“So this is how liberty dies. To the sound of thunderous applause.” Padme, Star Wars III
The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote.
In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say as part of their jobs…
Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said: “The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States.”…
“It’s a very frightening signal of dark times ahead,” said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project.
Dramatic
I don’t think we need to eulogize libery yet…I can see both sides of this argument. Anyone who has worked in the federal government knows of people who get away with murder because any time they are threatened with discipline they threaten lawsuit and hem and haw until their supervisors back down. I’m all for protection for legitimate whistleblowers, but like anything else that had good intentions, it hs been corrupted by people looking to get away woth something.
What we need is a true “crap detector”. Something that can tell when someone is lying. Of course, that would be the ultimate invasion of privacy, wouldn’t it?
The funny thing about reading that blurb is that I was instantly against the decision simply because the Bush Administration was for it. That says something there doesn’t it. Of course, the tone the article was written in didn’t have anything to do with my initial reaction either, eh? Nice unbiased piece of writing.
My $.02 Weed
Dramatic Out
I picture the ACLU as Hadden, and Lady Liberty as Ellie:
Hadden: The powers that be have been very busy lately, falling over each other to position themselves for the game of the millennium. Maybe I can help deal you back in. Ellie: I didn’t realize that I was out. Hadden: Oh… maybe not out, but certainly being handed your hat.
(From Contact)
—
Matthew P. Barnson
a 5-4 decision in which new
Actually, any one of the five who voted with the majority could be said to have cast the deciding vote since the Justices do not vote in order like free-throws in the final moments of a basketball game. This statement is clearly meant to deliberately single out Alito as devisive, political, freedom-hater.
You’re A Freedom-Hater
I believe some justices make their decision-position known early and then go into debate privately to discuss their opinion with those that are on the fence. This also happens with the Justices’ staffers. I think I read this in “The Supreme Court” by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
It’s obvious that by trying to show the media is biased that you are a freedom-hater and want to see this country destroyed. I hope you make nice with those ferocious little puppies at Guantanamo. 🙂
Hold on
I’m confused:
If I trash Bush, then I hate the country and those who fight for it, what it stands for, and therefore I hate freedom and liberty.
If I trash the biased media, then I hate freedom of speech, and therefore I hate freedom and liberty.
If I keep quiet, then I’m not utilizing my right to protest, and I’m squandering my freedoms, and therefore I must not love freedom and liberty.
If I just go along, I sell my soul. Usually, you sell your soul to the devil. If he owns my soul, then I am no longer free.
How does one be free these days?
My $.02 Weed
P.S. Those who trash the logic of this post will be flogged with a Wayward Sun 😉
WS Flogging
Which will take 3 minutes the first time, but upon revisions will be 59 minutes long.
Hopefully there is an afterlife.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Recent Obama Quote
“I find it hard to shake the feeling these days that our democracy has gone seriously awry.”
-Sen. Barack Obama discussing his new book
Heinlein
Tim C. visited my home yesterday, as he was in Salt Lake City for a convention. We were commenting on the difference between the effects of the war in Washington, D.C., and the effect here in Utah.
Basically, here in Utah, other than repeated National Guard deployments, the effect is zilch. No sacrifices. No going without a new car for a while. No abstaining from certain types of food so that they can go to the soldiers. We’re living fat and happy, just like always, while our national debt spirals into oblivion, and in Washington, D.C. the stream of war-wounded arrive by helicopter all night long, every night.
Robert Heinlein, I think, summarized part of the problem through the mouth of his alter ego, Lazarus Long, in “To Sail Beyond The Sunset”:
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Perfect Democracy
Regarding the inevitable descent into social democracy, Heinlein is on the money, and Obama is unwittingly agreeing. I haven’t read Obama’s book yet, but given what I’ve heard of his speeches, etc. (I did live in his district when he was elected), I trust he actually wants more Circuses, not fewer.
The great thing about this country is that it’s not supposed to be a pure democracy.
I do have to object to one point: “What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest.” I couldn’t disagree more. People should vote in their own interests, but there shouldn’t be anything to vote upon which would infringe on the rights of others. That’s the idea behind a constitutional republic, which we so enjoy.
Quote
“Regarding the inevitable descent into social democracy, Heinlein is on the money, and Obama is unwittingly agreeing. I haven’t read Obama’s book yet, but given what I’ve heard of his speeches, etc. (I did live in his district when he was elected), I trust he actually wants more Circuses, not fewer.”
Am curious. Please elucidate.
Straight from the horse’s month
Hmm. Should have said, “state” not “district.” I actually lived in the district he vacated to become a Senator. Whatever.
A quick visit to Obama’s web site yielded these gems:
No matter how noble you may think a cause is, taking money, forcibly, from one person to give it to another is wrong. Exceptions will be few and far between, not 30% of your income. If Social Security, Pell Grants, “free” health care, etc. are the bread, hybrid cars are left as the circus.
Daniel, you rock.
Seriously. I asked for clarification on something I was wondering about and you provided me with a great number of well-researched quotes. That’s so much more effort than I’d ever put in to hold up my side of an argument. So thanks for that.
The Circus of Capitalism?
Democracy is a system which provides political harmony between the individual and the society by granting each individual in that society a vote and voice equal in power to all other individuals. Not true? But it has to be true, because on election day an electorate determines a victor through tally of votes of the individual and not by a cumulative or weighted voting system. Why would a society need circuses to subdue any current unrest in a political system when each individual in the democratic society is provided equal say?
Maybe it has nothing to do with the political system?
The deterioration and ultimate weakening of a democratic society may have less to do with voter registration, voter engagement, voter enrichment, and voter performance and more to do with the gross distinction in economic classhood and continued exposure of a disparity in living standards. Poor people and rich people. Rich people and poor people. They each have their one vote. But one vote sure does mean more than the other.
Daniel, I agree with your last couple posts in larger theory. However, taking money forcibly and giving it to others is a foundation of core government operation. The federal government taxes your income and gives it to a soldier’s salary, which provides for national defense. The state government taxes your property and provides it to local schools, so that we can have an educated society. And so on. You and I may agree that Obama’s specific initiatives are terrible tools to captivate a certain economic populace, but the theory of government taxation for egalitarian service and prosperity is a bedrock of federal purpose.
I used to be a Republican. Then the Republican party started shoving their interpretation of morality down everyone’s throats. I don’t know which is worse, the Democratic breadcakes of higher taxation for expanded service or the Republican circus of supercilious righteousness.
Politics
If it were really about us the people, then maybe I’d care about Republican, Democrat, etc. Now, it’s just what view will get me the votes I need to win my election and stay elected. The Republicans have found a cash cow of votes by tapping the religious votes. The Democrats are in danger of losing their traditional votes because they’ve become so focused on the special interests they’re forgetting the normal everyday Joe.
The problem is, mostly the everyday Joe is too busy watching American Idol to care.
Personally, you can tax me and use it to help other people who have tried to help themselves and failed. However, I think my tax money goes elsewhere and hardly gets to those who need it.
My $.02 Weed
We’re not so different after all…
Sam, I don’t choose to affiliate all that closely with either of the big two, as both seem to have only one foot in the camp of freedom. For the Dems, it’s social, for Repubs, economic. But it’s horribly illogical to micromanage one’s bedroom and not one’s boardroom (or visa-versa). I don’t think the government has much of a place in either, other than to protect its populace from violence or fraud.
I’m not complaining about paying for the police or an army. Those institutions are acting under my own delegated right to self-preservation. We’ve gone over this on this board before.
I’ve got real problems with someone holding a circus (or building a museum, digging a tunnel under Boston, providing loans to Africa, etc.) on my dime. That’s just institutionalize theft. I give a fair amount of my income to charity, and do so because I think it’s a good thing to do. I would never take money from someone else to give it to the charities I believe in.
True, as shown by the continual whittling away of the rights of the successful. Politicians win by courting the masses, not the highly productive. Do they let “the rich” keep their money? No, they take it and distribute it to elderly who didn’t plan better, single mothers who keep having children, companies who want to relocate, etc. People may have needs, but they don’t have the right to resolve those needs through coercion.
::sigh:: It’s too late for me to be checking the boards…
“Politicians win by courting the masses, not the highly productive.”
If this were true, how come we never see politicians holding massive rallies in Harlem?
Why is it that the 10% of the country who hold 90% of its wealth are the ones invited to the campaign fund-raiser dinners?
Why do paid lobbyists even exist?
And I still hold that one of your big logical fallacies is equating “successful” with “highly productive.”
There are people working 14 hour days for minimum wage, which at 6.50 an hour over five days earns them 455$ a week before taxes. This is That’s working from 8 to 10, Monday through Friday. 90 hours a week. (This is not some random, fantastic theory I pulled out of my ass. When I delivered pizza in the evenings, which was a six hour shift, most of the other drivers there were coming from their 8-hour shift day jobs.) And incidentally, in DC where I live, $1000 dollars a month might rent you a one room basement apartment. Not one bedroom, *one room.* So over half of a person’s wages go just to put a single ceiling over their head. One person *might* be able to scrape an existence out of that kind of situation, but what if they have a family? Should the poor therefore be more economically conscious, and leave things like bearing children to the upper classes?
And I’m sorry, but the elderly who didn’t plan better? How is somebody supposed to “plan better” when they’ve never been taught how to plan? I don’t remember ever having a course in long-term investment even in my public school. Investment is a skill you have to learn, it doesn’t magically appear in your brain by force of will and work ethic. You cannot simply wash your hands of the elderly poor, a large percentage of whom are veterans, and say “Their own fault for not having a Roth IRA.” I’m damned lucky I have an uncle who even taught me what a Roth IRA is, and I thank God for it. Where exactly do you propose somebody who’s born into a community where most don’t even graduate high school is supposed to pick this sort of thing up?
And let’s be clear here. This is a point on which I cannot bend: People who are willing to work 14 hours a day, of which there are many, mostly did not wind up there because they made poor decisions growing up, or didn’t plan for the future, or are too lazy to “earn a real living.”
With the few exceptions of people who “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps,” which I grant you do exist (including some on this board, as I understand it), what kind of social class you’re born into has a *tremendous* effect on what your opportunities are like in life.
These people are not successful by any social or economic definition. And I could be wrong here, but it sounds like the underlying subtext of your argument is “It’s their fault they don’t have any money, so why should the government force me to give them anything?”
The reason why is because you are repaying a debt that you owe; you wouldn’t *have* what you do without them. I’ll say this again: every single one of us who have remotely successful lives in society have achieved it by (however unknowingly) stepping on the backs of poorer people. Whether it’s the janitors who cleaned our schools, or the fast food workers who made our meals, or the Chinese sweat shop workers who made our clothes. Thinking that where you end up in life is completely under your control, and is in no way dependent on both luck and on other people, shows a very narrow scope of vision. So I say having to shell out a few extra percentage points of my salary every year to help people who work twice as hard for less than half of what I earn seems more than fair.
To be a good person, it is not enough to simply leave the world and your community no worse off than when you arrived. You have to at least try to leave it better, whether you think the world deserves it or not. “Self-preservation and self-preservation alone” may be the only natural right, but it makes for an appalling moral compass.
Hear Hear
You received a lot of kudos for your iambic pentameter rendition of the Skywalker saga, but this is a 100 time better piece of writing, in me ole humble opinion. I tip my cap to you…
I agree with you on the idea of helping out, but I think we need to invent some sort of system to help weed out the scammers from those who are truly in need of our help. Right now, our government is so toothless and beaurocractic that it’s just plain easier to allow the scamming and abuse that to try and do something about it.
Can’t we come up with a common sense law clause? Ben, can I get a ruling here? Any law that is passed has a Common Sense Clause, so that if it’s clearing obvious you’re abusing a loophole or violating the spirit of the law, you don’t get away with it? On both sides, those who apply the law (the gov’t) and those who are subject to it. Cut through the beaurocracy, just make the sensible decision.
Maybe come up with local “Common Sense Committees” who determine whether or not you’re full of BS or have a legit beef.
But like I posted in another blog recently, I’m sure the amount of good that happens because of those programs greatly outweights the abuse, but you don’t see that on the News at 4, 5, 6, & 11. Maybe it’s not as bad as it seems.
My $.02 Weed
Showtime at the Apollo
You never heard of Bill Clinton? Politicians don’t have fundraiser for the poor because the poor don’t have funds. But they don’t spend those funds to advertise to the uberrich. They spend them on get-out-the-vote drives, advertising, billboards, campaign bus fuel, etc. A vote is a vote, and with 122 million people voting in 2004 (including all the dead Kerry supporters) you can’t just win the richest 10%.
Don’t confuse cause and effect in lobbying. Politicians may hold carrots, but they also swing sticks. “Give money to my campaign or I’ll regulate you to death.” Works both ways, I’m sure.
So, do you still deliver pizza for a living? I’m guessing not, because people with that kind of work ethic (particularly if they’re prudent spenders) get ahead in life. There is an underclass in this society, it’s true; however, the popular media image of hard-working, stuck forever at minimum-wage folks is the rare exception.
I will readily admit that I am no bootstrapper. I agree that many people are where they are because they grow up there. That simply illustrates the random nature of existence–it has no moral implications. There’s an orphan somewhere in Darfur who is in no way responsibile for the fact that he’s stuck scrounging for food with a life expectancy of another 6 weeks. But I am not responsible for that. I did not cause his situation, so I am not accountable for it morally. I may find personal pleasure in helping him out, and that’s great, but he has no right to take from me. That’s simple a transfer of victimization. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Same thing for people who don’t know about 401(k)’s. If their parents didn’t teach them that actions have consequences, and they were too dense to pick it up from somewhere else, then they better raise productive kids who can help them out later. You seem to be suggesting that prior to the 1930’s, elderly people just died of starvation or something. (A straw man, I know, but I couldn’t resist.) Humans have been working these things out for millenia without 401(k)’s.
Do I have a debt to the lower class? No way. The janitor who cleaned my school, the fast food worker who made my meals, etc. all did so of their own free will. I (or my agents, rather) offered them a certain amount of money for a service, and they took it. Debt paid. Chinese sweat shop workers are another thing entirely, given that they are not in a free country nor in a particularly free economy. But, ironically, the more the government is invited in to “protect the little guy,” the closer we approach the Chinese model.
You’re welcome to your opinion of what it means to be a good person, and it’s not all that different from mine. But I guess we disagree in that you think you can make people good by taking their free will (through taxation) and making the world a better place as you see it. Seems like only an All-Knowing Diety is in a position to define a “true” good person and a “true” better world. I haven’t gotten a memo from Her, so I posit that it’s the pinnacle of hubris to put ourselves in that role instead. I’ll make choices that I think are good, you make choices that you think are good, and neither of us will force the other to agree.
If you replace “self-preservation” with “preservation of the collective” you have the same moral compass that Josef Stallin and Mao Zedong used. Now that’s apalling.
The Rare Exception?
“the popular media image of hard-working, stuck forever at minimum-wage folks is the rare exception.”
The rare exception?
Over the past 25 years median family incomes in the U.S. have risen by less than 1%. Also during this time period, average income earner wages fell when factoring inflation and median earnings of employed men grew by only 2.7% while U.S. GDP increased by almost 2/3. This is almost pure stagnation. Today, 85% of the nation’s wealth is held by the top 15% of U.S. households. The bottom 50% have only 2.5% of household net worth. I’m pulling these stats from U.S. News and World Report.
Let’s recognize that the disparity in economic classhood in this country is not a rare exception. It is very real. And the distance between the wealthy and the poor has been getting broader. However, I do not believe that a correction to this problem, and it is a problem, rests in restoring progressive tax rates.
Yes and no
The key word in my statement was “stuck.”
Median real wages may have been flat for 25 years, but that doesn’t mean anything to an individual family. It means, to put it in a simple model, that the 25-yr-olds continue to earn $20,000, the 35-yr-olds continue to earn $40,000, and the 55-yr-olds continue to earn $90,000, 75-yr-olds continue to earn $30,000. But an ambitious young worker will not stay locked at their current income or wealth levels. Those who do are “the rare exception.”
You’re right–progressive taxes will not solve the problem, namely because the problem does not really exist.
The Problem Exists
It means something when, because wages remain flat, more people in the household had to enter the labor force. But just to rebut, 91 million Americans in 2004 were below or between the poverty line. If you can’t recognize that the rich are getting richer and the lower-income class is both expanding and not keeping pace in terms of income growth, then you are living in the comfortable world of blind optimism.
I’m not pinning blame on “the rich” here, and believe there should be no governmental or institutional use of tax policy to attack “the rich” and recirculate wealth to and through the “not rich” (re: my IRS posting — when can be eliminate the current tax code???).
Meanwhile, keeping within the frame of Matt’s original post, a sure area for unrest within a democractic state, and wielding of unfortunate solution plugs, is losing a large part of a population to poverty, illiteracy and unemployment.
Just to review..
Daniel had made assertions in this post which have my jaw on the floor. I just wanted to review them. 1) You can’t have a good work ethic and be a pizza delivery driver.
2) It is an illusion that there are hard-working people that predominate low-wage jobs because they can’t get out of them. Or, inversely, most people stuck in low-wage jobs are not hard-working.
3) The “wrong” of a small amount of money being taken from a high-earning American is equal to the wrong of a non-American orphaned child starving to death, and, for good measure, the vitimization on an American earner to lose the small amount of money would be equal to the victimization of the small foreign child starving to death.. and therefore, the child should starve to death because “Two worngs don’t make a right”.
4) People are only morally responsible to help in situations they cause directly. (“But I am not responsible for that. I did not cause his situation, so I am not accountable for it morally.”)
5) Anyone who doesn’t know about 401-ks is dense. Anyone who doesn’t know about 401-ks doesn’t understand causality.
6) It is implied that helping the lower class brings us closer to the economic model that produces Chienese sweatshops.
7) “many people are where they are because they grow up there”, but, “The janitor who cleaned my school, the fast food worker who made my meals, etc. all did so of their own free will.”.. “Do I have a debt to the lower class? No way.”
8) Taxing someone to pay for social programs is an attempt to “Make other people good”, and not an attempt to ease the suffering of the less fortunate.
9) It is implied that taxation for the homeless and poor is the “preservation of the collective”.
10) Itis implied that it is appalling for “the collective” to be preserved, or inversely, the not appalling thing would be for the less fortunate within the collective to be weeded out and destroyed.
11) Therefore, anyone who gives to charity at all (even without taxation, they are still placing preservation of the collective above self preservation) is comparable to Joseph Stalin.
12) (And this is my favorite) Our (or Rowan’s) idea of whatmakes someone a good person is not that dissimilar from Daniel’s.
OH, and this is fun too.. here are random assertions made that are controversial at best, but not so appalling. “including all the dead Kerry supporters” – (inflammatory off-topic jab.) the elderly were well cared for before the 1930s (and NEVER died of starvation) Janitors and Fast food workers should be considered “lower class” Only God knows what is right and wrong.. Murder away, guys!! God is female – (another inflammatory statement having nothing to do with the discussion)
I have no right to stop you from doing wrong if you think what you’re doing is right. Or, therefore, I have no right to stop a murderer who is killing someone I don’t know or care about. In fact, since that would be putting their welfare above mine, I would be appallingly like Stalin if I tried to help.
One of your most interesting and entertaining posts. Keep it up!
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Missing the point
You just plain wrong about #s 1, 2, 3. The rest of them have a grain of truth but are packaged very disparagingly.
What Daniel says is not that we shouldn’t help the poor and needy. He actually says that he does that of his own free will. What he says is that the government DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT to give to the needy for us. We can give the money to help them if we want, but it’s not right for the government to give it for us without our consent. The government should protect us, not support us.
The rest of the arguments seem to be statistics, stereotypes, and so on, on both sides.
I think, in this time of the internet, that the government should be able to put it’s spending up to us to vote on. Make it a true democracy again. The government says we have XX amount of dollars, and we propose to do these things with it. The people vote, and what we approve gets done.
I know, it would probably end in chaos, but why not?
My $.02 Weed
Where am i wrong?
1) You can’t have a good work ethic and be a pizza delivery driver.
“So, do you still deliver pizza for a living? I’m guessing not, because people with that kind of work ethic (particularly if they’re prudent spenders) get ahead in life”
2)It is an illusion that there are hard-working people that predominate low-wage jobs because they can’t get out of them. Or, inversely, most people stuck in low-wage jobs are not hard-working.
“the popular media image of hard-working, stuck forever at minimum-wage folks is the rare exception.”
3) The “wrong” of a small amount of money being taken from a high-earning American is equal to the wrong of a non-American orphaned child starving to death, and, for good measure, the vitimization on an American earner to lose the small amount of money would be equal to the victimization of the small foreign child starving to death.. and therefore, the child should starve to death because “Two worngs don’t make a right”.
“There’s an orphan somewhere in Darfur…with a life expectancy of another 6 weeks. But I am not responsible for that. I did not cause his situation, so I am not accountable for it morally… he has no right to take from me. That’s simple a transfer of victimization. Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
5) Anyone who doesn’t know about 401-ks is dense. Anyone who doesn’t know about 401-ks doesn’t understand causality.
“Same thing for people who don’t know about 401(k)’s. If their parents didn’t teach them that actions have consequences, and they were too dense to pick it up from somewhere else…”
6) It is implied that helping the lower class brings us closer to the economic model that produces Chienese sweatshops.
“Chinese sweat shop workers are another thing entirely, given that they are not in a free country nor in a particularly free economy. But, ironically, the more the government is invited in to “protect the little guy,” the closer we approach the Chinese model.”
7) “many people are where they are because they grow up there”, but, “The janitor who cleaned my school, the fast food worker who made my meals, etc. all did so of their own free will.”.. “Do I have a debt to the lower class? No way.” – ALL QUOTES
Are where they are because they grew up there.. but did so of their free will? This doesn’t make sense?
8. Taxing someone to pay for social programs is an attempt to “Make other people good”, and not an attempt to ease the suffering of the less fortunate.
“But I guess we disagree in that you think you can make people good by taking their free will (through taxation) and making the world a better place as you see it.”
9) It is implied that taxation for the homeless and poor is the “preservation of the collective”.
10) Itis implied that it is appalling for “the collective” to be preserved, or inversely, the not appalling thing would be for the less fortunate within the collective to be weeded out and destroyed.
11) Therefore, anyone who gives to charity at all (even without taxation, they are still placing preservation of the collective above self preservation) is comparable to Joseph Stalin.
“If you replace “self-preservation” with “preservation of the collective” you have the same moral compass that Josef Stallin and Mao Zedong used. Now that’s apalling.” – Do I have a debt to the lower class? No way… the more the government is invited in to “protect the little guy,” the closer we approach the Chinese model… I am not responsible for that. I did not cause his situation, so I am not accountable for it morally.”
12) Speaks for itself.
Did i hyperbolize at the end, yes.. but to prove a point. I don’t care if the government takes a little of the money from the upper and middle class in order to help people stay alive. Dude.. its LIFE AND DEATH – and to say that a kid in Darfur getting fed on my 63 cents a day is somehow a well balanced equation of injustice.. I hear that and say “Oh yeah, thats why people hate America.. they think we’re selfish and arrogant”.
So yeah, call it injustice all you want, as long as that kid gets fed.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
1) You can’t have a good
1) You can’t have a good work ethic and be a pizza delivery driver.
“So, do you still deliver pizza for a living? I’m guessing not, because people with that kind of work ethic (particularly if they’re prudent spenders) get ahead in life”
Weed-> No, he saying those who work hard don’t stay pizza-delivery drivers. Those with strong work ethics get better jobs eventually, either in job satisfaction or compensation. If you’re going to argue that pizza delivery is a strongly-desired job, our skies have different colors.
2)It is an illusion that there are hard-working people that predominate low-wage jobs because they can’t get out of them. Or, inversely, most people stuck in low-wage jobs are not hard-working.
“the popular media image of hard-working, stuck forever at minimum-wage folks is the rare exception.”
Weed-> And he backup with his statistics, Justin. People change income levels all the time. Yes, some people may work hard but never get ahead, but they’re the minority. If you’re a fast food manager, and you have a hard-working employee, compared with the usual teenage turnover waiting to happen, you’re gonna move them into a manager position ASAP. Or you gonna pick the teenager who needs off because “Snakes On A Plane” is coming out tonight?
3 ) The “wrong” of a small amount of money being taken from a high-earning American is equal to the wrong of a non-American orphaned child starving to death, and, for good measure, the vitimization on an American earner to lose the small amount of money would be equal to the victimization of the small foreign child starving to death.. and therefore, the child should starve to death because “Two worngs don’t make a right”.
“There’s an orphan somewhere in Darfur…with a life expectancy of another 6 weeks. But I am not responsible for that. I did not cause his situation, so I am not accountable for it morally… he has no right to take from me. That’s simple a transfer of victimization. Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Weed-> Don’t take money from me to save him. Give me the choice, and I’ll choose to give the money. Next thing you know, you’re taking money from me to secure oil in the Middle East and ban gay marriages.
5) Anyone who doesn’t know about 401-ks is dense. Anyone who doesn’t know about 401-ks doesn’t understand causality.
“Same thing for people who don’t know about 401(k)’s. If their parents didn’t teach them that actions have consequences, and they were too dense to pick it up from somewhere else…”
Weed-> Hey, I have a job. I really don’t want to have to work forever. How can I make it so that I might be able to enjoy my golden years? Maybe I’ll SAVE SOME MONEY?! If this doesn’t occur to you, then you are dense. 401Ks are just a really nice way of getting there.
6) It is implied that helping the lower class brings us closer to the economic model that produces Chienese sweatshops.
“Chinese sweat shop workers are another thing entirely, given that they are not in a free country nor in a particularly free economy. But, ironically, the more the government is invited in to “protect the little guy,” the closer we approach the Chinese model.”
Weed-> As we TAKE from the rich and give to the poor, we do approach Communism. If we GIVE to the poor, it’s freedom.
7) “many people are where they are because they grow up there”, but, “The janitor who cleaned my school, the fast food worker who made my meals, etc. all did so of their own free will.”.. “Do I have a debt to the lower class? No way.” – ALL QUOTES
Are where they are because they grew up there.. but did so of their free will? This doesn’t make sense?
Weed-> You start out in the class you are. After that, it’s up to you. I diagree with Daniel here that I think the gov’t should provide short-term help to level the playing field, but short of support.
8. Taxing someone to pay for social programs is an attempt to “Make other people good”, and not an attempt to ease the suffering of the less fortunate.
“But I guess we disagree in that you think you can make people good by taking their free will (through taxation) and making the world a better place as you see it.”
Weed-> Again, the gov’t spends my money as it sees fit, not as I see fit. The way the system is now, I don’t control where the money goes. So I don’t think they shold be allowed to spend my money. Voluntarily contribute to social programs if you choose.
9) It is implied that taxation for the homeless and poor is the “preservation of the collective”.
10) Itis implied that it is appalling for “the collective” to be preserved, or inversely, the not appalling thing would be for the less fortunate within the collective to be weeded out and destroyed.
11) Therefore, anyone who gives to charity at all (even without taxation, they are still placing preservation of the collective above self preservation) is comparable to Joseph Stalin.
“If you replace “self-preservation” with “preservation of the collective” you have the same moral compass that Josef Stallin and Mao Zedong used. Now that’s apalling.” – Do I have a debt to the lower class? No way… the more the government is invited in to “protect the little guy,” the closer we approach the Chinese model… I am not responsible for that. I did not cause his situation, so I am not accountable for it morally.”
Weed-> No No No. Giving freely is absolutely different from taxation. That’s the point. And perhaps you haven’t heard of the communist revolutions in Russian and China. Do you think that the average worker in those countries is taken care of right now? Better than the average US worker? Care to switch places with a lower-class Chinese worker?
You take his statements that forced government social support lead to bad things, which is historically proven over and over, and equate it with not wanting to help fellow human beings. That’s not what he’s saying. Both sides employ hyperbole, but in the end allowing the government to take 63 cents to help an orphan will become 63 dollars to help an orphan, fight two wars, and support oil and other industry.
That’s the point. Take you money for the cute kid on the TV, then spend it wherever the hell they want.
12) Speaks for itself.
Did i hyperbolize at the end, yes.. but to prove a point. I don’t care if the government takes a little of the money from the upper and middle class in order to help people stay alive. Dude.. its LIFE AND DEATH – and to say that a kid in Darfur getting fed on my 63 cents a day is somehow a well balanced equation of injustice.. I hear that and say “Oh yeah, thats why people hate America.. they think we’re selfish and arrogant”.
So yeah, call it injustice all you want, as long as that kid gets fed.
Weed-> I say feed the kids because we choose to, not because the governemtn wants the Darfurian government to allow is to build militray bases there.
People hate America because we’re the richest country and we therefore assume what works for us will work for them. Iraq mist OBVIOUSLY want Christianity and Democracy because, well, it worked for us!
Skip the hyperbole and get to the point My $.02 Weed
The point
I started with a read of Daniel’s post, and got irked at the God-She statement. I just said to myself, “That’s a deliberately inflammatory statement, its a different argument, and its meant to piss people like me off.. and its deliberate”.
Then I reread the thing and realized that Daniel was being hyperbolic using words like dense, calling social reform Stalinistic, jabbing at voting processes, and asserting that we have no responsibility to people who are less fortunate.
Then I though about the people I know who have benefitted from government help. People close to me. Good friends who needed to be on medicaid. People who life just sh*t on, who made reasonable choices but suffered an injury or a divorce or a death, people who are unable to advance their station in life because they are too old or too afraid, or are stuck in a rut where they cant take the time away from kids to go to school, and who need government scholarships, government insurance.. they needed help.
And I reread the part where he says we should not be taxed to help them because it moves us closer to China. And I got patently offended.
So, Weed, there’s my point, and I used Daniel’s own words which it would be hard to argue weren’t insensitive at best and offensive at worst, and is not true to itself, because it used hyperbole.. a train I rode.
And I never meant to offend Daniel, just to provide some feedback on his harshness, and certainly not you, Weed. I respect you both, and have become a fan in general of Weed’s posts in particular.. But I think that there are those who would agree with me that the values pointed out by Daniel are nto as universal as he seems to think. Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
True
All I was trying to do is not so much try to defend Daniel but his point. He’s making it hard by his inflammatory statements, but his general point is still valid.
If you choose to have some of your salary taken out for Medicaid, for Social Security, for social programs, that’s one thing. When you don’t have the choice, it gets worrisome.
There’s no reason to ever think we shouldn’t help te less fortunate. I just think it should be our CHOICE to help, not the government’s taking from us. Plus, I think it should be done at the local level, and the federal government should only be involved for coordination. Do you trust the government with the way it spends your money?
Daniel’s just extreme in his extension of logic and naturalism. I was more offended by the losing of the point amongst the hyperbole than anything else. Certainly not by your point.
My $.02 Weed
Agree..
Yours (and Daniel’s) underlying point is valid whether or not you agree. And it is a poular and understandable point. One must be careful that their entire point isnt lost on people by offending them with side issues.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
My hero
I wrote a response to this on a PDA on a plane to SLC (Sorry Matt–a funeral, so no time to meet); imagine my suprise to find that Weed had taken care of everything by the time I was able to get to a computer! Well said–I have nothing to add.
Except maybe to apologize for offending any Kerry supporters. I think the dead vote for both parties. I can’t apologize for using inflammatory language because I think it gets people engaged. Dry newpaper editorials and such on these topics wash over us on a daily basis. You may not like Rush or Al Franken, but they do get your attention.
As far as the gender of God, I grew up Mormon. That means Heavenly Mothers vastly outnumber Heavenly Father, so the She moniker seemed appropriate. It got you into the conversation, didn’t it?
I never take any offense from people disagreeing with me. Or with being called out on my hyberbolies or appeals to emotion. I may actually meet most of you in a month or so, so just don’t beat me up.
Wet noodles..
i have a fresh supply.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
I Love Numbers
Sam, I need clarification on your numbers…Are all the numbers adjusted for inflation? Meaning the median household income has risen only 1% in the past 25 years before or after adjusting for inflation? If it’s after adjustment, then I don’t see that as a big deal.
I do think the rich are getting richer, and that needs to be fixed. I’m not educated on how the whole boardroom election thing works, but it seems to me that it’s not as easy as it could be to do something when you pay your exiting CEO a huge parting gift for running your business into the ground. Daniel, yes, you CAN do something about it, but it should be easier to do something when CEOs get paid absurd sums for lackluster work.
Aside from that, I think all these arguments have some validity. Some people work hard and get ahead. Some people are already ahead and stay there. Some people start out ahead and fall behind. Some people start behind and stay there. Some people work hard and don’t get ahead.
Bottom line, the world is not a fair place. I think Daniel is correct to a point that’s it’s not HIS fault someone is born poor. However, I hope Daniel is ready to accept his life if he loses his job, finds out he has cancer, and the stock market takes a dive. Maybe he’s prepared for all these things, but what if it overtakes his preparation, and he’s stuck penniless and in need of health care. He didn’t do anything wrong, but here he is. If we were to believe Daniel’s views, oh f*cking well. Sorry dude.
I think the government is required to give everyone a level playing field. And they try. However, that level playing field is abused and abused often. People who don’t need the help get more than they need and those who need it get none.
But, overall, we’re the richest country in the world. If you’re not making ends meet, you’re not working hard enough. If you’re going to live in DC, make sure you have a better job than pizza delivery, because you’re going to need more than $1000/mo in rent. Move to Fredneck, or WVa. Daniel’s right in that the 401k isn’t very old, but people have been saving money a long time.
My father-in-law can’t read past a 4th grade level. He’s a carpenter who just retired. Never made more than $35K a year, wife stayed home with the three kids. He did side jobs when needed, when he was laid off, and now, thanks to his union pension and social security, makes as much a month as he did while working. Plus he’s not using nearly the gas he was before.
However, he did use unemployment when he was laid off, and he will be collecting his social security. Social security he could have probably lived without, because he could have saved that money and earned interest on it like the gov’t did for him. But unemployment, that saved his family’s butt a few times. And nobody on this board works harder than this man does.
So in closing, it’s not as bad as it’s made out to be if you’re willing to work hard, but giving people who need help a little boost is not a God-given moral right, but something we should do. Like I’ve said before, I think the fight shouldn’t be whether or not we give more or less aid, but we should first concentrate on making sure the aid we currently give is issued efficiently and used properly. That in itself would save a lot of money. That’s why I think it should be done at the local level instead of the national level. Government should limit itself to just a little nudge when necessary.
My $.02 Weed
Amen to that last sentence
People don’t revolt unless they feel they have no other option. I think we’re a long way from getting there is the USA, but if there’s a widening gap between rich and poor, the poor will start to see it as they have no way out.
Case in point, am I going to be able to send my kids to college? If I believe the estimates, maybe not. Of course, it only costs my wife $5K to go a semester to UMd Baltimore. That’s without room and board.
And getting a good job without a Bachelors? Unless your a nurse, good luck. So do only the rich get to go to “good” colleges, and therefore get the good jobs in the future?
If I had the energy, I’d like to look at which colleges the presidents and the members of college ettended. See if there’s a correlation there.
My $.02 Weed
Uprisings
I agree that it’s the masses, not the upper class, that are typically a larger source of unrest. I make the points I do about income mobility because I think that poor people do not rise up in rebellion in America because they know they can rise up in wealth. They may see a lot of people who don’t do it, but they also see many people who do. Looking for parallels, athletics, music, and acting are all great examples of industries that have starving masses who keep plugging away in hopes of reaching the pinnacle. Or lottery ticket purchases–another proof that people (especially less rational people) put a lot of value into remote chances to make it big. The “poor” of America (and I use that word very grudgingly when referring to people who own cars and TV’s and who eat enough to be overweight) have a much-better-than-remote chance to improve their lot, and they know it.
Sorry about the double-post. Comments don’t seem to be indented anymore on barnson.org, and my first reply jumped up a few levels. Strange. Didn’t see a delete option, so I’ll defer to Matt to clean up after my random droppings.
Screwy
Something screwy going on right now with the “new” tag and the indentations.
Aware, but unsure
I’m aware of the problem, but unsure of the solution. I’ve tried running a check of the db tables, but it couldn’t complete due to being in-use.
I suspect it’s a relic of all the recent unscheduled downtime around here. So sick of my ISP, it’s time to get a new one.
(Figured it out!)
It appears that my ISP, in moving us to a new host, forgot to synchronize their clock. It was set to GMT, so Sam and Daniel’s posts showed up as being posted this evening… in fact, about 4-5 hours from now. So Drupal thinks they are new, when they aren’t.
It will sort itself out in 4-5 hours 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson