When Rick Warren asked Obama for the nation's worst moral failure, I paused the DVR and told my friend, "The worst moral failure of our nation is our repeated attempts to define away the rights of individuals, whether it is with slaves, or segregation, or (in my opinion) abortion, or even today in terms of property rights. We don't come out and say we are taking away rights, we simply deny that you have any rights, so that we no longer have any problem taking from you what is rightfully yours."
I unpaused the DVR and Obama said:
I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me ... and a notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having -- not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. I mean, there is a purvasive sense I think that this country is wealthy and powerful as we still don't spend enough time thinking about the least of these.
To me the greatest moral failure is that the government steals from the people their very essence of liberty. To Obama, the greatest moral failure is that the government doesn't give enough to people.
Call me crazy, but I think stealing from people is worse than not giving to people. Active wrongs are worse than passive wrongs. Aggressively taking what belongs to me is worse than simply not giving me something that I have no right to in the first place.
I do believe, of course, that it is vitally important for us to help those in need, but this is not the primary responsibility of governments. The primary responsibility of governments -- as stated in our founding document -- is to secure individual liberty. And in many ways, our government has abjectly failed to do so, and continues such failures.
McCain took a similar tack as Obama, talking about giving to others, but focused his remarks on the failings of Americans as individuals, rather than its government:
I think America's greatest moral failure has been throughout our existence, perhaps we have not devoted ourselves to causes greater than our self interest although we've been at the best at it of anybody in the world. I think after 9/11, my friends, instead of telling people to go shopping or take a trip we should have told Americans to join the Peace Corps, Americorps, the military. Expand our volunteer, expand what you are doing. Expand the create missions that you are doing that you are carrying out not only here in America but throughout the world, especially in Rwanda ... The first words of your very successful book is this is not about you. And you know that really also means, serve a cause greater than yourself interest.
Yes, it absolutely is a moral failing that we do not do more for our fellow man. And together as individual Americans, that probably is our greatest moral failing. But corporately, as a nation -- embodied in the government -- no, our greatest failing is disregarding liberty and individual sovereignty.
Note carefully the language used, even though they sound similar. McCain speaks of individual choices to help others. Obama speaks of government programs that ignore liberty. I don't know what McCain would have said, had he spoken of the greatest moral failing of our government, but given everything he's said in the past, my guess is he'd be a lot closer to me than to Obama.
So Obama is wrong on two points: first, that "not giving" is worse than "stealing," and second, that it is the government's responsibility to "give" at all (for in order to give, it has to take).
And this is our choice, in a nutshell: individualism that includes respect and care for the rest of society, or collectivism that disregards individualism for the supposed sake of society.
The words expressed by both candidates regarding the Supreme Court -- where Obama sided squarely with jurists like Breyer who, by his own admission, does not respect the rule of law -- is enough to make me vote for McCain. And I have, actually, many reasons to vote for McCain. But even if I had no other reasons, the individualism vs. collectivism views would serve as a powerful reason on their own.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 17, 2008 02:58 PM | Email ThisI wonder why you think that question is relevant. Last I saw, we were not forcing people to join those organizations. Have you seen differently?
I looked on Saddleback's website to find out more about what Sen McCain refers to with his mention of Saddleback and Rwanda (one of the non government options). It is hard to find one page per country on the Saddleback web site, they have a very big web site with lots of involvement from members in various missions projects. This page
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/story/8394.html
is probably the most interesting at providing a sound bite. Read this:
The churches of Rwanda, in partnership with Saddleback Church, are initiating a P.E.A.C.E plan to help broad-based efforts to reduce poverty, disease and malnutrition in Rwanda. This partnership is based entirely on the leadership of “village elders,” and on their priorities, approach and control of the process.
A new effort called Malaria No More is mobilizing civil society and private sector institutions globally and has agreed to come alongside the Rwandan Church to assist them in training volunteers, and closing gaps in prevention and treatment. Saddleback Church, working together with the Rwandan church leadership, is mobilizing 1,000 church leaders throughout Rwanda and 100,000 additional volunteers from faith-based communities over the next three years to educate and train villagers on the comprehensive approach to control malaria as part of primary health care.
The Rwandan Church leaders want to make Rwanda a test-case for demonstrating the power of faith-based institutions in controlling malaria and sustaining primary health care efforts over time. Local church, government, and business/NGO leaders are cooperating together in Rwanda and have committed to sharing the P.E.A.C.E. distribution model with other countries as they discover what works best.
==
It sounds like Sen McCain was well-prepared to understand his audience and connect with them.
===
One could argue the "least of these" were the Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Shi'ites, and others in Iraq under Saddam. They were persecuted, oppressed and killed. When Obama says "we don't spend enough time thinking ... " it is appropriate to ask "about whom, who is my neighbor." And then it is appropriate to say "what is the role of government, and what is the role of individuals" in bringing about social change and progress. Both have a role. But some things happen much more quickly and effectively when citizens are running the show, not governments.
I did not watch this on TV, but it made me wish Obama had accepted Sen McCain's invite to 10 town hall meetings throughout the country. Hopefully there will be other similar discussions like this, if not the town hall meetings Sen McCain suggested.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on August 17, 2008 05:06 PMA post that I almost completely agree with on Sound Politics.
Well said, sir. It's not often I can say this on SP. Well said, indeed.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 17, 2008 05:27 PMIf you don't believe me read "Preacher and the Presidents"...
Obama would decry the inequity in the system. The servant who got 1 talent would be encouraged to protest and ask that the servants who got 3 and 5 be taxed at a higher rate.
McCain might be saying "invest" your talents, whatever the size or quantity, and you can give back to your country that and more.
Rick Warren overstepped his bounds by making a political showcase.
What bounds?
With that, this format turned out to be a good fortune for John McCain and it will turn out to be a good thing if it helps to get John McCain elected.
Posted by: KS on August 17, 2008 08:16 PMWhat forum? Direct specific questions, one on one? Or that the venue was a place of worship? How is that different (or worse!) than Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Jackson, Sharpton et. al. showing up at church SERVICES to speak without challenge?
Really, get over it. It is a building that seats loads of people and he didn't have to pay rent to use it. He asked question people want answers to and he has the name recognition to be taken seriously by the candidates and get them and the forum national attention... albeit on a Saturday night... in August... during the Olympics.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 17, 2008 08:28 PMOverstepping the bounds of mixing religion with politics
I do not know of such bounds, except for those one sets for himself.
would Billy Graham have done this ? I don't think so.
Probably not, but that doesn't give us any clue as to whether it's appropriate. There's lots of things Billy wouldn't have done that are perfectly appropriate for others to do.
I understood that some Christian leaders were upset with this format.
Perhaps, but again, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Now, that said, Warren -- whom I know little about, as though I am an evangelical Christian in my beliefs, I do not pay much attention to the evangelical Christian subculture -- does need to be careful about harming his ministry by doing things like this. But again, this is something he needs to work out for himself and his ministry: I see no reason to follow any pre-set limitations or boundaries.
That is not even remotely what Obama was saying, as you can clearly see in the quote in this very post. For starters, Obama says nothing about our "government." He is responding to a prompt about our country, the United States of America. Perhaps you equate that name, USA, with our government - I think most people, however, see more than that. For example, when Phelps wins eight golds for the USA, he does not win them for the government, he wins them for the people of the United States, for the land he grew up in, and for a country that has been a symbol of freedom for 200 years.
Obama mentions three things: poverty, racism, and sexism. Two of these issues clearly have nothing to do with "giving," unless you consider not judging a person (or limiting their human rights) based on skin color or gender some kind of gift. Likewise, poverty is a matter of equal treatment as well - if people who are today in poverty were afforded the same opportunities from birth that those of us who are lucky enough to have never experienced poverty were, poverty would be a much smaller issue. So where you see Obama arguing for the government to give, I see him arguing for the people of our country to defend our greatest treasure: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Posted by: Noble on August 17, 2008 08:52 PMThat is not even remotely what Obama was saying
That is exactly what Obama was saying.
For starters, Obama says nothing about our "government."
If you think Obama was not referring to government programs when he said things like "providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class," then you're quite lonely in that belief.
How is this so lost on him?
Btw, I was way impressed with John McCain in this forum. He wiped the floor with Obama. McCain oozed conviction, experience and knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs, and depth galore. Obama proved to come across as empty-suitish, trying too hard to "say the right thing" rather than just talk like McCain did. Obama sounded like an amateur who belongs nowhere near the Whitehouse; McCain sounds ready to be president. I went from being a ho-hum McCain voter to someone who felt inspired by his candidacy. I'm certain McCain greatly shored up his evangelical support with yesterday's showing.
Obama claimed to view marriage as between a man and woman, but then failed to report to the church audience that he and Michelle O have been telling homosexual groups that O will get rid of DOMA. O will do everything in his power to have gay marriage. Period. Of that I am absolutely convinced. Too bad he misled that audience on that issue.
Posted by: Michele on August 17, 2008 10:31 PMIf you want to run circles, that's fine. But government programs are government programs in my eyes. Either government is "giving" to people, or it's not. Stick with your post.
Posted by: Huh on August 17, 2008 10:42 PMNothing you said is at all based on reality.
Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just atheists.
What you are saying has nothing to do with my post. Feel free to have your opinion on the Peace Corps and so on, but what Obama was talking about was forcing Americans to give to the least of these, and what McCain was talking about was Americans individually volunteering.
"I think America's greatest moral failure has been throughout our existence, perhaps we have not devoted ourselves to causes greater than our self interest.."
The morality of altruism is the morality of slaves, of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Stalin and Hitler would certainly find agreement with McCain's statement about finding a "cause greater than ourselves".
In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand eloquently addresses this point:
"...just listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice--run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. But if you ever hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that it's your natural right, that your first duty is to yourself--that will be the man who's not after your soul. That will be the man who has nothing to gain from you."
Morality is an attribute of the individual and not of the collective. The only purpose of the government is to protect the objectively defined rights of the individual. When the purpose of government exceeds these bounds, as it does today, it is a license for unlimited evil.
"Huh": I've never met anyone who joined the Peace Corps to make money. Yes, you get paid, but it's not the purpose of it. And anyway, I am not defending those organizations, just pointing out the fact that McCain was talking about giving of yourself, rather than forcing you to give. Yes, we are forced collectively to support those volunteers, but that was not his point, but is beside his point, whereas it WAS Obama's point.
Bill K.: as long as it's voluntary, which is what McCain was clearly referring to, it is, obviously, not slavery.
"The fact is that -- although we have a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years -- abortions have not gone down," Obama said
The FACT is barry that
In January, AGI reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990 -- with half of that time period coming under pro-life presidents.
The number of abortions are now at their lowest point since 1.179 million in 1976, AGI said.
Meanwhile, research from a nonpartisan political watchdog group finds the claim false when compared with national and state abortion statistics.
Furthermore, now barry is whining ... or is it flip-flopping...or is it another LIE that a mean old pro-life group is lying about HIM!
Kudos to National Right to Life for calling him on his BS:
"We now challenge Obama to either declare the two 2003 legislative documents to be forgeries and call for an official investigation, or else apologize for his four years of misrepresentation on the issue of babies who are born alive during abortions -- and for calling us liars."
For many evangelicals, the theoretical Obama -- the Obama of hope and unity -- is intriguing, even appealing. But this opinion is not likely to improve upon closer inspection of his policy views. Obama is one of those rare political figures who seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him. "I want people to know me well," said Obama at the forum. Among religious conservatives, that may not be an advantage.
I think you need to learn what the word charity means.
It's a voluntary gift. Taxation is neither voluntary nor a gift.
Using tax dollars - and claiming those are charities - is as honest as Barack has been about his statement on live birth abortions.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 18, 2008 08:59 AMDan@32, not sure why you're telling me that taxation isn't charity. First, I didn't address that point. Second, McCain pointed to government programs as our moral obligation; Obama didn't (at least in the forum at issue here), despite Pudge's claim to the contrary. Third, government help to the needy can certainly be considered charity on a societal level since society is collectively choosing to do it, even if the mechanism is taxation.
Posted by: Bruce on August 18, 2008 10:29 AMEverything you said is wrong, except that kids are not at fault for what their parents and the government do, but I specifically want to address the most outrageous, nonsensical thing you said:
"government help to the needy can certainly be considered charity on a societal level since society is collectively choosing to do it"
NO. It cannot. Charity is voluntary. Forced charity is an oxymoron. If you are forcing anyone to participate, it is not charity. The word "charity" is closely related to one of our concepts of "love," of freely and willfully giving of yourself for the sake of others. Forced charity makes no more sense than forced love does.
And that is a huge part of the problem that you, Obama, and many other "well-meaning" *cough* socialists don't understand: one of the great benefits of charity is not just to the people being helped, but to the people providing the help. It encourages you to do provide more charity, and others to do likewise. "Forced charity" does not have the same impact, because it is involuntary.
You can never have a good society while you are forciibly taking from one person to give to another. It will never happen. If you want people to be helped, there's only one thing to do: do it yourself.
Are voting to give government funds to a cause, paying taxes, and individually donating to a cause morally equivalent? Of course not. Which is more effective? That depends on the specific charities/programs at issue. Which is more moral? That depends on the specifics and your personal moral code.
Are they all "charity"? Now we're into semantics, but as the term is generally used, no. But when a community votes democratically to do something, that is a voluntary decision by the community, and therefore is morally analogous to indivdual charity. If you can call taxation "stealing", I can call government assistance "charity".
What does this have to do with the topic you started? McCain cited government programs; Obama cited broader moral issues without mentioning any specific programs, government or otherwise. You interpret this as McCain supporting "individual choices" while Obama supports "government programs that ignore liberty". Any objective reader (a rare species in these parts) would conclude that your original post has it precisely backwards.
Pudge, your partisanship is open, predictable, and of course allowable on this blog. But usually you cite evidence that supports your position (or at least is irrelevant), rather than evidence that contradicts it.
Posted by: Bruce on August 18, 2008 11:19 AMAs I said, government help to the needy can be considered charity on a societal level since society is collectively choosing to do it ...
Yes, you said that. Re-asserting this obviously flawed statement doesn't help it, especially when you do not give it any additional support.
But when a community votes democratically to do something, that is a voluntary decision by the community
No, it is not, unless it is unanimous. It is voluntary decision by SOME of the community to force EVERYONE ELSE in the community.
and therefore is morally analogous to indivdual charity
No, it's not (unless it is unanimous), because it *requires* theft. Individual charity does not. "Forced charity" is morally REPUGNANT, whereas individual charity is one of the most virtuous acts man can perform.
Yes, I said it, and I will say it again: government welfare is morally repugnant, because it requires government to steal from its citizens to give to someone else. There are, of course, worse crimes a government can perform, but this is a pretty bad one, and it violates the fundamental reason why our government exists: to secure the rights of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you can call taxation "stealing", I can call government assistance "charity".
No. Stealing is about action: if you take something from me, it is stealing, no matter why it is done. Charity is about the reasons and feelings behind actions: if you give someone something, it is only charity if it is done for certain reasons and motives.
McCain cited government programs
He talked about people VOLUNTEERING. Please stop ignoring the facts, including the fact that I have already clarified this.
Obama cited broader moral issues without mentioning any specific programs
EVERYONE knows he was referring to government action.
Any objective reader (a rare species in these parts) would conclude that your original post has it precisely backwards.
Nope. Every objective reader will conclude I'm right. The only way to conclude YOU are right is to think that Obama does not actually favor FORCING Americans to contribute to massive government programs to help people, which is his own web site contradicts, and to ignore the fact that McCain was talking about VOLUNTEERING.
You aren't fooling anyone.
The man has no moral compass at all. And it shows.
Pudge, I have to disagere with abortion being defined as freedom. There are (a minimum) two PEOPLE involved in each and every abortion. Mom and a BABY, who should have the freedom to be born.
I am not sure why you think you disagree with me! I compared abortion to slavery and segregation.
3. I felt McCain punted on the "evil" question. He framed it in his best Bush-like channeled personality and only talked about current evil people in the world. The question was not what to do about Osama Bin Laden, or Sadaam, it was whether evil can be conquered. Obama was theologically correct that in the end, it is only God who can defeat evil. As long as sin exists, we will have evil in the world. The best we can do is to act when presented, like Obama stated, and hope that when we act, we ourselves are acting within the will of God and not creating other evil ourselves (e.g., letting our own sinful selves rule our actions).
4. Finally, I think McCain got off easy on some of the answers. He just reiterated stories that have been told time and time again. He never went into the thinking behind the story. It was just assumed. In my opinion, this is one area where McCain missed an opportunity. In his life stories, one can see more than the surface figure. My opinion is that McCain could have opened up further, thus making him more human and connected with the audience (both live and on TV). One of the reasons why McCain does well in Town Hall meetings is his chance to connect on a personal level with people. My opinion is that he missed this on Saturday evening by just reiterating the same old stories and not really going into more of the behind the scenes part of the stories.
Posted by: tc on August 18, 2008 01:31 PM"You can never have a good society while you are forciibly taking from one person to give to another. It will never happen. If you want people to be helped, there's only one thing to do: do it yourself."
--
Name me one society in the history of the world that has ever been utterly devoid of "forcibly taking from one person to give to another.
Go ahead. Name one. I dare you -- because you can't.
The Objectivist la-la land you live in has never existed and it never will. And you must be the most gullible fool in the world to think that it might in this country -- or that Republicans or "conservatives" or even "libertarians" have any interest in bringing that about.
Posted by: ivan on August 18, 2008 02:33 PMMore behind the scenes part of the stories?
Is this the same tc that criticized the earlier candidate debates because they weren't issue-oriented enough?
Obviously, (or maybe not obviously to liberals), "the right to LIFE, liberty, and happiness" doesn't include the right to be born.
Posted by: Scott on August 18, 2008 02:53 PMWhen a community does anything -- operates school, feeds the hungry, fights a war, etc. -- through the democratic process, it is making a collective moral decision. It doesn't have to be unanimous. Of course the individuals haven't all made that decision, but the community as a whole has. You are so focused on the individual that you refuse to see this point.
Finally, government social programs directly contribute to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as most people interpret that phrase. Only hardcore libertarians like you believe government should not run social programs. You're entitled to your opinion about the society you want to live in, but it's not in the Bible, the constitution, or the hearts of our citizenry. And good luck with that view politically.
Posted by: Bruce on August 18, 2008 03:11 PMName me one society in the history of the world that has ever been utterly devoid of "forcibly taking from one person to give to another.Go ahead. Name one. I dare you -- because you can't.
Name me one society in the history of the world that has ever been a "good" society.
Go ahead. Name one. I dare you -- because you can't.
Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 03:12 PMFirst you failed to see "Peace Corps, Americorps, the military"
No, I did not. You're making that up.
which are NOT volunteer organizations
Yes, they are. Just because you get paid (a pittance) doesn't mean it is not a volunteer organization. However, even if it DID, you would still be missing the point: NO ONE IS FORCED TO PARTICIPATE. This is the point. You keep missing it. (Yes, we used to have a military draft, and it was and remains an abomination, one that only Democrats still support.)
Then, you saw the nonexistent words "government programs" in Obama's answer
No, I didn't. However, I did see the obvious and clear implication that every objective person who knows anything at all about Obama's policies also sees.
Of course the individuals haven't all made that decision, but the community as a whole has. You are so focused on the individual that you refuse to see this point.
Again, you are wrong. I see that point. But you have not actually made a SINGLE rational argument that it is reasonably called "charity." For it to be charity, it MUST come from the heart. A society can collectively ACT, but it cannot collectively FEEL.
Finally, government social programs directly contribute to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as most people interpret that phrase.
False. And even if they did, it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference, because it's still unconstitutional at the federal level. On this there is no dispute, unless you reject the actual words of the Constitution.
Only hardcore libertarians like you believe government should not run social programs.
False.
You're entitled to your opinion about the society you want to live in, but it's not in the Bible, the constitution, or the hearts of our citizenry.
False. Indeed, the Constitution is entirely clear on this, and what you don't know about the hearts of our citizenry is far greater than you think.
And your point is? The rich will always seek to hold on to their wealth, property, and privilege at the expense of the poor, by force. If things get bad enough for the poor, the poor will take from the rich by force.
I don't describe a "good" society the same way you do. All societies try to maintain some kind of equilibrium to so that people can go about their daily lives without killing each other to get what others have.
That is how we got "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's house," and "Thou shalt not cover your neighbor's wife."
I guess it's OK for you if governments levy taxes to maintain societal order when doing so protects the rich against the poor, but to you any taxation, even with full representation, that maintains any kind of social safety net so that the poor are not at the total "mercy" of the rich is a moral failure.
Well, I expect nothing different from you "conservatives." You're all about the four basic principles of conservatism, after all:
1. The rich should rule the poor (might makes right, them as has, gets).
2. Every man for himself (women have a lower legal standing than fetuses).
3. Devil take the hindmost.
4. Blame the victim.
The whole history of societies in this world has been to strike the proper balance between those like you, who appear to believe we're all here for ourselves, and those who think we're all here for each other. That second group included Jesus Christ, whether any of you like hearing that or not.
You're a fraud, Pudge. "Individual rights" in your case really means you want others to have less so that you might have more.
Your view of the world has a very short future.
Posted by: ivan on August 18, 2008 03:45 PMThis is one of the "sticking" points in the debate. A majority of Americans would be against abortions, especially mid-to-late term with exemptions, such as rape, incest, and medical health of mother. The problem is this is unacceptable to both extremes. The "left" wants to take the medical health exemption and make the case that it also includes mental health of the mother, which in my opinion is BS. The "right", justifiably, states that any exception negates the concept of life at conception, which by the way was a solid argument Carl Sagan made in his excellent analysis on abortion. The problem is most American's can not live with this extreme view (i.e., no exceptions). To me, this is where changing the discussion to focus on the goal "zero abortions" is what is really needed. The fact of the matter is overturning Roe vs Wade would really not do much. If the pro-life movement was serious, they would focus on the "whole" life of women (e.g., providing support before and after pregnancy) and on eliminating the societal reasons why women choose abortions.
Even with the fact that abortions have been decreasing, the data is sketchy as to what actually works and what doesn't work. What I am interested in is getting at what works to meet the goal.
One additional side note: One aspect that was lost in the debate was the breadth of issues that evangelicals are concerned with. I do think Rick Warren did cover a broader set of issues than most associate with evangelicals. To some, abortion will always be the top issue, but for the younger audience, they are much broader in scope. Issues like integrity, justice, poverty, environment, genocide, and human rights are just as important. It is the combination of the evangelical and social gospels that they are focused on. I thought the discussion of the faith-based initiatives is one area where Rick Warren really hit upon where the younger crowd is focusing on. We know that government can't solve the social ills, but also know that the government can save money by directing money to proven organizations, like faith based organizations, instead of trying to manage the effort themselves. I think both Obama and McCain know this, which is good. I disagree with Pudge that Obama's mission is more, bigger government. If you read his pitch on Faith based initiatives, it takes what Bush has done and expands on the effort. Obama got his start in faith-based organizations. He knows what works and doesn't work.
Posted by: tc on August 18, 2008 03:47 PMAnd your point is?
Um. What is YOUR point? My point was made clear. You quoted my point, and responded to it. To jog your memory, my point is: a good society does not forcibly take from one person to give to another.
I don't describe a "good" society the same way you do.
Obviously. Democrats do not value liberty like Republicans do. This is a given. We think, as the Declaration of Independence says, that securing liberty is the ultimate goal of government. You think there are more important things.
I guess it's OK for you if governments levy taxes to maintain societal order when doing so protects the rich against the poor
Ivan, can you have a discussion with me without just making up lies about me? Can you?
but to you any taxation, even with full representation, that maintains any kind of social safety net so that the poor are not at the total "mercy" of the rich is a moral failure.
I deny that your premise is rational.
Well, I expect nothing different from you "conservatives." You're all about the four basic principles of conservatism, after all: 1. The rich should rule the poor (might makes right, them as has, gets). 2. Every man for himself (women have a lower legal standing than fetuses). 3. Devil take the hindmost. 4. Blame the victim.
You're a liar. None of that, in any way, represents anything having to do with conservatism. This is almost the exact OPPOSITE of conservatism, which is that everyone should rule HIMSELF, that society should form groups to willingly help each other, that no life has more moral standing than any other, and that government's job is to protect rights and punish abuses of rights.
You only subvert your own arguments by pushing such dishonest rhetoric.
The whole history of societies in this world has been to strike the proper balance between those like you, who appear to believe we're all here for ourselves, and those who think we're all here for each other. That second group included Jesus Christ, whether any of you like hearing that or not.
You're lying. Everything I've said above, in fact, is about people helping others, just not doing it by force. I have emphasized over and over the importance, benefits, and moral requirement of charity.
If you cannot admit the absolute fact that conservatives believe in helping others at least as much as liberals, but just believe it should be done in a different way than liberals do, then you cannot have an honest or rational discussion on this topic, and you should just crawl back into your little DailyKos/HuffPo echo chamber about how evil those conservatives are, that none of you actually have a clue about.
You're a fraud, Pudge.
In order for you to make that case, you have had to lie about what I, and conservatives in general, believe. So who's the fraud?
"Individual rights" in your case really means you want others to have less so that you might have more.
You're a liar. I have never said, done, or thought a single thing that fits that description.
Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 04:03 PMArguably, in trying to answer the latter question, it is relevant whether your judgment stems from religious belief, since imposing religion-driven morality is part of (not the same as!) imposing religion. But I agree with you that we can debate abortion without any reference to religion.
Posted by: Bruce on August 18, 2008 04:04 PMNo, the Declaration doesn't say that. It does say that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are "among" our rights, although it also says that government should do whatever is "most likely to effect ... Safety and Happiness". Anyway, the Declaration has no legal standing in the USA, and never has.
But what a great philosophy! I suggest that you try to find some organization -- a union, say -- that protects liberties of people in civil society here in America, and join it and contribute generously.
Posted by: Bruce on August 18, 2008 04:17 PMThe majority of this state's voters, presumably without having guns held to their heads, passed an initiative a couple years ago that provided a cost of living salary increase for public school teachers.
Is that "forcibly taking your money to give to others?" Thhink you can answer that one with a simple yes or no?
Posted by: ivan on August 18, 2008 04:20 PMIt says, quite clearly, that the purpose of government is to secure liberty. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
Not only is it declared that securing liberty is the purpose of government, but it is declared that this is "self-evident."
I should not have to go over this remedial material here. I expect more from everyone here.
But what a great philosophy! I suggest that you try to find some organization -- a union, say -- that protects liberties of people in civil society here in America, and join it and contribute generously.
Really? You really think unions do this? You really think that FORCING teachers to give money to a union is protecting liberty? You really think that USING those forced dues -- which are allowed because of Democratic legislation -- to get Democrats elected, without permission of the duespayers, is protecting liberty?
Really?
ivan:
Take back your lies about me and I will care about whatever else you have to say. I won't hold my breath.
"Take back your lies! Or I'm not playing!" What are you, four years old? Grow a god damn spine.
Then you don't know your candidate very well. Can you say "Global Poverty Act"?
Every action ever taken by Obama in his life has been centered around securing government provided assistance on an ever expanding scale. Don't cloud reality with some pie in the sky vision of the messiah. He is what he is.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 18, 2008 04:49 PMRick D.: yes, the public knows this. Granted -- and here I do agree with tc -- Obama has helped push faith-based initiatives. But those are just more of the same! That is still government taking from Peter to give to Paul, it's just in this case, it's giving to Saint Paul.
I think most of us agree with Obama and Bush and McCain (though many liberals disagree) that if the government is to give money to private charities, it should not exclude religious charities. But why should it be giving such money AT ALL?
So when tc says he doesn't think "Obama's mission is more, bigger government," and then gives a government program as an example ... it comes off as a bit silly. Yes, better a private charity than government employees. But better private DONATIONS than government funding. Government funding == more government.
Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 05:06 PMDan@32, not sure why you're telling me that taxation isn't charity. First, I didn't address that point.
You said the original post was illogical; that post rightly pointed out that taxation is NOT charitable as it is forced contribution at the threat of a gun. Your condemnation as illogical was itself illogical.
Second, McCain pointed to government programs as our moral obligation; Obama didn't (at least in the forum at issue here), despite Pudge's claim to the contrary.
Volunteerism being a Government moral obligation? I don't think so... No one volunteers to participate in those programs, and the programs go away. There are no monies spent. Participation is purely voluntary, as opposed to the programs that the Slavery Party candidate Obama puts forth.
Third, government help to the needy can certainly be considered charity on a societal level since society is collectively choosing to do it, even if the mechanism is taxation.
I disagree. Forced contributions can never be considered charity. If I put a gun to your head and demand you give me $1000 will your forgive any prosecution if I give that money (minus a 30% administrative fee, of course) to the first drunk downtown I meet?
That is what Government financed "charity" is. It is - via taxation which is monies collected by the threat of violence by the Government - theft of private monies to be given to those who the theft feels deserving.
Ivan @ 44:
Name me one society in the history of the world that has ever been utterly devoid of "forcibly taking from one person to give to another.
The US from founding to 1861, then from 1872 to 1913. England until 1798. China for its first 3000 years. Need a few more? How about you look at taxation of companies - including private individuals - inside Hong Kong, or Luxembourg, or Singapore.
How many more do you want?
Now here's a question for you:
Name a country that has taxed itself into prosperity. Name one - you can't.
Ivan @ 57:
The majority of this state's voters, presumably without having guns held to their heads, passed an initiative a couple years ago that provided a cost of living salary increase for public school teachers. Is that "forcibly taking your money to give to others?" Thhink you can answer that one with a simple yes or no?
Yes, it is forcibly taking my money to give to others. Tyranny of the majority - you might want to look it up. Of course, since you suck on the public teat you have a vested interest in we, the producers of society, always working harder and harder to you can continue to fund your own existence at the expense of others.
Of course, I managed to figure out how to drop out. Not a single dime of my money goes to fund you or your life-consuming ilk. Rather, I now choose when to pay taxes (via purchase of luxuries) and enjoy being located in countries that actually care about building wealth of all people, not just taking more and more from the producers to redistribute to the easily manipulated poor.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 18, 2008 05:26 PM"I think most of us agree with Obama and Bush and McCain (though many liberals disagree) that if the government is to give money to private charities, it should not exclude religious charities. But why should it be giving such money AT ALL?"
-------------------
I'll bite. Because it represents the will of the majority of the people. You have a tough time with that, Pudge? Would you rather we had a king?
Or would you rather just call me a liar because you're too gutless to take on a question that you don't want to answer?
Maybe you should stick to Perl and leave politics to those of us who can handle a little complexity, and a few gray areas, now and then.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents....
Written by James Madison, the father of the US Constitution.
Here you go, proof that the founders of this nation did NOT intend for the US Government to provide "charity" or "benevolent" funds, as it was outside the scope of what Government should do.
So if you insist it's "collective charity", then go ahead. But also understand your position - as Pudge has stated - is completely and unequivocally unconstitutional. Will of the people notwithstanding.
And if you want to argue that, take it up with the words of the man who WROTE the Constitution.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 18, 2008 05:44 PMGood luck in China, punk. When they come for your money, and come for it they will, they'll be a lot less nice about it than we'd be here in the States.
I'll bite. Because it represents the will of the majority of the people. You have a tough time with that, Pudge?
Yes, I do, as our Constitution does, as every scholar in every part of this country recognizes.
This is now the second time in this discussion I will have to teach remedial social studies. First Bruce, now you.
You see, our Founding Fathers were against a straight democracy. They knew that the will of the majority could take away the rights of the minority. So instead of giving us a democracy, they gave us a constitutional republic. As Madison wrote in Federalist 10: Hence it is that such democracies ... have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property ... Read the rest of Federalist 10, you'll hate it, but at least, if you can understand it, you'll understand how wrong you are.
So yes, I, as a believer in the American system, have a tough time with going along with something just because it represents the will of the majority of the people. The majority may act as it sees fit, as long as it does not harm the rights of others.
Now, since I am arguing about protecting rights, it is obviously nonsensical to respond with talk of the democratic will, because our government -- especially the Bill of Rights of the Constitution -- exists to protect our rights FROM the democratic will (as Shanghai Dan says, the "tyranny of the majority"). This is made clear in the Declaration of Indepedence, in the Federalist Papers, and even in the Bill of Rights itself.
And I cannot believe you really believe otherwise, you just don't KNOW you don't believe what you're saying. If we suddenly had enough votes in this country to bring back slavery, would you think this acceptable because it is the "democratic will"? Would you have a "tough time" with that, Ivan? Of course you would, as I would. The difference between you and me, however, is that I can construct a logical argument why bringing back slavery would be illegal, even if the Constitution were explicitly amended to allow it, because it violates the fundamental premise the Constitution was founded upon. You, however, could do no such thing, because you are relying on the simplicity of the tyrannical "democratic will."
Maybe you should stick to Perl and leave politics to those of us who can handle a little complexity, and a few gray areas, now and then.
I love it when people express their complete ignorance about a subject, and then try to act superior at the same time. It's really funny to me.
Thank you. Shanghai, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Singapore have been great to me. Where my income - personal and corporate - is Constitutionally tax-free, and the sales tax is lower than that in the State of Washington.
And that island my company bought in the Philippines is a great place to which I will retire... A full 42 acres, a few thousand feet of beach, and only a 45 minute boat ride from Lido. Fresh papayas and mangoes from my own trees, and of course all the seafood I could eat. Tax free, no less - imagine not having to pay the Government for the privilege of living on my own land!
Yes, Asia's been great - it's amazing to work and live predominantly in countries that actually WANT to encourage the creation of wealth. Where the goal of Government is to build economies and let the citizens and residents make as much personal wealth as they desire.
And it must suck for you, since one more producer of milk has cut you off. Rest assured, more and more will continue to do so, and you will slowly starve. Of course, given your obvious girth the effects will take a while to manifest...
Go read the words of James Madison and the other Founders. Maybe there will be some words there to shake you from your public-fund-drunk stupor and come to your senses. Maybe you'll realize that people of your ilk do nothing but drag us down and despoil the concepts on which the Nation was founded.
I know, wishful thinking...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 18, 2008 06:19 PMBut I am glad I am not living where you are. Ugh. Asia. Philippines. Yuck. Not for me, at all. Climate, food, all bad. To me.
The great thing is that our views allow us to not care how each other prefers to live, unlike the views of others we could mention ...
Believing in Liberty and Freedom cannot lead a person to any other conclusion!
But I am glad I am not living where you are. Ugh. Asia. Philippines. Yuck. Not for me, at all. Climate, food, all bad. To me.
Aww Pudge, you just haven't done Asia right! If you ever want a REAL inside view of Shanghai or somewhere in Asia, let me know. A few weeks in Shanghai can be done for under $2000 in style, including your air fare.
The great thing is that our views allow us to not care how each other prefers to live, unlike the views of others we could mention ...
Of course. The Comrades here, with their Exalted Leader Obama prefer to think for you. They know better how to spend your money, and in fact even know how much is really ALL you need! Any more must be shared since it's not fair that you worked hard to accumulate wealth...
Charity-through-taxation; about as Orwellian a concept as I've ever heard!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 18, 2008 06:51 PMI answered your question to name countries that don't have forcible taxation (and I can list countries like Andorra, Monaco, Qatar, UAE, Nevis, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, St. Kitts, and many more that still have no income tax). So how about you answer mine:
Name a country that has taxed itself into prosperity. Name one - you can't.
See, Marxists like you and the rest of your Slavery Party members simply cannot admit that inequitable redistribution of wealth NEVER works. It leads inevitably to either Stalin's USSR or Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
I find it amazingly interesting that 3 BILLION people - China, India, all of SE Asia - are moving towards less taxation and more economic freedom. And the Marxists/Slavers of the US want to move us to where they were - all about "power to the people" and wealth redistribution.
Rattle your wealth chains, prepare your economic shackles. For they can no longer bind this Free Man!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 18, 2008 07:05 PMDan@71, of course no one taxes themselves into prosperity, any more than anyone vaccinates themselves into cardiovascular condition or paints their house to protect themselves from earthquakes. So?
Posted by: Bruce on August 18, 2008 09:50 PMSweatshop business, right?
Contrary to your claim, it doesn't say securing liberty is "the" purpose of government
Yes, in fact, it does. Once again: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." That is linguistically perfectly equivalent to, "governments are instituted among men to secure these rights." And in case you're still not following me, this means the same thing as "the reason why we have government is to secure those rights."
it has no legal standing whatsoever
Non sequitur. I never made any claim that had anything to do with this.
And ivan: why aren't you too embarassed to keep posting? Seriously.
Apparently most Leftists believe that with just a few more taxes on the producers of society we will reach social and economic nirvana. Alas, when challenged (ahem - IVAN THE IDIOT) they fall silent about how it actually works.
And about that charity as Government thing - willing to concede since the Father of the Constitution - James Madison - completely vindicates Pudge's original contention that you discount? I mean, if the guy who wrote the thing can't find any justification for Government-sponsored charity, I'd be interested to know out where you find it...
Ivan,
Well, Ningbo is about 36 deg C today, and running about 60% humidity, so yes it is sweaty outside. Shanghai is a bit better, only 32 and low humidity today. And looks to be 25 and raining this weekend. So yeah, sweaty in the workshops.
But tell me what you mean by a sweatshop? You mean paying Chinese factory line workers 6 RMB per hour, for 50 hour work weeks? What do you consider a sweatshop?
I mean, they can't all sit on their corpulent posteriors quaffing Dr. Pepper and masticating Cheetos on a supernova-like growing Government payroll! Some people actually have to work for a living to support the bloodsucking bureaucrats who exist to impede progress and halt success so as to justify their own unnecessary existence.
Fits right in line with the whole Slavery Party that you represent, if you think about it! Power only by repression of others...
And you still haven't answered the question: what society has ever taxed itself into prosperity? If you can't answer then I'll take that as a big fat NONE.
Meaning that your whole morally and intellectually bankrupt party, the Slavery Party (who try to call themselves Democrats), and their chosen false Messiah are advocating a failed economic policy.
That is not just the definition of insanity, but the definition of self-loathing and nihilism. Destruction of the US appears to be the goal of the Slavers!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 18, 2008 11:00 PMConservatives never created corporate or government bureaucracies. Conservatives never gave handouts to corporations. Conservatives always stood for competition and against monopolies. Conservatives care about their fellow human beings and no one else does.
You're a bigger fraud than that gutless Pudge. You guys truly are the nutball fringe.
Posted by: ivan on August 18, 2008 11:07 PMHonestly, you are a good example of why the Democrats keep winning, and will probably keep winning.
You have been proven to be lying, you have been proven to be ignorant about the basics of the American system, you have been humiliated. And yet you actually claim that OTHER people are "nutballs" and "frauds." You just throw those haymakers, and none of them ever land, but you keep throwing them anyway.
And at some point you delude yourself and enough people who aren't paying attention that you're right, just through sheer repetitive persistence.
It's a rare gift to be able to stare down the facts and make them submit to your will. Well, on our side it is, anyway.
What country has taxed itself into prosperity?
Simple question, should be a simple answer, no? I had no problem answering the little query that you, in your infantile smugness assumed was an intractable knot of logic. Yet with just a few simple facts your puzzle wholly unraveled.
Yes, it is a simple question I ask... Unless of course there IS no answer! And what does that say about the economic policies that you of the Slavery Party advocate? How does increased taxation lead to more prosperity? Does the Messiah, Barack Obama, knowingly advocate a destructive economic policy for the nation, all in the lustful pursuit of self-aggrandizement and power?
Now, I have worked the vast majority of my whole life, most of it for myself. I have created wealth, I have employed others. Something you on the public teat never know. Yes, I have produced mightily, and seen the majority of the fruits of my labors go to line the wallets of those same piglets gobbling down the tax dollars as greedily as they can.
And you know what? So have all other business creators. For the fact is that those who CREATED their own businesses are OVERWHELMINGLY conservative. For every liberal business creator I've met, there are 20 who are conservative. And this is for hundreds of business creators. Look no further than the National Federation of Independent Businesses - the NFIB, the small business advocacy association - and its support of John McCain and conservative policies relating to business and the economy.
Creators of wealth understand the economic realities that you on the Marxist extreme refuse to acknowledge: taxation IS repression, and destroys economies. If you are not a producer, you are a consumer. And consumption is the singular role - and central tenet - of the Slavery Party. Take from the producers and buy the adulation of the rest.
So put up or shut up, Ivan:
What country has ever taxed itself into prosperity?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 18, 2008 11:33 PMThe life at conception, however, is a theological premise. The Greeks held that life began at the awakening (baby stirring in the womb). This was also the stand of many early Church authors. Some however extended this theology to the Life at Conception. No where in the Bible does it actually state one way or another. All that can be "proven" by the Bible is the versus that God "knew" us in the womb. It also can be inferred, however, from Romans 8 that God "predestined" us from even before we were conceived. It is in the 20th Century, mostly after Roe vs Wade (i.e., mid to late 70's) that the evangelical movement centered on the Life at Conception concept (read Frank Schaffer, who documents his father's early work in the anti-Abortion movement).
To me, I have a hard part with the theology of Life at Conception because of two reasons. First, it isn't clearly stated anywhere in the Bible. Two, it doesn't address the issue of identical twins, who are two unique individuals until up to 14 days after conception (i.e., at the point the Zygote implants itself in the uterus).
Here is a theological question for you. If Life begins at Conception, then would it be immoral for a woman to have her uterus cauterized so as not to bleed any more during her periods due to the loss of blood (iron), which is an female alternative to having her tubes tied (hysterectomy)?
I see three points where one could logically decide upon a standard. The first is a theological one of no artificial methods allowed, including birth control, hysterectomies, vasectomies, artificial insemination, etc. (i.e., not to mess with the natural process designed by a Creator). The second would be once the Zygote implants itself in the uterus (i.e., at this point the fetus' become unique, in the case of identical twins). The third would be along the lines of Carl Sagan and tied to the formation of the frontal cyberal cortex (i.e., where rational thought occurs, the feature that makes us uniquely human, and where studies have indicated that religious though occurs). This would be around 17-20 weeks, similar to the original "awakening" concept.
OBTW, on the theological interpretation of the Bible, it is interesting to note the Judaism, which uses the same Old Testament texts, assumes life beginning at birth (breadth).
Posted by: tc on August 19, 2008 07:54 AMThe life at conception, however, is a theological premise.
Life VERY SHORTLY AFTER conception is a biological fact. A blastocyst, what exists immediately prior to implantation (and what is intended to be destroyed by the "morning after" pill etc., which prevents implantation) is a unique, living, individual organism of species homo sapiens, with its own DNA and everything.
it doesn't address the issue of identical twins, who are two unique individuals until up to 14 days after conception (i.e., at the point the Zygote implants itself in the uterus).
The fact that the blastocyst can be cloned later on in the process does not, in any way, imply that it is not a living and unique human organism. It is. Implantation and lack of duplication is irrelevant.
There's really no debate on that point. The only question is what to do with the fact that we have a unique and living human organism prior to implantation.
I also disagree with you about "no artificial methods" being logically preferable to "conception." There's actually a good philosophical reason for "conception" beyond mere theological belief: the fact that we DO NOT KNOW when life begins, and therefore we are morally obligated to err on the side of caution.
And yes, abortion once the brain has started working is logically indefensible, given our current state of scientific knowledge. Also, many Jewish scholars disagree on when life begins.
I do realize that your viewpoint of government's role is limited to the standpoint of if it isn't specifically spelled out in the constitution, then it shouldn't be carried out.
Assuming you mean the federal government ... that's still not true. Indeed, the Constitution explicitly states that non-specified powers exist, IF they are "necessary and proper" for the execution of other specified powers. So no, I do not attempt to limit the government only to "specifically spelled out" powers (unless you are going to call "necessary and proper" a power of its own, at which point it's mere semantics).
I disagree with this interpretation of government's role. I do feel on a national level the federal government does need a collective, national role.
Your feelings are irrelevant. Can you logically defend this view? Can you tell me where in the Constitution this is justified? If not, can you tell me what gives the government the right to do it against the law? If you say the Constitution is "living, breathing" and should be interpreted in the times, then how can the Bill of Rights possibly serve its intended purpose of protecting the minority from the majority, when the majority can simply re-interpret our rights away? What can we as a people rely on to know that we will continue to have the rights of free speech and religion in the First Amendment, if we can't rely on the right of self-government in the Tenth?
Your view is an illogical and unsustainable house of cards.
To leave this up to the states alone, or the private sector alone, is not to speak with a common voice of who we believe ourselves to be as a people.
To NOT leave this up to the states, and to the people, is to not recognize the right of self-governance of that people. The more local a decision is made, the more liberty you have, because the more powerful your voice is. This is why the Constitution says what it does: that you are wrong. Because as shown, the Declaration says quite clearly that the main purpose of government is to secure individual liberty, and the Constitution, through its actual language, tries to do just that.
By re-interpreting our rights away, you aim to take away our individual liberty, subverting the purpose of government, to install your own (to you) higher purpose ("common good") that violates the rule of law, replacing it with the rule of man. And rule of man is the fastest way to tyranny.
As Madison said, Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. "Limited government" was not a buzzword for Madison. It was -- and is to me -- synonymous with "liberty," and his point that this is what the people of America established should not go unremarked: we collectively agreed to this system, we rely on it for protection of our rights, for fair dealings with each other and the government, for providing for our families' futures, and so on, and you're trying to subvert and transmute it into something we never agreed to.
I see a country as a community, you prefer to see the country as a collection of individuals.
I see it as both. You cannot have true community unless your rights are respected. So your view of community doesn't even exist in the real world.
It might be my growing up in the Midwest and the neighbor helping neighbor ethic. To me, we are better off as a society when we join together for a common good and to share common values.
You are misrepresenting me. I have posted MANY words in this discussion about the common good and helping our neighbors.
You do not care more about helping others, or coming together for the common good, than conservatives do. This is one of the most common, and sad, liberal misunderstandings of conservatives. We simply believe this should be accomplished through willfull action rather than force.
Regarding conception, science acknowledges/proves that at the moment the sperm joins the egg the resultant zygote is a LIVING organism. Science further acknowledges/proves that the genetic make up of that LIVING organism is human and can be nothing else. Whatever the Greeks believed is now trumped by the FACTS of science. I often chuckle when those who so love to throw the Bible at us in regards to homosexual marriage have no trouble keeping a straight face about conception. Think about it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 19, 2008 10:41 AMI have been humiliated? By you lot? That'll be the day.
What country has ever taxed itself into prosperity?
You and the rest of your Slavery Party are not just morally bankrupt, but intellectually vacuous and demonstrably anti-American, anti-human, and anti-reality.
Humiliation lies in your ignorance so readily displayed in this thread. The fact you actually hold an official position within the Slavery Party should serve as a beacon of warning for any considering that corrupt institution.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 19, 2008 12:25 PMWhat country has ever taxed itself into
prosperity?
Third and final chance...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 19, 2008 03:37 PMAre you Ivan? The issue here is that apparently the official representative of the Slavery Party believes you can tax yourself to prosperity. And so does the candidate of that same party, Barack Obama.
No use covering for your buddy Ivan, it's abundantly clear that he refuses to answer because if he does, he either exposes the truth that the Slavery Party uses taxation as a punitive measure against those who are successful (taxation out of envy and greed) or that the Slavery Party really does want to destroy America (by destroying the economy).
Ivan asked the question of what country prospered by not taxing income; I responded with a few dozen examples. But the coward that is the Slavery Party representative cannot answer the converse question back for it would expose the hatred of the Slavers.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 20, 2008 07:05 AMHe has done this many times in this single discussion.
Then again, so has Bruce. I'm still waiting for him to tell me how "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men," does not mean that "governments exist to secure rights."
I guess the nice thing about being a Slavery Party member is never having to answer any question you don't like. Man, that would have made multi-variable calculus so much easier those decades ago!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 20, 2008 08:22 AMI could be like Pudge and cry "waah, waah, you're a liar and I'm not going to respond to you until you apologize for lying."
Instead, I'll point out, very calmly and rationally, my comment, Number 44 in this thread, that says: Name me one society in the history of the world that has ever been utterly devoid of "forcibly taking from one person to give to another."
In other words, there has never been a society that hasn't used the power of the state to tax. Whether that leads to prosperity, or for whom, is not anything I made reference to.
So please do not put words in my mouth, or try to hold me responsible for something I never said. That's just too childish.
You and Pudge and most of the posters here appear to believe that any taxation that anybody doesn't like, for whatever reason any person chooses, by definition robs us of our liberties and therefore, also by definition, is an abomination to humanity. Therefore, anyone who favors any such taxation, for any reason, is a "moral failure."
Maybe you think that is, or should be, a "mainstream position." It's your right to think so. I think it borders on certifiable lunacy, at the Irwin A. Schiff level.
Whether or not a society "prospers" from taxation is almost never a direct result of taxation, but depends on so many other external factors that Dan's very question is irrelevant.
We know that Dan's position is "I want mine and eff you. Pudge's position appears to support Dan's position. As I see it, the notion that Pudge is somehow qualified to be a arbiter of anyone's morals is worthy only of ridicule, just like most of the other posts on this blog.
The thing is, you DID lie. Repeatedly. Dan didn't.
And you are continuing to lie. Dan DID give examples of societies that didn't use the power of the state to tax. And even if they DIDN'T, simply saying so doesn't mean anything.
You and Pudge and most of the posters here appear to believe that any taxation that anybody doesn't like, for whatever reason any person chooses, by definition robs us of our liberties and therefore, also by definition, is an abomination to humanity.
More lies. What we "like" is irrelevant. We actually have solid and longstanding principles about these things. That you obviously do not understand these principles don't mean they don't exist. You continue to completely misrepresent the views of others in order to attack them.
We know that Dan's position is "I want mine and eff you. Pudge's position appears to support Dan's position.
More lies. I do not hold that position, and we've seen nothing to make us think Dan holds that position. Once again, you dishonestly assert that if we do not want government to try to force us into charity, that we therefore are against charity. It's a lie.
As I see it, the notion that Pudge is somehow qualified to be a arbiter of anyone's morals is worthy only of ridicule
By this you seem to be implying someone else could be qualified. Who could possibly be more qualified than me to do so? Go ahead, give us a name of someone other than a deity.
Instead, I'll point out, very calmly and rationally, my comment, Number 44 in this thread, that says: Name me one society in the history of the world that has ever been utterly devoid of "forcibly taking from one person to give to another."
To which I answered:
The US from founding to 1861, then from 1872 to 1913. England until 1798. China for its first 3000 years. Need a few more? How about you look at taxation of companies - including private individuals - inside Hong Kong, or Luxembourg, or Singapore.
So we see countries that succeed without forcibly taking from some to give to others. And then further reinforced with the quote from James Madison about the unconstitutionality of Government "charity".
So I'm not putting words in your mouth that didn't originate from you. However, you are dodging the question because you cannot answer without showing the true colors of the Slavery Party.
Taxation retards economic growth and hurts people. It makes zero sense to tax people - hurting them - to only turn around and give them back a smaller slice than that which was forcibly confiscated.
Yes, I want mine. You want yours. Pudge wants his. The difference is that Pudge and I believe we can all get what we want, and can do so without theft. You and the rest of the Slavers demand that you cannot achieve what you want, and thus need to use the force of Government to take from the rest.
Personal responsibility simply is anathema to the foundation and core of the Slavery Party.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 20, 2008 09:08 AMYou are seriously telling me, and everyone else who reads this, that there were no taxes in the United states before 1861?
As a non-drinker I would not pay the whiskey SALES tax. It is an example of a voluntary tax, not forcible.
So apparently you don't quite understand what the issue here is - it is the forcible nature of taxation that is wrong. Duties and sales taxes are voluntary, as you can choose not to exercise activities that result in collection. Income taxes, however, are not voluntary as they are collected on any accumulation of wealth - monies or the equivalent.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 20, 2008 10:25 AMThe militia force of 12,950 men was organized, roughly the size of the entire army in the Revolutionary War. Under the personal command of Washington, Hamilton and Revolutionary War hero General Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee, the army assembled in Harrisburg and marched into western Pennsylvania (to what is now Monongahela) in October of 1794. The rebels "could never be found," according to Jefferson, but the militia expended considerable effort rounding up 20 prisoners, clearly demonstrating Federalist authority in the national government. The men were imprisoned, where one died, while two, including Philip Vigol (later spelled Philip Wigal), were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. Washington, however, pardoned them on the grounds that one was a "simpleton," and the other, "insane."[5]
Only two were actually arrested and jailed: judge Robert Philson and devout Quaker Herman Husband. Philson was released by Washington, but Husband died in jail before he could be released."
-----------
I take it from what you say that you would favor repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, then. Fine. I respect your right to have that opinion. But don't pretend that it is other than a lunatic fringe position.
Consider the source. That's all I gotta say. :-)
There is an old saying, in a foreign language, that translated says something like "are you stupid or are you just pretending to be?"
I've found this to be a common trait among liberals.
But Ivan doesn't even attempt to understand -- or is incapable of understanding -- any view but his own.
I take it from what you say that you would favor repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, then. Fine. I respect your right to have that opinion. But don't pretend that it is other than a lunatic fringe position.
Fringe? Unfortunately, no... Lunatic? Undoubtedly yes. Just because an insane idea is supported by many does not make it less insane.
Since you seem to be so keen on history, recall that the Boston Tea Party was over an effective one third of one percent tax on the value of tea. Yes, 0.33%. We went to war over that. Now most are happy to hand over the majority of their paycheck to the Government and smile when they do so!
Bend over and pay your 15.24% for retirement "benefits" that are a magnitude lower than what you could earn with private investments.
Cheerfully give 35% of your investment returns to cover profits - when you risk your own funds to financially benefit yourself AND those you invest in.
Wave happily at the tax confiscator as he demands 25% of your income so that the vast majority can be redistributed to others, simply because you had the audacity to work hard and earn.
Fundamentally, you in the Slavery Party are nothing more than Marxists. Rail and deny as you wont, but the act of taking from some to give to others is nothing but Marxist ideology. Government "charity" is not charitable. There is not fairness in not just an income tax, but a "progressive" one at that.
James Madison's quote alone should shake your Slaver soul - there IS no Constitutional justification for Federal benevolence.
Yet you cannot stand up and lay claim and fully embrace your Marxist foundation for to do so would out your true agenda - control of everyone in everything they do.
It is by taking from the producing of society at the threat of jail or death that you fund your schemes. It is by handing bribes to the masses to keep them fat, dumb, and happy as the Romans with bread and circuses that you seek to gain more control over all.
And you STILL have not answered my question, when I have not only answered yours but shattered your premise beyond Humpty Dumpty:
What country has ever taxed itself into prosperity?
The simple FACT that no country has ever done so would make a logical man understand that taxation IS the ruination of a country and people. And would make that man take an anti-tax stand, especially a highly oppressive and REGRESSIVE tax on income.
Only a liar, charlatan, or Marxist would choose to still hold up increased taxation as the savior of the Nation. Ignorance is no excuse; it is a willful suspension of reality or a fundamental opposition to freedom and prosperity for all that would support the economic tax policies of the Slavery Party.
Your Slavery Party candidate, Barack Obama, even admitted as much in the debate moderated by Charles Gibson. Even when presented with the FACT that an increased capital gains tax (which is even more morally bankrupt than an income tax) would REDUCE tax receipts to the Government, your savior Obama still said we needed to raise the rates to make things fair.
Apparently in the Slaver's mindset, it is not acceptable that some succeed and others fail, so rather than eliminate the blocks to success the Slavers will clamp on chains and shackles to make all fail.
So answer the question, Ivan, if you dare:
What country has ever taxed itself into prosperity?
My guess is you will not, for to do so would explicitly uncover the thief and Marxist you are. Better to scurry as a rat in the darkness and let it be implied, than to stand up and show your true core!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 20, 2008 11:22 AMI presented the facts for you, that George Effing Washington collected federal taxes by force, which refuted totally your ridiculous previous claim that before 1861, the federal government had never collected taxes forcibly, (go back and check; it's just what you said), and all you do is go on an anti-taxation rant.
I don't care if you don't like taxes. Go ahead and hate taxes. But politically in this country, your position is a fringe position.
I'm sorry you don't like hearing that. But not too sorry. When you say stuff like this:
-----------
"Bend over and pay your 15.24% for retirement "benefits" that are a magnitude lower than what you could earn with private investments."
------------
I have little sympathy. Private investments are only as good as the companies that people invest in. When their Board of Directors votes themnselves big fat raises and lessens your take, you have no recourse.
Now right-wingers like you [extreme vulgarity deleted by pudge] who rant about anything the (booga booga) GOVERNMENT does, because government is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, even you have to realize that you're not getting anywhere with that politically.
Now go retire on your company-owned South Sea island paradise, which I am guessing is a figment of your imagination while you post from your mother's basement somewhere.
Posted by: ivan on August 20, 2008 11:43 AMMust really rub salt in the would when Barack Obama is now trailing McCain in the polls. And the former Attorney General is well behind the pace of the last election she lost...
I'm back to Shanghai tomorrow, perhaps I can pick you up a nice Mao jacket? There's millions of them in the used clothes piles. I'm sure I can find one for you!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 20, 2008 11:49 AMFundamentally, you in the Slavery Party are nothing more than Marxists. Rail and deny as you wont, but the act of taking from some to give to others is nothing but Marxist ideology.
Oh come on. That's not fair. Marxists demand that people work if they are able to.
You should apologize to Marxists, Dan.
ivan:
Go ahead and run on the platform of abolishing the income tax, and see how far you get.
Well, Gregoire is runnning on a (secret) platform to CREATE an income tax, and this will be a part of her downfall.
Yes, I know she denies she wants an income tax now. But she did say she thinks it is a good idea that we WILL eventually have; and further, in 2004 she denied she wanted to raise other taxes, when all along that is precisely what she planned to do (just like she denied she wanted to bloat the budget to unsustainable levels, when she has done precisely that).
Oh, and I have edited ivan's last comment for extremely graphic vulgarity, in case anyone's wondering about that. I thought about just removing the whole thing, but I don't want him to not have his say, especially since it makes him look so stupid.
You're right, I'm sorry. Marxists don't want OTHER people to work; after all, where would they get their own income and support of not for stealing it from those of us who actually produce? Mea culpa!
And I should have pointed out that even Massachusetts has a repeal the income tax initiative going. More and more Governments world-wide are finally realizing that lower taxes actually bring in more revenues. Amazing what growing an economy can do!
We are called to sacrifice and share and live within our means by the Slavery Party members. I think they should start by giving us an example with their current Congress. Pass a balanced budget with no new taxes. Live within their means.
And have the Washington State Governor and Legistlature actually live up to their campaign promises and not pass more taxes but still balance a budget. It can be done - it just takes leadership and integrity (I know, both are seriously lacking in the Slavery Party).
Of course, as Slavers do, they promise to cut taxes, or at worse not add new ones. But as we see here, time and again new taxes are added - campaign promises are shattered and cast to the winds. But those pledges for new spending? All sail through with flying colors!
Always spend more, and then just go ahead and raise taxes anyway. After all, it's not THEIR wallet that's hit!
And editing Ivan's ramblings for vulgarity? Yes, Slavers hate it when you point out the truth. As I use as my tagline on another forum:
Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible.
Nowhere is that more apparent than with the Marxist Slavery Party. Call them on the truth - oppression of minorities, economic repression, destruction of personal liberties - and you end up watching near-fatal apoplectic reactions.
Tax and spend Marxists are some of the greatest dullards living today. They are nearly always Government teat-suckers or unionized hacks, who do not understand what is really involved in creating wealth. Rather, to them wealth is something to be confiscated to fatten the pockets of themselves and their vassals. Wealth creation is not hard work and sweat and life energy, it is a tax bill and a gun!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 20, 2008 04:31 PMOn the second part of your toast, you are assuming the "potential" life and/or DNA argument. I have above argued against the DNA assumption above. With regards to the potential life argument, sperm and the egg are potential life, yet we allow contraceptives that keep them from combining. This is why I do find from a theological standpoint, the no artificial interference train of though more defensible than the "at conception" argument. My assumption is the "at conception" argument has at its roots the DNA argument. Identical twins start with the same DNA, yet they are not a single uniquely endowed human.
Why I hit the identical twins issue so hard is because my Dad and his brother (my Uncle) are identical twins. They each have their similarities, but in growing up with them, I can also see their unique characteristics.
You will need a lot better argument to convince me from a non-theological argument standpoint that a blastocyst is a uniquely endowed human person.
Posted by: tc on August 21, 2008 06:52 AMYour view is an illogical and unsustainable house of cards.
You are correct that my own opinion, in and of itself, is meaningless. However, the collective opinion of the masses does weigh in value. It is the masses that elect our representatives. If the masses decide that an action is wrong, then through its representatives, and ultimately themselves, if it means altering the Constitution, that the opinion becomes the new order.
The best example of this is abolition of slavery. Further, the Supreme Court in its 1950's rulings, like Brown versus the Board of Education, help codify that amendments to the constitution. Here is an example where the strict constructionist jurist argument fails. The theory of precedence does at times need to be weighed. Yes, the Supreme Court should make laws, but it should also not be so bound to precedence that it fails to see new interpretations in the constitution to fit the current times.
Further, the so-called strict constructionists, or traditionalists on the Supreme Court have been anything but when it comes to expansion of Presidential powers in the current administration. The constitution is clear on the roles of Congress and the Executive branch, yet you have a current administration that has rough shod over the constitution and the "traditionalists" branch of the Supreme Court that wants to rubber stamp anything the administration comes up with.
To me a proper Supreme Court is one that is balanced across the spectrum and that encompasses all viewpoints and is heavily weighted just right of center.
Posted by: tc on August 21, 2008 07:07 AMWith regards to marriage, I know I may be in the minority, but I think the real problem is the state coopting a religious practice as a matter of convenience. The real question should be why is the state in the marriage business. My preference would be the state issues civil union licenses and the church decides on religious and theological grounds who it wants to marry and baptise.
Posted by: tc on August 21, 2008 07:14 AMI know it's hard to justify the blastocyst being a unique human from a purely scientific standpoint. I've always gone by the approach that if I can be charged with murder or manslaughter, then it's a unique human being.
Like if I shot a 6 month pregnant woman and killed her and the fetus, I could be charged with double murder. At that point, at least, the fetus was a unique human being - how else could I be charged with murder?
The courts tend to come down more and more on the side of viability outside the womb. One hundred years ago, that was 30 weeks. Now we're down to 23 weeks. In another 30 years undoubtedly it will be down to 12-15 weeks. In 100 years, I wouldn't be surprised to find growth from individual sperm and egg - true test-tube babies!
And what has happened during that time? Has the biology of the development of the fetus changed? No! It is man's ability to grow the fetus outside the womb, which - for the courts at least - allows for earlier and earlier viability.
When the day comes that a womb is no longer needed, we will find that the courts will decide the blastocyst is a unique human being, for it could have survived outside the womb with just medical care. It was not dependent on the mother for anything more than the egg. From the moment of fertilization, we'll have a unique human being.
So other than the advances in medicine, what has changed to push back the age of fetal development in what we term a unique human being? And as medicine continues to advance, what else has changed in the biology?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 21, 2008 08:00 AMFurther, the so-called strict constructionists, or traditionalists on the Supreme Court have been anything but when it comes to expansion of Presidential powers in the current administration. The constitution is clear on the roles of Congress and the Executive branch, yet you have a current administration that has rough shod over the constitution and the "traditionalists" branch of the Supreme Court that wants to rubber stamp anything the administration comes up with.
I would say those strict constitutionalists are CORRECT in the way they have dealt with the Executive! It is not the role of the judiciary to reign in the Executive; it is the role of Congress.
If you want to get mad at someone for "not holding the President's feet to the fire" for his supposed "running rough shod over the Constitution" then the remedy is in the Constitution - it is the Legislative branch that is to hold the Executive accountable, NOT the Judicial branch.
Get mad at Congress, not the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 21, 2008 08:04 AMI partially disagree with your logic here. The  blastocyst is a living human organism, but you have not demonstrated in your statement that it is an unique human being.
If you are differentiating between scientific definition and philosophical definition of "human being," then that's irrelevant to any claim I made. You are then going on to the next part of the discussion, which I specifically addressed when I said, "There's really no debate on that point. The only question is what to do with the fact that we have a unique and living human organism prior to implantation." But it does not actually argue against my logic at all.
Your statement doesn't argue from a non-religious standpoint why a blastocyst can be considered a unique human being.
Of course it does. Biologically, it absolutely IS a unique organism of species homo sapiens. There is no rational debate on this point.
As I stated with my twins example, the blastocyst may develop indeed be multiple unique persons.
That is, of course, irrelevant. If it splits, then it is now two unique organisms, which happen to share the same DNA. So what? This could not matter less to my point.
Further, I asked the question with regard to a newer alternative to a hysterectomy for women where they cauterized the uterus, if this would be considered abortion.
Call it what you wish. I am simply making a verifiably true and logically and factually unassailable assertion: this is a living and unique human organism, shortly following conception. Again, what you DO with that fact is a separate question.
Is it on DNA? Â Well our organs carry our DNA and can be implanted into other humans (either while we are alive or even after death). Â Does this make the receiver of the organ us?
No. Why would it? That doesn't make any sense at all. Having a part in you that has certain new DNA does not mean that your DNA has become that other DNA.
This is very simple: it is often argued that new life is simply a part of the mother, that it does not become a separate life for awhile after implantation. This is biologically false. Untrue. Nonsense. This is proven absolutely by pointing to the fact that this individual organism also has unique DNA. An organ is not an individual organism, it's part of an organism.
Read what I wrote again: it is a "unique, living, individual organism of species homo sapiens." Every word there is separately meaningful and important. "unique" tells us it is not just a growth of the mother organism, as it has its own instruction set. "living" tells us that it is growing and dividing, not just a static thing waiting to do something. "individual" tells us that it is not merely a part of some other organism, but that it is a complete organism on its own. "homo sapiens" tells us it is not some separate species or creature that later becomes human.
On the second part of your toast, you are assuming the "potential" life and/or DNA argument.
False. I argued absolutely no such thing as a "potential" for life. I asserted, as biological fact, that it IS life shortly after conception. Calling it a "potential" life is ignoring scientific fact.
Why I hit the identical twins issue so hard is because my Dad and his brother (my Uncle) are identical twins. They each have their similarities, but in growing up with them, I can also see their unique characteristics.
And I still say: so what? It has not a single thing to do with my argument.
You will need a lot better argument to convince me from a non-theological argument standpoint that a blastocyst is a uniquely endowed human person.
I never said "person" nor "endowed." I said "human." And it is absolute biological fact. You're spitting into the wind. And if you want to claim a unique human is NOT a person, and is NOT endowed with rights, feel free to do so. Don't expect too many sane people to join you.
However, the collective opinion of the masses does weigh in value. It is the masses that elect our representatives. ... The best example of this is abolition of slavery.
No. The best example is the LEGAL INSTITUTION of slavery.
Further, the Supreme Court in its 1950's rulings, like Brown versus the Board of Education, help codify that amendments to the constitution. Here is an example where the strict constructionist jurist argument fails.
Not remotely. You don't know what you are talking about, tc. This is an oft-repeated lie of the left.
First, almost no one is a strict constructionist. I point out this fact because since we're talking about judicial philosophy, we need to be specific. Strict constructionism implied that the judge should only apply the text as written. But none of our justices does that: rather, the conservative approaches are "textualism" or "originalism," which are quite different than strict constructionism. Textualism focuses on the ordinary meaning of the text itself, whereas originalism means we should look to the originally intended meaning of the text.
But in any of the three philosophies, you're still wrong, because you are assuming that, in fact, Brown v Board of Education went against the law, and this is wrong. It was previous decisions upholding segregation that were in violation of the Constitution. There was nothing "activist," in the sense of the court making its own law, about the basic opinion of Brown, as it simply held that the 14th Amendment means what it says: no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of laws.
The Supreme Court was not coming up with a new interpretation, it was finally correctly interpreting the law as it was written all along. Not a single person could honestly say that the government intentionally segregating black kids into an inferior school is providing for the equal protection of laws, as guaranteed in the Constitution.
Further, the so-called strict constructionists, or traditionalists on the Supreme Court have been anything but when it comes to expansion of Presidential powers in the current administration.
I defy you to give a single example.
Shanghai Dan: I've always gone by the approach that if I can be charged with murder or manslaughter, then it's a unique human being.
I've always gone by the approach that science and fact and philosophy are not dictated by criminal statutes.
Posted by: pudge on August 21, 2008 09:18 AM