Earl,
It would be interesting to know how many countries you lived, or
worked, in and how many languages you can communicate in?
Hakan
At 06:45 13/08/2005, you wrote:
Mike,
Where do I start?
First, I have a real problem with any government (U.S., state,
local) taking my hard earned money (in the form of taxes) and
redistributing it to others. Now, there are legitimate things that
each of these levels of government can spend taxpayer dollars on,
namely, those outlined in their constitution or charter. In the
case of the U.S. Government, these include national defense (not
necessarily offense, though), minting currency, postal services,
etc. When the U.S. Government (or perhaps the state governments)
start spending my money outside the bounds of the Constitution, it
is no longer legit. I would like to see Congress try and pass an
Amendment to allow giving loans to foreign nations and never
expecting repayment of those loans. How much support do you think
they would get from the populace?
Second, some people may consider giving funds or supplies to help
poorer nations or refugee groups as charity, which it is. But
charity is you or I freely donating my money to others for the
purpose of helping those in need. I have given money to help
victims of 9-11, I have helped feed the homeless in soup kitchens, I
have given my old clothing and furniture to Goodwill, Salvation
Army, etc. Governments, such as our federal government, do not own
the money they give to others - the money belongs to the taxpayers
(and bond holders) who provide the money. How can the U.S.
Government consider giving money to poor African countries as
charity, when it isn't their money to give? As I mentioned
previously, if the U.S. Government would stop taking my hard earned
money and "donating" away, perhaps I would have more money that I
could freely give to organizations like the Red Cross (this is only
one example, there are others) as charity.
Third, the idea of giving for the sake of giving is lost on most
politicians. Inside the "Beltway," a politician's power is measured
by his or her ability to fundraise - accepting money from some
"generous" sole to support some "Cause of the day." Have you ever
met a political donor that didn't expect something in return? The
President and Congress are just as guilty of wanting something in
return for helping other nations. How much money have they pumped
into the poorer nations of the Iraq War Coalition?
Socialism and true communism may have its value to some and will
thrive in some places of the world, but I prefer not to live under
it. Or at least, if I have to, please call it as such - The
Socialist Unoin of America.
The same goes for the United Nations.
Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.
Earl.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Michael Redler
To: <mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
Earl,
Earl wrote: "It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to
"donate" any portion of
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale."
Giving it a name (i.e. socialism or ...ism), doesn't explain why you
disagree. Please include something to support your position.
There are people in this list who (despite McCarthy's legacy)
understand the value of socialism and even communism (not to be
confused with Stalin's mislabeled brand of fascism) as a theoretical
model for democracy.
Mike
----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:48:58 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
Dale,
I don't mean to deflate your dream, but why do we need the government
beauracracy (of which the UN most certainly is) to guarranty these basic
human rights? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of every person on the
planet to protect his or her basic rights?
It seems to me that be requiring wealthy nations to "donate" any portion of
their GDP is just another form of socialism, except on a global scale.
Your other point about not getting involved with those poorer nations is
right on the money. The biggest terrorism problems in the US today are a
direct result of our meddling in other nations' affairs. If we spent less
time and money on controlling other countries, we could spend less time and
money on counter terrorism measures. Maybe then my taxes will go down and I
would be able to donate my own money to those poorer nations. But that, my
friend, is truly just a dream.
Regards,
Earl Kinsley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------
"That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
