecting human needs that results in the spread of disease, and other social problems, is very high.Â*Â*I could go on and on.Â*Â*Not only are modern values in the west distorted by the mentality of affluence, but so is the reasoning that goes with it, because the modern reasoning leads to the destruction of civilizations, and was once known as evil.Â*Â*


The "modern reasoning" is that people shouldn't be stoned because they disagree with the priest/mullah/rabbi/whatever.

That's the value we're defending in our struggle against Islamic totalitiarianism.

Perhaps you don't value freedom of thought in others?

What would be evil is if we gave up the fight.

[Nathan Brazil]

I don't think I am totally opposed to capitalism, however, I get very nervous when people are materialistic and have lost sight of the greater evils and good of society.Â*Â*Caring for people is not equal to working in fast foods and yet it is the lowest paid work.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I go to a hospital to count the Ferraris in the doctor's parking slots.

These people save lives both physcially and socially and this is a huge contribution to the whole of society.

Well, are they "contributing" or are they getting paid for a job? If they're contributing, they should shut up about wages because they're supposed to be saints.

If they're working for wages, they should shut up about being saints because they're just doing a job like anyone else, something they chose themselves, and if they don't like the wages they should have thought of that before they took the job.

So which is it? Saints or employees?

Perparing young people for life is socially far more than hitting home runs, and beginning a commodity for a those who own a ball club.Â*Â*Are you in favor of teachers who succeed in motivating children earning $300,000 a year?

Well, that does depend on what the market for third grade teachers is, now doesn't it? If the natural course of supply and demand bumps teachers salaries that high, the sure, it's what they're worth.

Lastly, anyone who is working for money, isn't a person to trust with our health, our investments, or our day in court!

Why shouldn't a person working for money not be trusted to do their job correctly? People aren't saints, and volunteers are usually not as knowledgeable as professionals, after all.

What do you have against people getting paid what their worth? Are you getting paid what you're worth? I bet you are, most people do.

If people are not working for the love of the healing arts, the love of humanity, the love of justice, they probably aren't doing what we want them to do.Â*Â*Those who are working for money, and not higher values, are corrupt and dangerous people, and this is the condition of the US today, and why it is said the country is in moral decay.Â*

Who said money isn't a higher value? With more money, I can put my kid through a better school, thus improving her future, or live in a better neighborhood, thus improving her present, or buy a bigger SUV, thus making her life safer, or buy a membership in a better yachting club, improving her chances of making good connections.

Sounds like a fine standard to work for.

[Nathan Brazil]

That is as immoral as immoral can be. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. What part don't they get?


They can't pursue their own happiness when they know you're having a hell of a good time fishing.

[Athena]

I don't think I am totally opposed to capitalism, however, I get very nervous when people are materialistic and have lost sight of the greater evils and good of society.Â*Â*Caring for people is not equal to working in fast foods and yet it is the lowest paid work.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I go to a hospital to count the Ferraris in the doctor's parking slots.

These people save lives both physcially and socially and this is a huge contribution to the whole of society.

Well, are they "contributing" or are they getting paid for a job?Â*Â*If they're contributing, they should shut up about wages because they're supposed to be saints.

If they're working for wages, they should shut up about being saints because they're just doing a job like anyone else, something they chose themselves, and if they don't like the wages they should have thought of that before they took the job.

So which is it?Â*Â*Saints or employees?

Perparing young people for life is socially far more than hitting home runs, and beginning a commodity for a those who own a ball club.Â*Â*Are you in favor of teachers who succeed in motivating children earning $300,000 a year?

Well, that does depend on what the market for third grade teachers is, now doesn't it?Â*Â*If the natural course of supply and demand bumps teachers salaries that high, the sure, it's what they're worth.

Lastly, anyone who is working for money, isn't a person to trust with our health, our investments, or our day in court!

Why shouldn't a person working for money not be trusted to do their job correctly?Â*Â*People aren't saints, and volunteers are usually not as knowledgeable as professionals, after all.

What do you have against people getting paid what their worth?Â*Â*Are you getting paid what you're worth?Â*Â*I bet you are, most people do.

If people are not working for the love of the healing arts, the love of humanity, the love of justice, they probably aren't doing what we want them to do.Â*Â*Those who are working for money, and not higher values, are corrupt and dangerous people, and this is the condition of the US today, and why it is said the country is in moral decay.Â*

Who said money isn't a higher value?Â*Â*With more money, I can put my kid through a better school,Â*Â*thus improving her future, or live in a better neighborhood, thus improving her present, or buy a bigger SUV, thus making her life safer, or buy a membership in a better yachting club, improving her chances of making good connections.

Sounds like a fine standard to work for.


:D:D:D do you think democracy is about satisfying your own personal desires? No, democracy is an ideology of relationships, and it is a conscious universe that includes everyone. Try thinking of the larger reality in which your daughter lives. Are all your choices moral choices when you consider the bigger picture? How about that SUV? How about the child across town? Does the child across town have anything to do with your reality? Is money the only thing that can make things better?

[Athena]

"That's only because the towelheads want to continue living in the 13th century, and the rest of the world has grown up. When the muslimes growup, they'll stop being resentful of the bounties true freedom of thought has given the rest of us".

The word towel head seems like a disrespectful word. What good comes out of disrespecting people? What harm comes out of disrespecting others? When we disrespect others are we manifesting good or bad?

[Nitrus]

What exactly do you mean by the term "towelhead", im not sure I like the phrase..

[Athena]

"Why shouldn't a person working for money not be trusted to do their job correctly"?

Thank you for asking.

An attorney working for money instead of a love of justice, will earn that money as easily as possible. This means Instead of proving a person innocent, convincing the person to plead guilty to a lesser charge. This is common and it is justified because it is fast and easy and less costly. People agree to pleading guilty because they risk going to prison if they don't, and unless a person has a lot of money, the person is not going to get a good defense.

Or here is another one. My son was charged with stealing checks out of someone's mail box. The attorney suggested we attempt to convience the court that my son's friend was the quilty person. In horror I replied but this young man didn't take the checks either. The attorney then said, "What do you care as long we get your son off?" That corrupt attorney kept the $300 retainer fee although I never saw him again, and he is not unusual.

Realizing how corrupt things were I found a police officer I could trust and convinced him to reopen the search for the guilty person, and he convince his superior to allow him to do this. Within a few days the guilty boy was found and he was someone we didn't know at all. The police officer cared about justice, so he put himself for the sake of justice. Seriously, when it comes to justice, we want people doing what they do for a love of justice.

Now medicine. Some insurance companies give doctors a kick back if the do not refer people to specialist, and many doctors would rather have this kick back than give up something they could have for the health of a person they barely know. Or even worse, the doctors are accepting so many patients because they get paid for everyone on their list, that they can not know or remember their patients. After years of seeing my doctor about back pain, and getting nothing but pain pills, I asked him why he thought my back hurt so severely, and he said I probablely sprained it. I about fell out of my chair. My mouth dropped to the floor, and I said, but this is the same pain I have been complaining about years. He has so many patients, he doesn't remember their history even when the relationship is several years old! He is practicing medicine for the money, not a love of healing.

And the foster care industry, where people take other people into the their homes for the money, is a nightmare! Can you imagine the problems or do I need to clarify them?

Most of the human care work would not be done if people were not for people doing it because they really care others, and the world would be a much worse place if no one were doing this work because they do sincerely care about others.

[Nathan Brazil]

:D:D:D do you think democracy is about satisfying your own personal desires?Â*Â* No, democracy is an ideology of relationships, and it is a conscious universe that includes everyone.Â*Â*Try thinking of the larger reality in which your daughter lives.Â*Â*Are all your choices moral choices when you consider the bigger picture?Â*Â*How about that SUV?Â*Â*How about the child across town?Â*Â*Does the child across town have anything to do with your reality?Â*Â*Is money the only thing that can make things better?Â*Â*


Who gives a crap what "democracy" is about? This nation was founded on the concept of individual liberty. Ever figure out what the Preamble to the Constitution was about? How about the Declaration of Independence?

Democracy in this nation is supposed to be a tool to enable the individual the chance to maximize his individual liberty. It's not intended for any other purpose.

I do think of the larger reality in which my children live. And that reality would be infinitely superior if people started to re-focus on the goal of individual liberty instead of group-think social conformity.

Money is the only thing that has material impact. For a person that keeps complaining that health care workers don't get paid enough, you sure spend a lot of time condemning people who seek to earn and keep more of their own money.

[Nathan Brazil]

"That's only because the towelheads want to continue living in the 13th century, and the rest of the world has grown up. When the muslimes growup, they'll stop being resentful of the bounties true freedom of thought has given the rest of us".

The word towel head seems like a disrespectful word.Â*Â*What good comes out of disrespecting people?Â*Â*What harm comes out of disrespecting others?Â*Â*When we disrespect others are we manifesting good or bad?Â*Â*


The word "towelhead" is intended to be a disrespectful word. If they want respect, they can join the Twentyfirst Century and ditch their silly religion.

I'm easy.

[Nathan Brazil]

People that perform services in exchange for money are called "professionals".

People that perform services for free are called "amateurs".

Generally speaking, the professionals know more, and do it better, than the amateurs. If you disagree, let me know the name of your amateur neurosurgeon.

The law is inherently corrupt, you can't use lawyers as an example of how people working for money are corrupt.

People that work for money focus on doing a good job to get customer referrals, and because that's where pride of accomplishment is found.

[Mayberry]

do you think democracy is about satisfying your own personal desires? No, democracy is an ideology of relationships, and it is a conscious universe that includes everyone. Try thinking of the larger reality in which your daughter lives. Are all your choices moral choices when you consider the bigger picture? How about that SUV? How about the child across town? Does the child across town have anything to do with your reality? Is money the only thing that can make things better?
This post is a complete contradiction. Democracy is about INDIVIDUAL liberty. What you describe is socialism. And what is immoral about an SUV? Ever try to take a trip in a GEO? And personally, I don't want my family running around in some teeny plastic death trap. I could care less about the child across town, I've got enough problems looking after my own these days. And money certainly does make things better, try living without it. I just had to jump in on this one.

[Old Corps Gunny]

Athena, you posted earlier in this thread that your standard of living was "comfortable." If you donated your "excess" wealth to some charity (Boys and Girls Club would be a good start) and took your standard of living down to the level of someone earning minimum wage, perhaps you would understand why most people study and work hard to improve their living conditions. You would certainly have more credibility.