OT Socialism or Social Darwinism?
Johnny
¶ A question for anyone who cares to answer it. »»»
¶ Every social group, from families to nations to groups of nations, must answer this question: What does the group do about its members who need help? There are two choices. »»»
¶ A. The more fortunate help the less fortunate. (Welfare Socialism: Those with an abundance share a portion of that abundance with the needy in the interests of the General Welfare, the common good of the group.) »»»
¶ B. The less fortunate are left to their fate. (Social Darwinism: The application of the survival of the fittest feature of Natural Evolution to Human social groups. »»»
¶ I choose A; and so does the Constitution of the United States; and so do many religions, including all three Abrahamic religions. »»»
¶ Which do you choose? Ø
8-) johnny
Chainsaw
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> � A question for anyone who cares to answer it. ���
> � Every social group, from families to nations to groups of nations,
> must answer this question: What does the group do about its members who
> need help? There are two choices. ���
>
> � A. The more fortunate help the less fortunate. (Welfare Socialism:
> Those with an abundance share a portion of that abundance with the needy
> in the interests of the General Welfare, the common good of the group.) ���
>
> � B. The less fortunate are left to their fate. (Social Darwinism:
> The application of the survival of the fittest feature of Natural
> Evolution to Human social groups. ���
>
> � I choose A; and so does the Constitution of the United States;
> and so do many religions, including all three Abrahamic religions. ���
>
>
> 8-) johnny
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
A. Absolutely A.
--
Renewable Energy = Homeland Security
Chim Chim
"Chainsaw" <asad...@bakemono.net> wrote in message
news:heh0kb$h9s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Do you prefer Cuba or North Korea?
Johnny
"Chainsaw" <asad...@bakemono.net> wrote in message news:heh0kb$h9s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...Johnny wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------ ¶ A question for anyone who cares to answer it. »»»
¶ Every socialgroup, from families to nations to groups of nations, must answer this question: What does the group do about its members who need help? There are two choices. »»» ¶ A. The more fortunate help the less fortunate. (Welfare Socialism: Those with an abundance share a portion of that abundance with the needy in the interests of the General Welfare, the common good of the group.) »»» ¶ B. The less fortunate are left to their fate. (Social Darwinism: The application of the survival of the fittest feature of Natural Evolution to Human social groups. »»» ¶ I choose A; and so does the Constitution of the United States; and so do many religions, including all three Abrahamic religions. »»» ¶ Which do you choose? Ø 8-) johnny ------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Absolutely A.
Do you prefer Cuba or North Korea?
Dear Chim,
¶ Your question appears to be a somewhat specious, facile, and superficial bit of a sarcastic attempt at a gotcha intended to cast a simplistic aspersion on choice A by pointing to extreme and narrow examples of governments which, in the opinion of many - although in the case of Cuba often overstated - have perverted and abused choice A by imposing a totalitarian system to oppress the people under the guise of welfare socialism. However, I will address your question and offer one of the authorities I cited in support of choice A on the chance that you may be merely somewhat naively uninformed, misinformed, or ill-informed on this issue due to a life-long inculcation of dogmatic knee-jerk hostility towards anything which your excusable and understandable ignorance perceives as leading to *gasp and heaven forbid* that bad old communism. I urge you to examine this issue of civilization versus barbarianism and its ramifications at greater length and depth and with a prejudice-free mind open to the chance that your hostility to welfare socialism might be too strong, misguided, or just plain wrong for human societies.
¶ As to your question, I prefer the nation whose Constitution imposes the following duty on the government it created: "We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . promote the general Welfare . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And then grants that government the power to raise revenue to carry out that duty: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to . . . provide for the . . . general welfare of the United States . . . ." »»»
¶ I will spare you, in the interests of brevity, citations to U.S. Supreme Court decisions liberally and broadly interpreting the above provisions, excerpts from the Old and New Testaments and the Qur'an, and examples from the writings of a number of other major religions and social philosophies. You can do your own research, but I think you are in over your head and off the tracks on this one. You see, choice A is a group of people working together to help one another in the interests of all, individually and collectively, in a civilized manner, while choice B is an every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost anarchy in which might makes right, the law of the jungle. Of course, there is the possibility that you really are a simple-minded fool delivering a back-handed slap at a person who has made a choice of which you dogmatically disapprove, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. »»»
¶ Now, I answered your question at length, hotshot, so about answering mine by simply choosing A or B? Ø
You're welcome,
8-) johnny
D Goldberg
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ¶ A question for anyone who cares to answer it. »»»
>
> ¶ Every social group, from families to nations to groups of nations,
> must answer this question: What does the group do about its members who
> need help? There are two choices. »»»
>
> ¶ A. The more fortunate help the less fortunate.
Sure. As long as its voluntary.
D Goldberg
> ¶ As to your question, I prefer the nation whose Constitution
> imposes the following duty on the government it created: "We the People
> of the United States, in Order to . . . promote the general Welfare . .
> . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
> America." And then grants that government the power to raise revenue to
> carry out that duty: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect
> taxes, duties, imposts and excises to . . . provide for the . . .
> general welfare of the United States . . . ." »»»
Article 1, Section 8 then goes on to list the specific ways in which
the federal government may do this. The redistribution of wealth
isn't one of them, which is why the feds never even considered doing
it until the 1930s, when some socialists took over the government and
started inventing new powers for themselves.
Terraholm
So should paying taxes to make war be voluntary?
$Bill
Majority rules.
Terraholm
Exactly. But if it is taking care of people who need help it has to be
voluntary... Goldberg hates democracy...
(Not that a majority support the wars...)
"WAR is a racket. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious.
It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something
that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small
"inside" group knows what it is about.
It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the
very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Major General Smedley D. Butler -
USMC Retired Double Metal of Honor Recipient
D Goldberg
I would love to be able to opt out of Social Security. I wouldn't pay
the taxes, I'd get a refund of all the money I've dumped into the
system, and in exchange I wouldn't have to be involved in that idiotic
Ponzi scheme.
Likewise, if somebody like you refused to participate in our national
defense, you could opt out of citizenship and move to Mexico or
Somalia. I think the country would be a much better place.
Terraholm
> On Nov 25, 5:56 pm, Terraholm <terraholmSPAM...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> D Goldberg wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 5:32 am, Johnny <apte...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> � A question for anyone who cares to answer it. ���
>>>> � Every social group, from families to nations to groups of nations,
>>>> must answer this question: What does the group do about its members who
>>>> need help? There are two choices. ���
>>>> � A. The more fortunate help the less fortunate.
>>> Sure. As long as its voluntary.
>> So should paying taxes to make war be voluntary?
>
> I would love to be able to opt out of Social Security. I wouldn't pay
> the taxes, I'd get a refund of all the money I've dumped into the
> system, and in exchange I wouldn't have to be involved in that idiotic
> Ponzi scheme.
>
> Likewise, if somebody like you refused to participate in our national
> defense,
I said "make war".
Iraq was not national defense. Nor was 'Nam nor bosnia or panama.
Neither is Afghanistan past the initial driving out Al Qa'eda.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way
of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it
is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
Henry Kissinger
Johnny
Dear Mr. Goldberg,
¶ While I do not believe that arguments based on political buzz-words and talking points such as "redistribution of wealth," "socialists [taking] over the government," and "inventing new powers" are altogether proper in a serious debate on Constitutional Law, I will overlook your somewhat incontinent and rather intransigent passion for ultra-conservative 19th century political and economic philosophies in order to advance the discussion along more relevant, reasonable, and concrete lines with some modicum of civility in the discourse.
¶ First, it is necessary to recognize that you are not arguing what the current law and presently predominant philosophy of constitutional interpretation actually are. You are arguing from the standpoint of what you believe, correctly or incorrectly, they once were and ought to be again. I, on the other hand, am merely stating what they actually are at present, without necessarily opining what they once were or ought to be, or commenting on their wisdom. »»»
¶ Once again, as you have done many times in our debates on constitutional interpretation, you are arguing, as do many conservative politicians, judges, and jurists, for a general rule of Constitutional interpretation that the Supreme Court has rejected. The philosophy of an ultra-strict, extremely narrow interpretation of the Constitution that you have persistently and consistently urged in every discussion we have had on the Constitution is not currently, whatever it may or may not have been in the past, the law with respect to the General Welfare Clause. At present, a broad interpretation predominates. The current controlling case on the present interpretation of the General Welfare Clause is United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936):
"The [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."
¶ Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. More recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). »»»
¶ Mr. Goldberg, If you want to make a case for your philosophy that will be taken seriously, I suggest that you make your case based on demonstrable facts, concrete examples, and sound reasoning bearing the imprimatur of respected authority on the subject. Simply stating your unsupported conclusions does not establish their validity and will not convince anyone of the soundness of your opinions or wisdom of your position. My authority for the current broad interpretation of the clause in question are the Supreme Court decisions I cited; what is your authority for a narrow interpretation? What perplexes me most about your arguing is that no matter how often I present you with controlling or landmark Supreme Court decisions holding just the opposite of what you are arguing you not only persist in arguing the same position over and over in the face of such authority, but you continue to unabashedly argue constitutional law and interpretation with a constitutional lawyer and scholar. »»»
¶ Mr. Goldberg, I am trying to pull back from the vitriolic acrimony that infected many of our previous encounters and prevented meaningful dialogue by hampering our ability or willingness to consider each other's positions. I hope that you will cooperate in making that change and keep your mind open to demonstrable facts, well-settled law, and sound reasoning instead of obstinately clinging to conservative dogma exalting a past that proved to be so constitutionally unworthy of exaltation that it will never again be. Ø
You're welcome,
8-) johnny
Terraholm
I will
> overlook your somewhat incontinent and rather intransigent passion for
> ultra-conservative 19th century political and economic philosophies
Ah come on, Goldberg did not say that it is good to take care of poor
people... as long as you are allowed to own them and work them on the
'ol' plantation. ;-)
--
LT
"an enormous Proportion of Property vested in
a few Individuals is dangerous to the Rights,
and destructive of the Common Happiness, of
Mankind; and therefore every free State hath
a Right by its Laws to discourage the Possession
of such Property."
Ben Franklin
D Goldberg
> D Goldberg wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 8:16 pm, Johnny wrote:
>
> >> ¶ As to your question, I prefer the nation whose Constitution
> >> imposes the following duty on the government it created: "We the People
> >> of the United States, in Order to . . . promote the general Welfare . .
> >> . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
> >> America." And then grants that government the power to raise revenue to
> >> carry out that duty: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect
> >> taxes, duties, imposts and excises to . . . provide for the . . .
> >> general welfare of the United States . . . ." »»»
>
> > Article 1, Section 8 then goes on to list the specific ways in which
> > the federal government may do this. The redistribution of wealth
> > isn't one of them, which is why the feds never even considered doing
> > it until the 1930s, when some socialists took over the government and
> > started inventing new powers for themselves.
>
> ultra-conservative 19th century political and economic philosophies in
> order to advance the discussion along more relevant, reasonable, and
> concrete lines with some modicum of civility in the discourse.
The political and economic ideas I'm advancing are not "ultra
conservative". I prefer to think of them as classically liberal.
You're correct that I hold dear the ideas and laws that created this
country. My position is absolutely consistent. When it comes to
matters of government power, the first and only place I look to for
guidance is the United States Constitution.
People like you, on the other hand, only trot out the document when
absolutely necessary. When it fails to serve your collectivist, big-
government, control freak purposes, your position changes and suddenly
we're told that it's a "living document" that means whatever you want
it to mean. Your position is inconsistent, immoral, baseless, and
completely lacking in any philisophical foundation.
> The current
> controlling case on the present interpretation of the General Welfare
> Clause is United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936):
>
> "The [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and
> distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning
> by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive
> power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement
> that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the
> United States. ... It results that the power of Congress to
> authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not
> limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the
> Constitution."
Using this logic, there are absolutely no limits to government power.
Any expenditure that could loosely be interpreted as promoting the
general welfare is suddenly legal.
Is that what you really believe? Is that the kind of government you
want?
$Bill
>
> The political and economic ideas I'm advancing are not "ultra
> conservative". I prefer to think of them as classically liberal.
Nobody could ever think of you and liberal in the same sentence.
Johnny
On Nov 25, 11:07 pm, Johnny <apte...@cox.net> wrote:
D Goldberg wrote:On Nov 24, 8:16 pm, Johnny wrote:¶ As to your question, I prefer the nation whose Constitution imposes the following duty on the government it created: "We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . promote the general Welfare . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And then grants that government the power to raise revenue to carry out that duty: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to . . . provide for the . . . general welfare of the United States . . . ." »»»Article 1, Section 8 then goes on to list the specific ways in which the federal government may do this. The redistribution of wealth isn't one of them, which is why the feds never even considered doing it until the 1930s, when some socialists took over the government and started inventing new powers for themselves.
I will overlook your somewhat incontinent and rather intransigent passion for ultra-conservative 19th century political and economic philosophies in order to advance the discussion along more relevant, reasonable, and concrete lines with some modicum of civility in the discourse.
The political and economic ideas I'm advancing are not "ultra conservative". I prefer to think of them as classically liberal. You're correct that I hold dear the ideas and laws that created this country. My position is absolutely consistent. When it comes to matters of government power, the first and only place I look to for guidance is the United States Constitution. People like you, on the other hand, only trot out the document when absolutely necessary. When it fails to serve your collectivist, big- government, control freak purposes, your position changes and suddenly we're told that it's a "living document" that means whatever you want it to mean. Your position is inconsistent, immoral, baseless, and completely lacking in any philisophical foundation.
¶ Briefly (see below for an expansion of this point that you are missing): Your "People like you" invective is misplaced as well as uncalled for. Whatever my position or purposes may or may not be is not relevant to the narrow issue under discussion between us, nor did I state my position or purposes in my response to you. I have merely stated the position of the Supreme Court on the specific issue of constitutional interpretation as it applies to the General Welfare Clause. It is the position and purposes of the Supreme Court on that issue that are the proper targets of your argument and your invective. »»»
The current controlling case on the present interpretation of the General Welfare Clause is United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936): "The [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. ... It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."Using this logic, there are absolutely no limits to government power. Any expenditure that could loosely be interpreted as promoting the general welfare is suddenly legal. Is that what you really believe? Is that the kind of government you want?
¶ David, what I may or may not want or believe is not relevant to the narrow issue of constitutional interpretation that you, not I, raised in a piggy-backed attack on a single isolated paragraph of mine addressed to someone else on a separate and different issue in which I simply quoted the words of the Constitution without characterizing them, offering an interpretation of them, or expressing an opinion with respect to them. As to the quote from the Butler decision, that is not my logic, it is the logic of the Court. I simply recited it for your information. You, and you alone, characterized those mere bare recitations of the exact words of the Constitution and the Court as my advocating what you consider to be an improper use of the quoted sections by "some socialists" who have "taken over" the government and "invented new powers" in order to "redistribute wealth." I said nothing of the kind, I took no position, I simply said here are the words of the Constitution and the Court. Attacking me on the grounds of what you characterize out of thin air as my position is per se unpersuasive. »»»
¶ I am now going to bring to a final conclusion all of our past, present, and possible future misunderstanding-based debates on constitutional interpretation by making just one more time the one point that you consistently miss or ignore, and which is actually the most important point of this seemingly endless and pointless quarrel you have with me whenever the question of constitutional interpretation comes up, and then I am going to tell you the score when it comes to that question, the absolute bottom line no matter what either one of us or anybody else feels about it. »»»
¶ First: We are having difficulty communicating because we are addressing two different things. You are arguing how you believe the Constitution ought to be interpreted based upon how it was once interpreted during a past period in its history. I am stating how it is actually being interpreted right now and, with respect to the General Welfare Clause, ever since the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). You are arguing how things should be according to your philosophical position, I am telling you how things actually are according to what the Supreme Court says they are. (I will return to that point when I conclude by addressing the bottom line, so don't get all carried away yet.) »»»
¶ I am not arguing that how things are is how they should be, yet you insist on supposing that I am doing just that and then you proceed to argue with me against it when I am not arguing for it but merely telling you the current state of the law with respect to it. I am advising you as to the current state of the law as a lawyer would advise a client, not as one arguing with another lawyer in a courtroom. Your argument is not with me, David, it is with the Supreme Court. In case you may have overlooked it in your zeal to press your philosophy and insult what you imagine mine to be, here is the prefatory operative paragraph of my prior post making this very point very clear before I proceeded to tell you what the Supreme Court said:
"¶ First, it is necessary to recognize that you are not arguing what the current law and presently predominant philosophy of constitutional interpretation actually are. You are arguing from the standpoint of what you believe, correctly or incorrectly, they once were and ought to be again. I, on the other hand, am merely stating what they actually are at present, without necessarily opining what they once were or ought to be, or commenting on their wisdom. »»»"
¶ Finally, here is the score, the bottom line when it comes to constitutional interpretation. The long and short of it. The no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Period. Bear in mind, now, and settle down Mr. Emotion-driven, that I am not at this time in this post in this debate on this issue personally endorsing or expressing an opinion of any kind by telling you the following seminal principle of constitutional interpretation: The Constitution of the United States says what the Supreme Court of the United States decides it says. This principle, known as "Judicial Review," has been an applied judicial philosophy long before there was a United States, and it has been the official and consistently applied policy of the Supreme Court since it was asserted in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). And that's the name of that tune, Charlie Brown, and unless and until it changes that is the tune you and all the rest of us have to dance to whether we like it or not. Ø
I do not expect you to understand what I am saying here; if you should understand it, I do not expect you to accept it; and if you should accept it, I do not expect you to admit it. Therefore, there is only one thing left to say to you, and that is simply and finally
See you around,
8-) johnny
Chim Chim
"Johnny" <apt...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7c2Pm.11158$cX4....@newsfe10.iad...
Chim Chim wrote:
"Chainsaw" <asad...@bakemono.net> wrote in message
news:heh0kb$h9s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Johnny wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
� A question for anyone who cares to answer it. ���
� Every socialgroup, from families to nations to groups of nations, must
answer this question: What does the group do about its members who need
help? There
are two choices. ���
� A. The more fortunate help the less fortunate. (Welfare Socialism:
Those with an abundance share a portion of that abundance with the needy
in the interests of the General Welfare, the common good of the
group.) ���
� B. The less fortunate are left to their fate. (Social Darwinism:
The application of the survival of the fittest feature of Natural
Evolution to Human social groups. ���
� I choose A; and so does the Constitution of the United States; and
so do many religions, including all three Abrahamic religions. ���
� Which do you choose? �
8-) johnny
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Absolutely A.
Do you prefer Cuba or North Korea?
Dear Chim,
mine by simply choosing A or B? �
You're welcome,
8-) johnny
You have presented an extremely oversimplified question that requires a
complex answer. People are brought up with different values, beliefs,
education and so on. If you were brought up in a society where you think you
are owed something and you have not had a fair shake, it would be hard to
get out of that mindset. On the other hand, if you were taught that in order
to achieve things in life, you will need to have a certain discipline in
order to achieve those goals.
The reason I mentioned Cuba & N. Korea is because they resemble the closest
answer to your question "A", as answered by Chainsaw. The Scandinavian
countries are hybrids of "A" as well as many European countries. The cool
thing I like about our system is the fact we are the most generous nation on
the planet and we are a capitalistic society. I cannot see a system like
Cuba or N Korea contributing to the cause of man like we do. To me, that
shows capitalism is a better system then communism. I also like the fact we
have a great system for research and development regarding health care. It
just needs to be less expensive.
Your question "B" in my opinion would apply to animals, not humans. If you
were brought up in the US, it would be hard to imagine being for "B" as you
have described. In the animal kingdom "B" is a necessity whereas for us it's
an option. We know better they don't. Although I do feel that humans do
treat their animal counterparts like "B" all the time.
BTW, you can explain in plain English to me what you mean; you don't need to
reticule and demean in order to get your point across to me. I live in a
family full of Lawyers and MBA's and we seem to communicate fine without
being pricks to each other. In the same token, you don't need to qualify
your education, IQ or social status. The content of your message will do
just fine.
I will answer your question with Switzerland. That is my final answer :)
Johnny
"Johnny" <apt...@cox.net> wrote in message news:7c2Pm.11158$cX4....@newsfe10.iad... Chim Chim wrote: "Chainsaw" <asad...@bakemono.net> wrote in message news:heh0kb$h9s$1...@news.eternal-september.org
...
Johnny wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶ A question for anyone who cares to answer it. »»»
¶ Every socialgroup, from families to nations to groups of nations, must
answer this question: What does the group do about its members who need
help? There
are two choices. »»»
¶ A. The more fortunate help the less fortunate. (Welfare Socialism:
Those with an abundance share a portion of that abundance with the needy
in the interests of the General Welfare, the common good of the
group.) »»»
¶ B. The less fortunate are left to their fate. (Social Darwinism:
The application of the survival of the fittest feature of Natural
Evolution to Human social groups. »»»
¶ I choose A; and so does the Constitution of the United States; and
so do many religions, including all three Abrahamic religions. »»»
¶ Which do you choose? Ø
8-) johnny
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Absolutely A.
Do you prefer Cuba or North Korea?
Dear Chim,
¶ Your question appears to be a somewhat specious, facile, and
superficial bit of a sarcastic attempt at a gotcha intended to cast a
simplistic aspersion on choice A by pointing to extreme and narrow examples
of governments which, in the opinion of many - although in the case of Cuba
often overstated - have perverted and abused choice A by imposing a
totalitarian system to oppress the people under the guise of welfare
socialism. However, I will address your question and offer one of the
authorities I cited in support of choice A on the chance that you may be
merely somewhat naively uninformed, misinformed, or ill-informed on this
issue due to a life-long inculcation of dogmatic knee-jerk hostility towards
anything which your excusable and understandable ignorance perceives as
leading to *gasp and heaven forbid* that bad old communism. I urge you to
examine this issue of civilization versus barbarianism and its ramifications
at greater length and depth and with a prejudice-free mind open to the
chance that your hostility to welfare socialism might be too strong,
misguided, or just plain wrong for human societies.
¶ As to your question, I prefer the nation whose Constitution imposes
the following duty on the government it created: "We the People of the
United States, in Order to . . . promote the general Welfare . . . do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And then
grants that government the power to raise revenue to carry out that duty:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and
excises to . . . provide for the . . . general welfare of the United States
. . . ." »»»
¶ I will spare you, in the interests of brevity, citations to U.S.
Supreme Court decisions liberally and broadly interpreting the above
provisions, excerpts from the Old and New Testaments and the Qur'an, and
examples from the writings of a number of other major religions and social
philosophies. You can do your own research, but I think you are in over
your head and off the tracks on this one. You see, choice A is a group of
people working together to help one another in the interests of all,
individually and collectively, in a civilized manner, while choice B is an
every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost anarchy in which might
makes right, the law of the jungle. Of course, there is the possibility that
you really are a simple-minded fool delivering a back-handed slap at a
person who has made a choice of which you dogmatically disapprove, but I'll
give you the benefit of the doubt this time. »»»
¶ Now, I answered your question at length, hotshot, so about answering
mine by simply choosing A or B? Ø
You're welcome,
8-) johnny
You have presented an extremely oversimplified question that requires a
complex answer. People are brought up with different values, beliefs,
education and so on. If you were brought up in a society where you think you
are owed something and you have not had a fair shake, it would be hard to
get out of that mindset. On the other hand, if you were taught that in order
to achieve things in life, you will need to have a certain discipline in
order to achieve those goals.
The reason I mentioned Cuba & N. Korea is because they resemble the closest
answer to your question "A", as answered by Chainsaw. The Scandinavian
countries are hybrids of "A" as well as many European countries. The cool
thing I like about our system is the fact we are the most generous nation on
the planet and we are a capitalistic society. I cannot see a system like
Cuba or N Korea contributing to the cause of man like we do. To me, that
shows capitalism is a better system then communism. I also like the fact we
have a great system for research and development regarding health care. It
just needs to be less expensive.
Your question "B" in my opinion would apply to animals, not humans. If you
were brought up in the US, it would be hard to imagine being for "B" as you
have described. In the animal kingdom "B" is a necessity whereas for us it's
an option. We know better they don't. Although I do feel that humans do
treat their animal counterparts like "B" all the time.
BTW, you can explain in plain English to me what you mean; you don't need to
reticule and demean in order to get your point across to me. I live in a
family full of Lawyers and MBA's and we seem to communicate fine without
being pricks to each other. In the same token, you don't need to qualify
your education, IQ or social status. The content of your message will do
just fine.
I will answer your question with Switzerland. That is my final answer :)
Chim: ¶ Instead of answering the simple query that was the subject of my post in order to establish a simple premise as to whether to do this or that as a starting point for further discussion of the more complex features of how to do what the selected premise calls for, which you have now belatedly decided to do, you took a cheap shot at someone in my thread to ridicule and demean him, and me along with him, by not so subtly calling us communists, and I didn't let you get away with it. You acted like a prick, so I treated you like one. I talked down to you because you lowered yourself. »»»
¶ The first three paragraphs of your final answer dealing with the complexities of the how are just fine, proper, responsive, and thoughtful. The final paragraph before the Switzerland line, the BTW, is you acting like a jerk again. I don't care about your family or your views on how I should handle my education, IQ, or social status, or how I should explain things to you. You ridiculed and demeaned in your first response, so I ridiculed and demeaned you right back. You came on like a fucking simpleton so I treated you like a fucking simpleton. If you come on as you did in your first three paragraphs above, as mentioned, I'll treat you and your opinions with respect. I have noted in a number of threads that sometimes you do that, and at other times you act like an asshole. I treat you according to how you act in any given case. Ø
And that's all there is to it,
8-) johnny
P.S. ¶ For your information and edification, I am not a communist or a doctrinaire socialist. I am a modern social democrat. I favor a modern liberal democracy form of political and economic system with a reasonable balance between individualism and collectivism, a blend of capitalism to reward those who succeed and welfare socialism to help those who fail. Communism is a Utopian concept which, like all Utopias, is doomed to fail because it is fundamentally flawed by failing to account for human greed and selfishness. That greedy aspect of Human nature is why capitalism must be to some extent regulated and socialism must be to some extent tempered. As I have freely and openly admitted and explained in other threads at length, I am a Liberal Populist, a New Deal Democrat, a Welfare State Socialist, and a 1912 ("Bull Moose") Progressive, and I resent anyone characterizing me as anything but, and it especially pisses me off when someone assumes that I would embrace something as ignorant of history and human nature as communism. »»»
¶ Oh, one more thing. The false concept of "Humans are not animals" separation is based on religious mysticism that Humans are uniquely intellectually blessed with pure reason by a supernatural entity. Humans are animals. Homo sapiens are a species of Ape, and way down deep in the instinctual core of our brains are the remnants of an Australopithecine brain. We would do well to remember that when dealing with Human nature. Ø
8-) johnny
Chim Chim
>post in order to establish a simple premise as to whether to do this or
>that as >a starting point for further discussion of the more complex
>features of how to do what the selected premise calls for, which you have
>now belatedly >decided to do, you took a cheap shot at someone in my thread
>to ridicule and demean him, and me along with him, by not so subtly calling
>us >communists, and I didn't let you get away with it. You acted like a
>prick, so I treated you like one. I talked down to you because you lowered
> >yourself.
No, that was not my intention. As you may know sometimes the emphasis gets
lost in writing and is left for interpretation. I was just trying point out
that in my view, what you described, to me, resembled Cuba and N. Korea.
As I have read in other postings of yours, if people don't play by your
rules and wording, you will attack with every weapon in your arsenal. That's
cool; just don't think everyone wants to play by Johnny's rules.
> The first three paragraphs of your final answer dealing with the
> complexities of the how are >just fine, proper, responsive, and
> thoughtful. The final >paragraph before the Switzerland line, the BTW, is
> you acting like a jerk again. I don't care about your family or your views
> on how I should handle my >education, IQ, or social status, or how I
> should explain things to you. You ridiculed and demeaned in your first
> response, so I ridiculed and demeaned >you right back. You came on like a
> fucking simpleton so I treated you like a fucking simpleton. If you come
> on as you did in your first three paragraphs >above, as mentioned, I'll
> treat you and your>opinions with respect. I have noted in a number of
> threads that sometimes you do that, and at other times >you act like an
> asshole. I treat you according to how you act in any given case.
I really do like the system of Switzerland and it was not intended to be
sarcastic. I am a simpleton (I have to be in order to stay sane) and don't
have an ounce of diplomacy in me. It's funny that I even discuss politics. I
just look at it as opinion and I have a lot of those for some reason. Maybe
I'm insecure and have to show other people the light ;)
I think that part rubs me the wrong way is the fact that you will bombard
with your opinion as stated fact. At least that's how it appears.
>P.S. � For your information and edification, I am not a communist or a
>doctrinaire socialist. I am a modern social democrat. I favor a modern
>liberal >democracy form of political and economic system with a reasonable
>balance between individualism and collectivism, a blend of capitalism to
>reward >those who succeed and welfare socialism to help those who fail.
>Communism is a Utopian concept which, like all Utopias, is doomed to fail
>because it is >fundamentally flawed by failing to account for human greed
>and selfishness.
This paragraph is the most comprehensive, non baited comment I have seen you
post.
The democratic party of 40+ years ago seemed like a decent common sense
approach to governing. The party I see today does not reflect anything that
represents a common sense for its people it represents. The Republican Party
is in the same boat. Both parties have shifted self interests. I see a
person like Jon Mackey who is a libertarian get ripped to shreds by the
liberal media and it makes me cringe. To me every this is an ideal business
model. His people are well paid, he gives them good health insurance and his
stores are packed with local goods. Whole Foods also contributes man hours
and money to every community they are in. Then they get demonized for making
a common sense approach to health care by the left, go figure. Oh well, I'm
off on a tangent :)
> That greedy aspect of Human nature is why capitalism must be to some
> extent regulated and socialism must be to some extent tempered. As I have
> >freely and openly admitted and explained in other threads at length, I am
> a Liberal Populist, a New Deal Democrat, a Welfare State Socialist, and a
> >1912 ("Bull Moose") Progressive, and I resent anyone characterizing me as
> anything but, and it especially pisses me off when someone assumes that I
> >would embrace something as ignorant of history and human nature as
> communism.
Well again, the post was not well defined and was left up for my
interpretation:
"A. The more fortunate help the less fortunate. (Welfare Socialism:
Those with an abundance share a portion of that abundance with the needy
in the interests of the General Welfare, the common good of the
group."
I took it in the literal sense. Kind of like a jeopardy question. "What is
Cuba & N. Korea"
> Oh, one more thing. The false concept of "Humans are not animals"
> separation is based on religious mysticism that Humans are uniquely
> intellectually >blessed with pure reason by a supernatural entity. Humans
> are animals. Homo sapiens are a species of Ape, and way down deep in the
> instinctual core >of our brains are the remnants of an Australopithecine
> brain. We would do well to remember that when dealing with Human nature.
That's the thing with humans, we are intellectual. And if you speak to my
wife, we know better not to hurt or kill animals. They are to live along
with, not to kill for our greedy consumption. Ever wonder why our teeth are
round and not pointed?
Johnny
> Ever wonder why our teeth are
> round and not pointed?
>
>
evolutionary ancestors and the use of tools and fire developing too
quickly after they added meat to their diet for the new diet
to exert evolutionary pressure for sharper teeth.
$Bill
I thought it was the other way around. We had sharper teeth and
the evolved back to more like a ruminant with grinding being needed
more than tearing due to a more vegetarian diet. Chimps, gorillas,
baboons, etc have more pronounced canines and sharper teeth than we
do and supposedly we're on parallel trees. I would chalk it up to
farming/agriculture along with your cooking idea (easier to eat
cooked meat - no need for big canines). Just my guess at it.
Jabba
> P.S. ¶ For your information and edification, I am not a communist or a
> doctrinaire socialist. I am a modern social democrat. I favor a modern
> liberal democracy form of political and economic system with a
> reasonable balance between individualism and collectivism, a blend of
> capitalism to reward those who succeed and welfare socialism to help
> those who fail. Communism is a Utopian concept which, like all Utopias,
> is doomed to fail because it is fundamentally flawed by failing to
> account for human greed and selfishness. That greedy aspect of Human
> nature is why capitalism must be to some extent regulated and socialism
> must be to some extent tempered. As I have freely and openly admitted
> and explained in other threads at length, I am a Liberal Populist, a New
> Deal Democrat, a Welfare State Socialist, and a 1912 ("Bull Moose")
> Progressive, and I resent anyone characterizing me as anything but, and
> it especially pisses me off when someone assumes that I would embrace
> something as ignorant of history and human nature as communism. »»»
Well, perhaps you should have titled the thread "social democracy or
social darwinism."
btw, I'm with you on this one. The market is by far the most efficient
way to allocate resources, however, for reasons of social justice I
believe it is important for the government to manage a safety net for
the losers in the system (including those who "lose" simply by growing
old).
Longer term however, I don't believe in nationalism -- one world
government can't come fast enough for me.
--
jabba
citizen of the empire
$Bill
>
> Longer term however, I don't believe in nationalism -- one world
> government can't come fast enough for me.
Never happen.
Jabba
Never is a long time.
But at this point I think a devolution to only local governance is
more likely to happen first. Once we enter the post-scarcity society.
-cc
Johnny
On Nov 27, 4:15 pm, Johnny <apte...@cox.net> wrote:P.S. ¶ For your information and edification, I am not a communist or a doctrinaire socialist. I am a modern social democrat. I favor a modern liberal democracy form of political and economic system with a reasonable balance between individualism and collectivism, a blend of capitalism to reward those who succeed and welfare socialism to help those who fail. Communism is a Utopian concept which, like all Utopias, is doomed to fail because it is fundamentally flawed by failing to account for human greed and selfishness. That greedy aspect of Human nature is why capitalism must be to some extent regulated and socialism must be to some extent tempered. As I have freely and openly admitted and explained in other threads at length, I am a Liberal Populist, a New Deal Democrat, a Welfare State Socialist, and a 1912 ("Bull Moose") Progressive, and I resent anyone characterizing me as anything but, and it especially pisses me off when someone assumes that I would embrace something as ignorant of history and human nature as communism. »»»Well, perhaps you should have titled the thread "social democracy or social darwinism."
You are 100% correct on that. I should have figured that out for myself, and I'm disappointed in me that I didn't, given my love of precision in language. -J.
btw, I'm with you on this one. The market is by far the most efficient way to allocate resources, however, for reasons of social justice I believe it is important for the government to manage a safety net for the losers in the system (including those who "lose" simply by growing old). Longer term however, I don't believe in nationalism -- one world government can't come fast enough for me.
I think that could eventually happen as advances in communication and transportation homogenize us more and more, and I think it's possible be politically homogeneous without sacrificing the advantages of cultural heterogeneity, but given how difficult it has proven to be to govern even small relatively homogeneous polities, it looks like its going to be a long time coming. -J.
Johnny
> Ever wonder why our teeth are
> round and not pointed?
>
>