Jump to content

Continuing the debate


Menchise
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here Menchise, I'm quoting this from an essay I read earlier

quote:

In a free society, you must provide for yourself and you do not have the option of robbing another person with a government gun to take money that will enable you to indulge in the luxury of living a life in which you do not provide for yourself. In a free society, if you are momentarily down on your luck you must rely on the voluntary assistance of friends, relatives or others. If you teach your child that he must grow up to work hard and stand on his own two feet, that he must fend for himself when he becomes an adult, this means this is what is right, the moral course of action he should takeÔÇöand a child who grows up believing this and carries that belief with him into adulthood does not become a bum or a welfare mother or a criminal. He grows up to be a productive, hard-working individual.


And

quote:

If an individual accepts the notion he doesnÔÇÖt have to fend for himself, then where does the logic of this idea lead him? If you donÔÇÖt have to provide for your own needs, that means, if you are to live, someone else is going to have to provide for your needs. Just who might that be? Any person who is a producer, any person who earns his own living. And since you have to have this productive personÔÇÖs money, you conclude you have a "right" to it and statists tell you, you have this "right." This leads to the spectacle we have all seen, on television, of a crowd of these "victims" angrily shouting demands for their "right" to government assistance, demanding their "fair share" of your moneyÔÇömoney which you have earned and they have notÔÇöand statist politicians happily oblige by forcing you to fork over your money to the very "victims" statists created in the first place by ideas pounded into the heads of children. What if these "victims" were standing outside the front of your home, demanding the "right" to your money, to their "fair share" of your money? Would you concede they had such a right? Would you give your money to this menacing crowd of angry "victims"? I donÔÇÖt think so. However, when these groups stand in front of a government building and demand your money, many would concede we must "do" something to help these pitiful souls. It is in this manner your freedom is being destroyed.


You can catch the entire essay at Fatal Blindness On the right side of the page start at Introduction and read through the chapters. It describes your ideas to a T Menchise - as a statist.

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Here Menchise, I'm quoting this from an essay I read earlier

That essay is full of assumptions, including the assumption that everyone who is raised to work hard will always succeed and/or live well, and the assumption that the long term unemployed were poorly raised by their parents. It's liberal BS (I'm using the non-American definition of liberal, which is the same as the American definition of conservative, I think).

quote:

It describes your ideas to a T Menchise - as a statist.

I am not a statist!

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I continue with this debate, I would like to go off topic for a bit to settle a minor issue that's annoying me. Basically, I'm sick of being called a liberal. Socialists are anti-liberal and liberals are anti-socialist. I can understand that Americans have different definitions of what a liberal is, though I can't imagine why (probably because Classical Liberalism has become a conservative movement against the Modern Liberals). Here are the definitions that I follow (Heywood, 1997, "Politics"). Note that I do not follow them absolutely, but mostly.

Liberalism: Any account of political ideologies must start with liberalism. This is because liberalism is, in effect, the ideology of the industrialised West, and is sometimes portrayed as a meta-ideology that is capable of embracing a broad range of rival values and beliefs. Although liberalism did not emerge as a developed political creed until the early nineteenth century, distinctively liberal theories and principles had gradually been developed during the previous 300 years. Liberalism was the product of the breakdown of feudalism and the growth, in its place, of a market or capitalist society. Early liberalism certainly reflected the aspirations of a rising industrial middle class, and liberalism and capitalism have been closely linked (some have argued intrinsically linked) ever since. In its earliest form, liberalism was a political doctrine. It attacked absolutism and feudal privilege, instead advocating constitutional and, later, representative government. By the early nineteenth century, a distinctively liberal economic creed had developed that extolled the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and condemned all forms of government intervention. This became the centrepiece of classical, or nineteenth-century, liberalism. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, a form of social liberalism emerged which looked more favourably on welfare reform and economic intervention. Such an emphasis became the characteristic theme of modern, or twentieth-century, liberalism.

The Republican Party is classical liberal while the Democratic Party is a mixture of classical and modern liberals. Here are the definitions of each (Heywood, 1997, "Politics", pp 43-44):

Classical liberalism: The central theme of classical liberalism is a commitment to an extreme form of individualism. Human beings are seen as egoistical, self-seeking and largely self-reliant creatures. In what C.B. Macpherson (1962) termed 'possessive individualism', they are taken to be the proprietors of their own persons and capacities, owing nothing to society or to other individuals. This view is underpinned by a belief in 'negative' liberty, meaning noninterference, or the absence of external constraints upon the individual. This implies a deeply unsympathetic attitude towards the state and all forms of government intervention.

In Tom Paine's words, the state is a 'necessary evil'. It is 'necessary' in that, at the very least, it establishes order and security and ensures that contracts are enforced. However, it is 'evil' in that it imposes a collective will upon society, thus limiting the freedom and responsibilities of the individual. The classical liberal ideal is therefore the establishment of a minimal or 'nightwatchman' state, with a role that is limited to the protection of citizens from the encroachments of fellow citizens. In the form of economic liberalism, this position is underpinned by a deep faith in the mechanisms of the free market and the belief that the economy works best when left alone by government. Laissez-faire capitalism is thus seen as guaranteeing prosperity, upholding individual liberty, and, as this allows individuals to rise and fall according to merit, ensuring social justice.

Modern liberalism: Modern liberalism is characterised by a more sympathetic attitude towards state intervention. Indeed, in the USA, the term 'liberal' is invariably taken to imply support for big government rather than 'minimal' government. This shift was born out of the recognition that industrial capitalism had merely generated new forms of injustice and left the mass of the population subject to the vagaries of the market. Influenced by the work of J.S. Mill, the so-called New Liberals (figures such as T.H. Green (1836-82), L.T. Hobhouse (1864-1929) and J.A. Hobson (1858-1940)) championed a broader, 'positive' view of freedom. From this perspective, freedom does not just mean being left alone, which might imply nothing more than the freedom to starve. Rather, it is linked to personal development and the flourishing of the individual, that is, the ability of the individual to gain fulfillment and achieve self-realisation.

This view provided the basis for social or welfare liberalism. This is characterised by the recognition that state intervention, particularly in the form of social welfare, can enlarge liberty by safeguarding individuals from the social evils that blight individual existence. These evils were identified in the UK by the 1942 Beveridge Report as the 'five giants': want, ignorance, idleness, squalor, and disease. In the same way, modern liberals abandoned their belief in laissez-faire capitalism, largely as a result of J.M. Keynes' insight that growth and prosperity could only be maintained through a system of managed or regulated capitalism, with key economic responsibilities being placed in the hands of the state. Nevertheless, modern liberals' support for collective provision and government intervention has always been conditional. Their concern has been with the plight of the weak and vulnerable, those who are literally not able to help themselves. Their goal is to raise individuals to the point where they are able, once again, to take responsibility for their own circumstances and make their own moral choices.

I am neither of these things.

Here is a "brief" introduction to Conservatism (Heywood, 1997, "Politics", p44):

Conservatism: Conservative ideas and doctrines first emerged in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. They arose as a reaction against the growing pace of economic and political change, which was in many ways symbolised by the French Revolution. In this sense, conservatism harked back to the ancien regime. In trying to resist the pressures unleashed by the growth of liberalism, socialism and nationalism, conservatism stood in defence of an increasingly embattled traditional social order. However, from the outset, divisions in conservative thought were apparent. In continental Europe, a form of conservatism emerged that was characterised by the work of thinkers such as Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821). This conservatism was starkly autocratic and reactionary, rejecting out of hand any idea of reform. A more cautious, more flexible, and ultimately more successful form of conservatism nevertheless developed in the UK and the USA that was characterised by Edmund Burke's belief in 'change in order to conserve'. This stance enabled conservatives in the nineteenth century to embrace the cause of social reform under the paternalistic banner of 'One Nation'. The high point of this tradition in the UK came in the 1950s as the Conservative Party came to accept the postwar settlement and espouse its own version of Keynesian social democracy. However, such ideas increasingly came under pressure from the 1970s onwards as a result of the emergence of the New Right. The New Right's radically antistatist and antipaternalist brand of conservatism draws heavily on classical liberal themes and values.

In the USA, the New Right was characterised by Reagan and the Republican candidates that followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not tell me what assumptions are in that article. You can't tell me it's full of assumptions and then make your own assumptions about how a great communist utopia would save humanity and no one would ever go hungry.

Why not read the FULL article and quote from it to tell me where it is mistaken? Dismissing it outright simply shows that you have no answer to many of the questions it poses. And according to the essay, whether or not you are intending it, you are spouting modern liberal statist propaganda.

Just read it, to truly understand something you must understand all opposing views to. Anyway I'm tired as hell so I'll leave you to your argument for now, be back later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Before I continue with this debate, I would like to go off topic for a bit to settle a minor issue that's annoying me. Basically, I'm sick of being called a liberal. Socialists are anti-liberal and liberals are anti-socialist. I can understand that Americans have different definitions of what a liberal is, though I can't imagine why (probably because Classical Liberalism has become a conservative movement against the Modern Liberals). Here are the definitions that I follow (Heywood, 1997, "Politics"). Note that I do not follow them absolutely, but mostly.

Relax on this issue, man. The term "liberal" is relative.

If you're for major social change, by definition you're beliefs are liberal in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, $iLk. My "debate thoughts" are focused on the Microsoft issue at the moment, and I'm constantly distracted by the desire to completely unwind after a long semester (maybe I'll finish my AW structure once and for all). Could be a while before I post here again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Keep hope alive!

quote:

I want to prove to you what I've always said about the Democrats wanting to make as many of us as possible into beggars, into people who think they're losers who can't ever get a job. After all, it's easy to say these things. Anybody can come on the radio and say anything and then run off to the doctor. But I'm going to back it up here with an Associated Press story that ran on Sunday.

"A requirement that certain able-bodied public housing tenants perform community service or face eviction is being put on hold before most communities ever implement it. It may end up being scrapped altogether. The provision was the most divisive part of a public housing overhaul three years ago, with critics saying it unfairly targeted the poor. 'It is one of the silliest things Congress has ever done,' said Sheila Crowley, executive director of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. 'It compels adults who have committed no crime to do work for no wages. That's purely punitive and purely anti-poor.'"

The mandate required some tenants to do community service for eight hours per month - per month! The jobs would mostly be around the housing project, and be things such as taking out the trash, mowing the grass, clipping the trees - this sort of thing. The goal wasn't to "punish" anyone. It was simply a way of trying to assign some value to the place, since the taxpayers are paying the whole bill and having to go to work to pay for these people, after all.

Besides, as we all know, you waste away sitting around. It's an insult to tell these people they can't work, that the American Dream has passed them by, so they should just sit there and wait to die. Giving someone a job is saying that where they live is more than just a place to sleep. It's saying that this is where you live, and to show that it has some value you've got to participate in maintaining it. What's so wrong with that?

Guess who's behind changing this law to give the people in communities like this some stake in where they live, to help them get job skills, and to give the taxpayers something back for the money they pay for this. Congressman Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York who, said he sponsored the amendment because he opposed the "indignity of putting this type of burden on poor folks in public housing when there is no such requirement for any other type of federal assistance."

Dignity? Dignity! How about the dignity of getting a check you didn't earn, from someone in Washington who tells you you're too much of a loser to work even eight hours a month. AP reports, "Opposition was particularly strong in New York City, home to the nation's largest housing authority, even though exemptions would have made less than 10 percent of the city's 426,500 public housing residents subject to the community service requirement. Angry residents packed a series of public hearings to denounce the mandate and several hundred public housing residents trekked to Washington to lobby against it. Some minority organizations likened it to slavery."

Note that nowhere in the story did I say "working poor," did I? They're not working, folks. If you have a job, you were exempt from having to do the community service. I remember when this was argued about in the first place. The libs had a cow when this was being talked about, but to me it made so much sense. By the way, Rick Lazio was the architect of this, and of course, look what happened to him when he challenged Mrs. Clinton for the Senate.

And playing this "slavery" card is disgusting. It shows a real lack of respect for what slaves suffered. I won't insult you by ticking off the differences, but I will say this: You know what slavery is? It's everyone, of every color I don't care, being forced to work however many days it is to pay for the housing of other people who do nothing to pay us back. That's no different than what the slaves did working to maintain the plantation house, is it? The reaction here is the same as the plantation owners would have had were it suggested that they pitch in with the chores. They felt it was "beneath their dignity" to do that, too.

This is just absolutely outrageous, and it's the liberal mind at work. It's an indignity to do a few hours of community service work for the public housing subsidies you receive as a gift from the taxpayers of the country? Why should you be expected to work for these handouts, right? You're entitled to these handouts, just as you're entitled to Medicaid, free prescription drugs, food stamps and free school lunches. Your need gives you the right to take whatever you want from anyone you want to, right?

This goes on and on and on and on. "We don't want people to feel the indignity of having to actually do something in exchange for hundreds of millions of tax dollars that the working stiffs of this country are required to take out of their paychecks." But they don't have any choice in the matter. They've got to cough up the money for these people to live. This is just asinine. This is how you create slaves. This is how you create the dependent class. This is how you create a bunch of people who have no ambition.

- El Rushbo


Liberalism at work.la.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...