Posted on 08/11/2004 11:35:46 AM PDT by LibWhacker
I don't care about the formal degrees. I judge by what I see posted.
It's primitive astrology dressed up in Sunday-go-to-meetin' clothes.
Can't support it, can you? Not with data. Not with valid argument. Libs are simply thieves for the same reason every thief is a thief.
I was a National "Merit" Scholar based on my Junior SATs of 1526.
I didn't "merit" sh*t. I was lazy, unfocused, and didn't do any work. Fortunately, my IQ was high enough that I could fake it.
Hopefully, I've made up for being a teenage assh*le in subsequent years.
However, giving me rewards for "merit" severly distorts the meaning of the word. Merit is what you deserve based on what you DO, not based on your genetics.
Welfare. Foodstamps. Unless you want to claim being a shiftless, lazy bum is hard work.
Talk about lacking an education.
You are completely insane if you think conservatives want to do away with the country's infrastructure.
No doubt.
Exactly! I love these discussions - I could write a book on it (actually, I am).
I happen to think Rawls' point is fundamentally wrong, that even one who realized he might find himself less advantaged in real life, if setting up a system in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, might well agree to a system that advantaged talent, character or hard work.
I couldn't agree with you more! His logic may be sound but his premise is totally wrong. He built a Taj Mahal on quicksand. The compelling evidence of the falsehood of his premise is that each expecting mother and father in a way make that "behind the veil of ignorance" choice for their child. None of them know whether the child will be born smart or dumb, pretty or ugly, talented or not. If Rawls is right, all expecting parents would be marxist and then a few years after the birth of a bright, pretty child they would turn into rabid capitalists. This obviously is not happening. Where people have the opportunity to vote on the type of system that they want to live under, they never vote for a strictly eqalitarian system.
Even more to the point, there are many examples through history of people who shared Rawls view of a just society who formed communes based on equality. They all proved to be miserable failures. Larger experiments such as the Soviet Union ("from each according to his ability and to each according to their need") have met with the same fate. The reason they fail is simple - they go against human nature - WE ARE NOT MADE EQUAL. To externally impose that equality in the name of justice, is to create an even greater injustice - loss of freedom.
What all this really means is that the idea that justice means equality is foolish, and dangerous (but still very prevalent!). So if justice is not equality, what is it, exactly?
Welfare and food stamps for shiftless, lazy bums do not constitute a significant part of the tax burden. Not when compared to defense, social security, education, health care, and infrastructure expenditures.
But that's not the major problem with your argument.
In a competitive society there are losers - always have been, always will be. The extent of the problem is illustrated by the figures below;
Percent of Federal Individual Income Taxes Paid by Low Income Taxpayers
Lowest 50% 6.8% 6.1%
Lowest 25% 0.5% 0.7%
Source: Information Please Almanac, page 75. (1991)
and
top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
from Taxing the Rich...A History Lesson
"Let them eat cake" - your proposed solution to the problem of dealing with these people - has a nasty reputation. It can work over long periods of time if applied with sufficient determination by a brutal tyranny. But there's nothing in our history to suggest that we could do so.
Further I find it extraordinary that a person who claims to be a Christian would find such actions moral.
Let me add, by the way, that I - a liberal according to you - believe that such a solution is inevitable unless we come up with miraculous technological and organizational fixes for the world's environmental and population problems. Drastic energy shortages are only the beginning unless we do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.