100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The other 'entitlement' culture | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 04/01/13 04:20 AM
|
|
You are discussing inalienable rights, which is fine, but not the same as freedom in its pure sense. However, historically the term 'inalienable' is only a recent development and still hardly universal. I'm fully aware of Rand's position, and this reinforces my earlier statement regarding idealism and realism. A truly 'liberated' and free society would be anarchistic and dysfunctional. Rand does not propose an Anarchistic Society!
Read the excerpts again! I know, I never said she did. I don't think we are quite on the same page here. And others on that Site!
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. I concur. I don't see where I contradicted that, nor where the OP suggested otherwise. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his. You know I abhor such a scenario. exactly what we have today!
Do you really view Western society in such a fashion? In light of European history, I'd suggest it's more equitable and stable than any other period. I mean that militarily and socially, not economically, and I do see your point in regard to some of the radical financial measures put forward recently. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Mon 04/01/13 04:26 AM
|
|
You are discussing inalienable rights, which is fine, but not the same as freedom in its pure sense. However, historically the term 'inalienable' is only a recent development and still hardly universal. I'm fully aware of Rand's position, and this reinforces my earlier statement regarding idealism and realism. A truly 'liberated' and free society would be anarchistic and dysfunctional. Rand does not propose an Anarchistic Society!
Read the excerpts again! I know, I never said she did. I don't think we are quite on the same page here. And others on that Site!
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. I concur. I don't see where I contradicted that, nor where the OP suggested otherwise. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his. You know I abhor such a scenario. exactly what we have today!
Do you really view Western society in such a fashion? In light of European history, I'd suggest it's more equitable and stable than any other period. I mean that in a military sense, not financial, and I do see your point in regard to some of the radical financial measures put forward recently. 
You might see yet the two Erbfeinde of Europe goin at each others Gullet again! All that Brussels Garbage so France and Germany won't have another go at each other! Set a record even! Three times in the span between 1870 to 1939! 
Think it's time for a Nap,my Keyboard is making all sorts of Grammar-Mistakes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 04/01/13 04:24 AM
|
|
You are discussing inalienable rights, which is fine, but not the same as freedom in its pure sense. However, historically the term 'inalienable' is only a recent development and still hardly universal. I'm fully aware of Rand's position, and this reinforces my earlier statement regarding idealism and realism. A truly 'liberated' and free society would be anarchistic and dysfunctional. Rand does not propose an Anarchistic Society!
Read the excerpts again! I know, I never said she did. I don't think we are quite on the same page here. And others on that Site!
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. I concur. I don't see where I contradicted that, nor where the OP suggested otherwise. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his. You know I abhor such a scenario. exactly what we have today!
Do you really view Western society in such a fashion? In light of European history, I'd suggest it's more equitable and stable than any other period. I mean that in a military sense, not financial, and I do see your point in regard to some of the radical financial measures put forward recently.
I must admit, you are right there. We have weathered the recent economic turmoil rather well, however, a slowing economy in China does not bode well for us at all. They say, "money doesn't buy happiness", but it goes a long way to relieve suffering, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 04/01/13 04:26 AM
|
|
You are discussing inalienable rights, which is fine, but not the same as freedom in its pure sense. However, historically the term 'inalienable' is only a recent development and still hardly universal. I'm fully aware of Rand's position, and this reinforces my earlier statement regarding idealism and realism. A truly 'liberated' and free society would be anarchistic and dysfunctional. Rand does not propose an Anarchistic Society!
Read the excerpts again! I know, I never said she did. I don't think we are quite on the same page here. And others on that Site!
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. I concur. I don't see where I contradicted that, nor where the OP suggested otherwise. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his. You know I abhor such a scenario. exactly what we have today!
Do you really view Western society in such a fashion? In light of European history, I'd suggest it's more equitable and stable than any other period. I mean that in a military sense, not financial, and I do see your point in regard to some of the radical financial measures put forward recently.
You might se yet the two Erfeinde of Europe goin at each other's Gullet again! All that Brussels Garbage so France and Germany won't have another go at each other! Set a record even! Three times in the span between 1870 to 1939!
I know, as a citizen of a former colony, I have ancestors buried on those very fields. If they're ever stupid enough to go again, God help you all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are discussing inalienable rights, which is fine, but not the same as freedom in its pure sense. However, historically the term 'inalienable' is only a recent development and still hardly universal. I'm fully aware of Rand's position, and this reinforces my earlier statement regarding idealism and realism. A truly 'liberated' and free society would be anarchistic and dysfunctional. Rand does not propose an Anarchistic Society!
Read the excerpts again! I know, I never said she did. I don't think we are quite on the same page here. And others on that Site!
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. I concur. I don't see where I contradicted that, nor where the OP suggested otherwise. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his. You know I abhor such a scenario. exactly what we have today!
Do you really view Western society in such a fashion? In light of European history, I'd suggest it's more equitable and stable than any other period. I mean that in a military sense, not financial, and I do see your point in regard to some of the radical financial measures put forward recently.
You might se yet the two Erfeinde of Europe goin at each other's Gullet again! All that Brussels Garbage so France and Germany won't have another go at each other! Set a record even! Three times in the span between 1870 to 1939!
I know, as a citizen of a former colony, I have ancestors buried on those very fields. If they're ever stupid enough to go again, God help you all.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are discussing inalienable rights, which is fine, but not the same as freedom in its pure sense. However, historically the term 'inalienable' is only a recent development and still hardly universal. I'm fully aware of Rand's position, and this reinforces my earlier statement regarding idealism and realism. A truly 'liberated' and free society would be anarchistic and dysfunctional. Rand does not propose an Anarchistic Society!
Read the excerpts again! I know, I never said she did. I don't think we are quite on the same page here. And others on that Site!
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. I concur. I don't see where I contradicted that, nor where the OP suggested otherwise. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his. You know I abhor such a scenario. exactly what we have today!
Do you really view Western society in such a fashion? In light of European history, I'd suggest it's more equitable and stable than any other period. I mean that in a military sense, not financial, and I do see your point in regard to some of the radical financial measures put forward recently.
You might se yet the two Erfeinde of Europe goin at each other's Gullet again! All that Brussels Garbage so France and Germany won't have another go at each other! Set a record even! Three times in the span between 1870 to 1939!
I know, as a citizen of a former colony, I have ancestors buried on those very fields. If they're ever stupid enough to go again, God help you all.
Meaning France and Germany, not Australian soldiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are some so shocked that money doesn't come easy? Life is supposed to be difficult. The only free thing we can get for sure is water. If the government finally decide to stop Welfare, there will only be one way to get money. That will be by decent hard work. Heck, I'd take a boring job anyday, if it meant either being homeless, or working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://inthereddest.com/?p=1888 quoted for emphasis : 'We have laws, such as those prohibiting drunk driving, for a reason; they protect society. The real “entitlement” culture that’s harming America isn’t that of food stamps or Social Security, but that of far-right that supports the belief that individual citizens should have nearly unlimited liberty, regardless of the consequences to other individuals or the rest of society. If the “right” you believe you’re “entitled” to causes more harm for society as a whole than it does good, or poses a direct threat to the freedom and pursuit of happiness of other people, then you are in fact not entitled to that right. Where that line is drawn between personal liberty and the general welfare is a fair and interesting conversation, but some things are just obvious.' of course, the statement about things being 'obvious' is one I disagree with,, its a very subjecvtive perspective to determine what is 'obvious' John Locke dealt with this very issue in his Treaties on Civil Government; which is a favored book among the Tea Party Members, so if you want to know how your Tea Party Friends think, it would be worth reading. Locke's Point was when a Person is on His/Her Own Property, S/he is the Master and could do as s/he pleases; once s/he left His/Her Own Property into the Public, or the Property of another, he would have to conform his/her behavior to the Law, even the Law of another Property Holder as Everyone is the Law Over Their Own Property. In the Pubic, as Everyone has a say in the Law, the Law Must Apply to All Equally; If One May Speak on a Topic of his/her own choosing, Then All May Speak. the tea party is almost as bad as the democrats... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are some so shocked that money doesn't come easy? Life is supposed to be difficult. The only free thing we can get for sure is water. If the government finally decide to stop Welfare, there will only be one way to get money. That will be by decent hard work. Heck, I'd take a boring job anyday, if it meant either being homeless, or working. i agree with you 100%... but the democrats see it a different way altogether... as long as they keep giving to the poor people, they have votes and slaves... keep the money coming, they will do what you want... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 04/01/13 09:05 AM
|
|
Why are some so shocked that money doesn't come easy? Life is supposed to be difficult. The only free thing we can get for sure is water. If the government finally decide to stop Welfare, there will only be one way to get money. That will be by decent hard work. Heck, I'd take a boring job anyday, if it meant either being homeless, or working. if the government stopped welfare, we would have alot of starving children, because our system is not set to employ EVERYONE who needs employment,,, Id feed our children at the risk that a few lazy folks may get a couple hundred bucks a month,, than allow them to starve to try to force people to work jobs that still dont support them or their famlies,,,, talk about slavery...leave the welfare of peoples families to the willingness of companies to pay them livable wages,,,, and see how well THAT works out,,,,, and as it stands, there is still one way to get money, in plenty of places people dont get assistance unless they are 'working',,,meaning compannies get basically free labor for 'training' those recipients with skills to help them be more employable,,,, and in return for going to a job like every other 'productive' citizen, those recipients get a few hundred bucks a month( as little as 2 or 3 bucks per hour they are working or less). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are some so shocked that money doesn't come easy? Life is supposed to be difficult. The only free thing we can get for sure is water. If the government finally decide to stop Welfare, there will only be one way to get money. That will be by decent hard work. Heck, I'd take a boring job anyday, if it meant either being homeless, or working. if the government stopped welfare, we would have alot of starving children, because our system is not set to employ EVERYONE who needs employment,,, Id feed our children at the risk that a few lazy folks may get a couple hundred bucks a month,, than allow them to starve to try to force people to work jobs that still dont support them or their famlies,,,, talk about slavery...leave the welfare of peoples families to the willingness of companies to pay them livable wages,,,, and see how well THAT works out,,,,, and as it stands, there is still one way to get money, in plenty of places people dont get assistance unless they are 'working',,,meaning compannies get basically free labor for 'training' those recipients with skills to help them be more employable,,,, and in return for going to a job like every other 'productive' citizen, those recipients get a few hundred bucks a month( as little as 2 or 3 bucks per hour they are working or less). maybe they should think about making jobs then, instead of the gay marriage fiasco... it's just a diversion tactic the government uses to hide the fact obama has done nothing to help these people but give them money... and some seem to think a band aid to a problem is a cure all... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are some so shocked that money doesn't come easy? Life is supposed to be difficult. The only free thing we can get for sure is water. If the government finally decide to stop Welfare, there will only be one way to get money. That will be by decent hard work. Heck, I'd take a boring job anyday, if it meant either being homeless, or working. if the government stopped welfare, we would have alot of starving children, because our system is not set to employ EVERYONE who needs employment,,, Id feed our children at the risk that a few lazy folks may get a couple hundred bucks a month,, than allow them to starve to try to force people to work jobs that still dont support them or their famlies,,,, talk about slavery...leave the welfare of peoples families to the willingness of companies to pay them livable wages,,,, and see how well THAT works out,,,,, and as it stands, there is still one way to get money, in plenty of places people dont get assistance unless they are 'working',,,meaning compannies get basically free labor for 'training' those recipients with skills to help them be more employable,,,, and in return for going to a job like every other 'productive' citizen, those recipients get a few hundred bucks a month( as little as 2 or 3 bucks per hour they are working or less). maybe they should think about making jobs then, instead of the gay marriage fiasco... it's just a diversion tactic the government uses to hide the fact obama has done nothing to help these people but give them money... and some seem to think a band aid to a problem is a cure all... congress has done little to PROPOSE any legislation to help those people,, when they do, we can discuss what 'obama' has done he comes at the END of the process, congress has to START it,,,, and I think they are always thinking about making jobs, but corporations arent thinking about creating jobs as much as they are making profits,,,meaning getting away with as low a wage as possible,outsourcing,automation, and any number of corporate friendly options that leave out the american citizen and I am concerned about more than any one thing, as Im sure most people are....so employment is ALWAYS a hot button issue but so is the institution of marriage as they BOTH should be,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are some so shocked that money doesn't come easy? Life is supposed to be difficult. The only free thing we can get for sure is water. If the government finally decide to stop Welfare, there will only be one way to get money. That will be by decent hard work. Heck, I'd take a boring job anyday, if it meant either being homeless, or working. if the government stopped welfare, we would have alot of starving children, because our system is not set to employ EVERYONE who needs employment,,, Id feed our children at the risk that a few lazy folks may get a couple hundred bucks a month,, than allow them to starve to try to force people to work jobs that still dont support them or their famlies,,,, talk about slavery...leave the welfare of peoples families to the willingness of companies to pay them livable wages,,,, and see how well THAT works out,,,,, and as it stands, there is still one way to get money, in plenty of places people dont get assistance unless they are 'working',,,meaning compannies get basically free labor for 'training' those recipients with skills to help them be more employable,,,, and in return for going to a job like every other 'productive' citizen, those recipients get a few hundred bucks a month( as little as 2 or 3 bucks per hour they are working or less). maybe they should think about making jobs then, instead of the gay marriage fiasco... it's just a diversion tactic the government uses to hide the fact obama has done nothing to help these people but give them money... and some seem to think a band aid to a problem is a cure all...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
postal service, military, public education
, pretty important services that dont come 'free' nor should they |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Mon 04/01/13 09:33 AM
|
|
Why are some so shocked that money doesn't come easy? Life is supposed to be difficult. The only free thing we can get for sure is water. If the government finally decide to stop Welfare, there will only be one way to get money. That will be by decent hard work. Heck, I'd take a boring job anyday, if it meant either being homeless, or working. if the government stopped welfare, we would have alot of starving children, because our system is not set to employ EVERYONE who needs employment,,, Id feed our children at the risk that a few lazy folks may get a couple hundred bucks a month,, than allow them to starve to try to force people to work jobs that still dont support them or their famlies,,,, talk about slavery...leave the welfare of peoples families to the willingness of companies to pay them livable wages,,,, and see how well THAT works out,,,,, and as it stands, there is still one way to get money, in plenty of places people dont get assistance unless they are 'working',,,meaning compannies get basically free labor for 'training' those recipients with skills to help them be more employable,,,, and in return for going to a job like every other 'productive' citizen, those recipients get a few hundred bucks a month( as little as 2 or 3 bucks per hour they are working or less). maybe they should think about making jobs then, instead of the gay marriage fiasco... it's just a diversion tactic the government uses to hide the fact obama has done nothing to help these people but give them money... and some seem to think a band aid to a problem is a cure all...
yea, and where does that money go? in their swiss retirement account... |
|
|
|
|
