doublem wrote:No, I generally think we as humans have near unlimited rights
That's chaos, and if ever a majority of people believe and act upon that idea, we'll cannabalize each other in days.
but the idea that someone can go around like the Judge and say things like a food is a good and travel comes from your humanity or god given is no sense.
Once again, these rights are understood through logic, not made up according to some arbitrary whim - that's how the rights you suggeest are derived.
shafnutz05 wrote:Just because Rush Limbaugh said this doesn't mean I am just copying and pasting from his website. Maybe inciting riots was a strong phrase to use, but at the very least he was inciting a hatred of the wealthy. And I believe these actions were rooted in his own disdain and bitterness towards people of success in America.
I truly believe that Obama, and other people that think similarly to him, believe by instinct that for someone to be successful, they had to have cheated or immorally scrapped their way to the top. This reflects the distrust of corporations, businesses, and the wealthy that seem to form the roots of Obama's political philosophy. That is not a Rush talking point, that is the way I feel because of his actions and words.
You make the statements shaf, so dont get defensive when you are called on them.
"This reflects the distrust of corporations, businesses, and the wealthy that seem to form the roots of Obama's political philosophy"
I know. I mean, someone with such disdain for the establisment woud never attend Harvard Law School, become President of the Harvard Law Review, and then accept a law professorship at the single greatest incubator of conservative legal and economic thought in the United States, the University of Chicago. WHAT A REBEL!!!
Once again, these rights are understood through logic, not made up according to some arbitrary whim - that's how the rights you suggeest are derived.
If you think having food and shelter is arbitrary okay we have should stop now. I generally think in the world if people just dropped from the sky with five apples with them everyone should get one apple each. Not someone having 5 and other people having zero and then from then on out things can go on. Some will get more and some will have less but just as long as one group doesn't have a lot more then another, like say 1% having more then 99%, ideally that is what I would like to see in the world.
shafnutz05 wrote:Just because Rush Limbaugh said this doesn't mean I am just copying and pasting from his website. Maybe inciting riots was a strong phrase to use, but at the very least he was inciting a hatred of the wealthy. And I believe these actions were rooted in his own disdain and bitterness towards people of success in America.
I truly believe that Obama, and other people that think similarly to him, believe by instinct that for someone to be successful, they had to have cheated or immorally scrapped their way to the top. This reflects the distrust of corporations, businesses, and the wealthy that seem to form the roots of Obama's political philosophy. That is not a Rush talking point, that is the way I feel because of his actions and words.
I don't want to attack or try to belittle your views...
I understand how people with your views enjoy listening to the right wing media outlets because you share their opinions on a lot of things...it's kind of like a needed cycle of clarification where you can have your opinions fortified....but i just hope that most of what he says is taken with a grain of salt...and trying to argue his viewpoints is going to discredit your argument with a lot of people who see right through his act.
Troy Loney wrote:I don't want to attack or try to belittle your views...
I understand how people with your views enjoy listening to the right wing media outlets because you share their opinions on a lot of things...it's kind of like a needed cycle of clarification where you can have your opinions fortified....but i just hope that most of what he says is taken with a grain of salt...and trying to argue his viewpoints is going to discredit your argument with a lot of people who see right through his act.
Fair enough....here is the way I look at it.
Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc, make no bones about where their political allegiance lies. They are openly right-wing, and use it to market their show.
I just wish CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, ABC, CBS, and NBC (and the list goes on, and on, and on) would be as open about their own agenda as talk radio would be about theirs.
Once again, these rights are understood through logic, not made up according to some arbitrary whim - that's how the rights you suggeest are derived.
If you think having food and shelter is arbitrary okay we have should stop now.
We can agree to disagree, but there's no logical explanation to it, not to mention the fact that it's been proven to be completely unsustainable.
I generally think in the world if people just dropped from the sky with five apples with them everyone should get one apple each. Not someone having 5 and other people having zero and then from then on out things can go on. Some will get more and some will have less but just as long as one group doesn't have a lot more then another, like say 1% having more then 99%, ideally that is what I would like to see in the world.
Once again, these rights are understood through logic, not made up according to some arbitrary whim - that's how the rights you suggeest are derived.
If you think having food and shelter is arbitrary okay we have should stop now. I generally think in the world if people just dropped from the sky with five apples with them everyone should get one apple each. Not someone having 5 and other people having zero and then from then on out things can go on. Some will get more and some will have less but just as long as one group doesn't have a lot more then another, like say 1% having more then 99%, ideally that is what I would like to see in the world.
The problem with this logic is that apples don't fall from the sky. If one man is farming apples and another man is using his land less responsibly, then the man with the apples shouldn't be obliged to cater to the irresponsible. If the second man is trying to grow apples but his land isn't allowing it, then certainly the first man should be decent enough to share. The problem in our society is that it's difficult to tell the man who uses his orchards irresponsibly from the man whose land yields nothing, and so too often we are taking food off of the responsible farmer to give to the irresponsible one. It both reinforces bad behavior and is tantamount to communism. There has to be some sort of applied limit so that the people who are down on their luck can reap the benefits of aid but the lazy ones can't live off it. Unfortunately the theoretical restrictions currently imposed don't do that.
I, for one, am thankful for the wealthy and vastly successful in this world. While their income may dwarf mine by a thousandfold (if not more), I recognize that they are the engines of job growth and wealth for other people in the United States. Sure, some people might not like the fact that they are "filthy rich", but I am ok with it.
Once again, these rights are understood through logic, not made up according to some arbitrary whim - that's how the rights you suggeest are derived.
If you think having food and shelter is arbitrary okay we have should stop now. I generally think in the world if people just dropped from the sky with five apples with them everyone should get one apple each. Not someone having 5 and other people having zero and then from then on out things can go on. Some will get more and some will have less but just as long as one group doesn't have a lot more then another, like say 1% having more then 99%, ideally that is what I would like to see in the world.
The problem with this logic is that apples don't fall from the sky. If one man is farming apples and another man is using his land less responsibly, then the man with the apples shouldn't be obliged to cater to the irresponsible. If the second man is trying to grow apples but his land isn't allowing it, then certainly the first man should be decent enough to share. The problem in our society is that it's difficult to tell the man who uses his orchards irresponsibly from the man whose land yields nothing, and so too often we are taking food off of the responsible farmer to give to the irresponsible one. It both reinforces bad behavior and is tantamount to communism. There has to be some sort of applied limit so that the people who are down on their luck can reap the benefits of aid but the lazy ones can't live off it. Unfortunately the theoretical restrictions currently imposed don't do that.
Yes, I know becasue this is ideally we are talking about and not how they world really is. Just like rights are ideas becasue in reality rights are a lot different.Lazy people will always be around but it seems esp. in this country lazy rich people can get away with anything and lazy poor people are just sucking off the system. If you are a promoting a system where all lazy people are looked down upon regards of class and status okay, I'm with you. There is a sense in this country to admired wealth even when it is made in lazy ways.
shafnutz05 wrote:I, for one, am thankful for the wealthy and vastly successful in this world. While their income may dwarf mine by a thousandfold (if not more), I recognize that they are the engines of job growth and wealth for other people in the United States. Sure, some people might not like the fact that they are "filthy rich", but I am ok with it.
I mean its great what the people at microsoft, apple, google..etc have done. innovation and jobs galore...but what about the people at financial institutitions that created faulty securites, made tons of money, and then bankrupted their company and investors?
Wait...nevermind...i really don't want to point out the possibility of flaws in ayn rand arguments...
Troy Loney wrote:I mean its great what the people at microsoft, apple, google..etc have done. innovation and jobs galore...but what about the people at financial institutitions that created faulty securites, made tons of money, and then bankrupted their company and investors?
Wait...nevermind...i really don't want to point out the possibility of flaws in ayn rand arguments...
Come on...I never implied that people that don't accumulate wealth through criminal means shouldn't be punished. Of course they should. The execs at Enron? Guilty. Bernie Madoff? Obviously guilty. What so many liberal economists fail to understand is that the more you punish and punitively tax the wealthy, the more it will trickle down to average Joes like you and I. When corporations face ridiculous fees/taxes from the government, who is really affected? The consumer/employee.
doublem wrote:Ideally, a world would exist where it wouldn't have to be "forced".
This is true, as I stated before, I am a huge proponent of charitable giving. Unfortunately, the same government that you are trusting to provide for millions of people that don't have their "basic needs", is the same government that is currently passing laws restricting the tax breaks for people that DO donate their time/wealth/clothing etc to those that are less fortunate. Why? Because an interaction between two private entities means zero power for said government, and that is completely unacceptable.
doublem wrote:If you think having food and shelter is arbitrary okay we have should stop now. I generally think in the world if people just dropped from the sky with five apples with them everyone should get one apple each. Not someone having 5 and other people having zero and then from then on out things can go on. Some will get more and some will have less but just as long as one group doesn't have a lot more then another, like say 1% having more then 99%, ideally that is what I would like to see in the world.
The problem with this logic is that apples don't fall from the sky. If one man is farming apples and another man is using his land less responsibly, then the man with the apples shouldn't be obliged to cater to the irresponsible. If the second man is trying to grow apples but his land isn't allowing it, then certainly the first man should be decent enough to share. The problem in our society is that it's difficult to tell the man who uses his orchards irresponsibly from the man whose land yields nothing, and so too often we are taking food off of the responsible farmer to give to the irresponsible one. It both reinforces bad behavior and is tantamount to communism. There has to be some sort of applied limit so that the people who are down on their luck can reap the benefits of aid but the lazy ones can't live off it. Unfortunately the theoretical restrictions currently imposed don't do that.
Yes, I know becasue this is ideally we are talking about and not how they world really is. Just like rights are ideas becasue in reality rights are a lot different.Lazy people will always be around but it seems esp. in this country lazy rich people can get away with anything and lazy poor people are just sucking off the system. If you are a promoting a system where all lazy people are looked down upon regards of class and status okay, I'm with you. There is a sense in this country to admired wealth even when it is made in lazy ways.
shafnutz05 wrote:I, for one, am thankful for the wealthy and vastly successful in this world. While their income may dwarf mine by a thousandfold (if not more), I recognize that they are the engines of job growth and wealth for other people in the United States. Sure, some people might not like the fact that they are "filthy rich", but I am ok with it.
Really, even when they are taking money from you? The more money they have the less you have, you don't have a problem with that? Not to mention how all those rich people you admire screwed the entire world up by making beats on others peoples money. Supply side economics pure and simple right here, oh please let me have some of the money rich man, we are thankful for all that you have done for us.
shafnutz05 wrote:I, for one, am thankful for the wealthy and vastly successful in this world. While their income may dwarf mine by a thousandfold (if not more), I recognize that they are the engines of job growth and wealth for other people in the United States. Sure, some people might not like the fact that they are "filthy rich", but I am ok with it.
Really, even when they are taking money from you? The more money they have the less you have, you don't have a problem with that? Not to mention how all those rich people you admire screwed the entire world up by making beats on others peoples money. Supply side economics pure and simple right here, oh please let me have some of the money rich man, we are thankful for all that you have done for us.
Troy Loney wrote:I mean its great what the people at microsoft, apple, google..etc have done. innovation and jobs galore...but what about the people at financial institutitions that created faulty securites, made tons of money, and then bankrupted their company and investors?
Wait...nevermind...i really don't want to point out the possibility of flaws in ayn rand arguments...
Come on...I never implied that people that don't accumulate wealth through criminal means shouldn't be punished. Of course they should. The execs at Enron? Guilty. Bernie Madoff? Obviously guilty. What so many liberal economists fail to understand is that the more you punish and punitively tax the wealthy, the more it will trickle down to average Joes like you and I. When corporations face ridiculous fees/taxes from the government, who is really affected? The consumer/employee.
shafnutz05 wrote:
The forced supply of food, shelter, water, and clothing to every man, woman, and child on the planet, as mandated by some type of government entity.
Ideally, a world would exist where it wouldn't have to be "forced".
You're not talking about ideas, or what is ideal. You're talking about your real support for real taxation to provide these things.
These things do not have to be provided through force.
There's no consideration for the ill affects of government action. If government commits an immoral act (let's even allow that the aim legitimately is to right some perceived wrong), why is there no consideration for that immorality? The answer is that you perceive the ends to justify the means. But this is a completely arbitrary standard.
shafnutz05 wrote:I, for one, am thankful for the wealthy and vastly successful in this world. While their income may dwarf mine by a thousandfold (if not more), I recognize that they are the engines of job growth and wealth for other people in the United States. Sure, some people might not like the fact that they are "filthy rich", but I am ok with it.
Really, even when they are taking money from you? The more money they have the less you have, you don't have a problem with that? Not to mention how all those rich people you admire screwed the entire world up by making beats on others peoples money. Supply side economics pure and simple right here, oh please let me have some of the money rich man, we are thankful for all that you have done for us.
I'm talking about people that have wealth and "success" off things like beating on derivatives at the cost of having the global economy go up in flames.
doublem wrote:Really, even when they are taking money from you? The more money they have the less you have, you don't have a problem with that? Not to mention how all those rich people you admire screwed the entire world up by making beats on others peoples money.
Sigh............................no one is taking money from me. If you mean the money that I pay corporations for the goods and services they provide, then yes, I guess those wascally rich folk are taking money away from me. "The more money they have, the less money you have".....wow..... . This statement is ridiculously flawed. I like the argument that just because someone becomes even more successful, this somehow takes away from my own personal wealth. Through hard work, my income has steadily rose in the three years since I graduated college. Is that because the wealthy have less money now?
doublem wrote:
Really, even when they are taking money from you? The more money they have the less you have, you don't have a problem with that? Not to mention how all those rich people you admire screwed the entire world up by making beats on others peoples money.
doublem, do you realize that the evil rich financial goons that you are talking about represent a small, small percentage of the thousands of millionaires/business owners/successful people in this country? No one is arguing that these people are evil, and I find it ridiculous that both you and Troy assumed that's who I was talking about when I brought up the job creation. No one is arguing with you that these people should be punished. It's a sad state of affairs in this country when the word "wealthy" is synonymous with "corrupt, evil, manipulative" etc etc etc
There's no consideration for the ill affects of government action. If government commits an immoral act (let's even allow that the aim legitimately is to right some perceived wrong), why is there no consideration for that immorality? The answer is that you perceive the ends to justify the means. But this is a completely arbitrary standard.
That's not true at all. Government screws up all the time but leaving certain things in the hands of a private business can lead to immorality, of course a different immorality then government but still immorality. Arguing with a moral absolutist getting old. The private tyranny in this country commits just as many immoral acts as the government.
