Posted on 12/13/2001 7:37:16 AM PST by John SBM
Socialism is still a dirty word in American politics. But, like an obese person who looks in the mirror and see a thin reflection denying they are fat, America is in a state of denial. If we look the evidence is there, but rather than admit it we refuse to acknowledge the word. Does evasion of the fact change the reality?
Every major historic period can be categorized by the dominant philosophy of the time. We know them. The Dark Ages, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment. And we know what each label represented as the dominant, generally accepted ideas of the time. These labels are attached however, not during the period, but after, when we can see them in the context of history. Whether we label our current period as Post-Modern or whatever, in historic context it could be labeled as The Altruist Evasion.
Altruism is the dominant, generally accepted idea underlying all of our political and cultural discourse, and it permeates both political parties. The ideas that economic rights are the basic rights of all Americans, that the government exists to promote the welfare of some at the expense of others, that we owe “service” and must “give back” to society – these are the basic premises of every issue. And Pragmatism rules every action – action for the sake of the emotional benefit of action rather than the result. Altruism demands pragmatic approaches, because it is based on emotional arguments and collapses when faced with principled challenges. Altruism is the underlying support for socialism, where group rights are primary, individual rights are disposable.
Take a look. The tax code exists to transfer wealth; the total tax burden exceeds 50% and is the single biggest expense for most working Americans. Politicians gain power through the give and take of economic rights and benefits – look at the economic stimulus debate. We talk of the right to housing, to health care, to prescription drugs, to guaranteed retirement, without ever asking “at whose expense?”
Ayn Rand summarized this very simply – when you abandon one set of principles you adopt another. We have abandoned the principles of individual rights and accepted those of economic rights – the degree of socialization doesn’t change that fact. We can evade the word “Socialism”, but that doesn’t change the reality.
That's why every single one of them deserves to dance at the end of a rope. They won't give up until we're all in chains or until they're all dead.
Actually, she questioned the underlying assumption that there was a "need" to do such on the part of others, and how that "need" supposedly obligated others to provide the solution.
Assuming you and your family were not limited by language barriers, there are dozens of other countries in which you would have a greater chance of prospering and living a full satisfying life.
Names please.
Of course, the difference is that Christian ideals come from a flawless person - Jesus Christ - who spoke nothing but absolute Truth about life, God, and our relationship to God. His teachings and commands are absolutely authoritative and unassailable. The only true philosophy. Thus, there is a difference between deviation from a false philosophy and deviation from the true philosophy.
This is the definition of moral relativism. If each person defines their own truth, then there can be no true philosophy and no motive for discussion.
This is not about personal annointments.
Sure it is...if each person defines their own values as you say, it is quite personal in every way.
Since we loan our money to the govenment, interest-free, each paycheck, and, since, really, we are at the mercy of the Federal Reserve for the rest of our money, I wonder if big government's actions since the attacks are just putting a nail or two in the coffin, so to speak. Because, if you think about it, we've been servants to the government for a very, very long time.
LOL! The takeover of the courts has been a prime avenue of the fascist left! That's what gave us all those special programs in public schools, bogus listings under the Endangered Species Act, and citation to those very unconstitutional treaties I cited. Is THAT what you want?
Sigh. Been there, did that. So, I fixed it. Really, go take a look.
Amen Brother.
This is just the latest nail and I am concerned because the recent attacks have given the impetus to drive the nails in faster so that we won't be able to get out of the coffin when we awake from our foolish sleep.
I'm sorry - you misunderstand me.
I meant that each person must evaluate the value and validity of her writings for himself. (Just as I can't judge for you whether this wine is good and that one pedestrian.)
I made no comment about truth, absolute or other. But that, too, is for each to determine based on his or her founding premises. You base yours on the belief in the Christian faith, and I respect that. My premises lay elsewhere.
Have you scanned a map of federal land ownership lately? Now consider the degree to which government controls the use of the rest through zoning law, codes, property taxes, farming subsidies, regulations...
We're on our way.
LOL!!!
seriously, how did you develop your model. you have studied this quie a bit. e-mail would be fine if you like.
Rejected? Why? Altruism? Using the courts is a way to power. So why should these "charitable" foundations desist? Your argument is, in that respect, a tautology.
can i get inside your head on this? can you elaborate? my views are 180 degrees out of synch.
thanks
And therefore there is none when a free market in risk-management is a perfectly appropriate service and venue. She simply didn't understand the mechanics of such, that is, unless you can make the citation. I certainly didn't see it in my readings of her work, which is one of the reasons I chose not to repeat her mistake in my book.
I believe that the people are perishing for lack of a vision. I believe that the leaders are not leading.
this eliminates public assistance but allows for private charity, as it should be.
As John pointed out, civil disputes would be handled in civil court (re: your pollution reference), and the terms of an employment contract would determine workplace injury dispositions.
i am not a spokesperson for all christians, but i can say that christians do want to love others, and many do so with christian charities. they solicit money directly from people and usually give it directly to people. low overhead, more love, so to speak.
i think most christians would abhor governments taking over their charities. i personally would like to see the government out of the charity business because i think caring people (atheists, jews, moslems, confucists, buddhists, tsaoists and christians) could all do a beter job.
the problem is not the love, it is the flawed program.
You are NOT alone! None Dare Call It Fascism
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.