-Caveat Lector-
MJ:
Government should serve ONLY to provide ALL individuals
protection fron FORCE and FRAUD ... certainly that should
take closer to 5% of one's earnings rather than 50% plus.
Edward Britton wrote:
This would be fine, but how would the government "know" whom
to protect inasmuch as there is a significant portion of our
population with no political voice. Therefore this governmental
attribute you hold so dear becomes a defense mechanism for the
elite. Hence the present chasm, in this nation, between the
have's and the have-not's.
MJ:
Not at all ... Jefferson identified Natural Rights in the
Declaration of Independence. THIS -- an individual's RIGHT
to his OWN life -- is the standard for our moral nation AND
for a free society. If the government merely upheld this
standard by protecting ALL ... your emotive concerns regarding
'haves' and 'have-nots' (whatever that might entail) has no
bearing.
What you describe above is what we are currently saddled -- a
government which has exceeded the limitations imposed upon
it ... utilizing its monopoly of legalized force to 'grow' its
power. In exchange for votes, the G takes money from productive
citizens and redistributes it to the elderly for instance.
May I recommend:
Frederic Bastiat _The Law_
http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/ring.cgi?page=2&ring=bastiat
MJ:
For the Government to 'care for' or 'provide for' these
urban outdoorsmen (who are reaping the net result of the
CHOICES they made) it must first TAKE from others. How
is this 'fair' to those 'gripers' you describe above?
Edward Britton wrote:
A) How do the mentally impaired fall under your rubric of
"reaping the net result of the choices they make"?
How do those families--specifically children-- displaced
by economic down-turns fall under the rubric of "net
result of choice"?
B) It is fair by nature of the fact that the aforementioned
gripers reap a disproportionately large benefit from
life in this society.
MJ:
A. The 'mentally impaired' are the responsibility of the
parents that freely chose to procreate.
A2. If one had a TRUE concern for children they would REVERSE the
current course for their care -- supplying THEM to the means
rather than the means to their irresponsible parents.
B. ANYONE can benefit from a FREE society (which ours certainly
is NOT at current)
MJ:
Throwing around emotives like 'Social Darwinists' ... if one
has the RIGHT to survival ... he has the RIGHT to enslave
another for such a purpose.
Edward Britton wrote:
"Social Darwinism" is hardly an emotive and hardly a term that
I coined. It refers to a general belief in the social equivalent
of survival of the fittest. Such a doctrine is fine in feudal
systems, but once a social system has been formed for the mutual
benefit of all (civilization), such doctrines become
antiquated--or would if not revived by those of rightist bent.
Choose one: feudal system or civilization (representative
democracy or otherwise) and be willing to pay the price for
your decision.
MJ:
How exactly does one with a desire for treating every person
to the SAME standard equate to 'social darwinism'?
I do not subscribe to the 'strawman' attempts you assert above ...
I merely believe EACH and EVERY individual has a RIGHT to their
OWN life with Government serving its legitimate function by
subjagating FORCE to this standard.
[note I have ONLY addressed someone FORCING another to aid in THEIR
cause -- the ideal of charity has NOT been broached.]
MJ:
Yes, this is typical ... blame *ANYONE* but one's self.
Who -- exactly --made those choices which placed you in
the predicament?
Edward Britton wrote:
In this/my case, you are partially correct. I was to blame for
not having adequately prepared myself financially (at nineteen,
such concepts were sort of abstract :-)). My employer took it
from there by downsizing me during the initial stages of
Reagan's "trickle-down" economy.
MJ:
More emotive chich�s ... which are truly meaningless.
Need I LIST the various choices you made which placed you in your
dilemma? Do you believe one has the RIGHT to a job?
MJ:
When one is free to make his own decisions, how is it another's
fault when the results prove deficient?
Edward Britton wrote:
This is the key deficiency in the understanding of those of
rightist affiliation: a great many people fall prey to
circumstances beyond their control, and well outside the realm
of choice. One can stretch the philosophy of "blame the victim"
only so far before the argument becomes rediculous.
MJ:
'Blame the victim' ... ???
There is a powerful craving in most of us to see ourselves as
instruments in the hands of others and thus free ourselves from
the responsibility for acts which are prompted by our own
questionable inclinations and impulses. Both the strong and
the weak grasp at this alibi. The latter hide their malevolence
under the virtue of obedience: they acted dishonorably because
they had to obey orders. The strong, too, claim absolution by
proclaiming themselves the chosen instrument of a higher
power -- God, history, fate, nation or humanity. -- Eric Hoffer
MJ:
Are you fearful of freedom?
Edward Britton wrote:
I am fearful of being run over by a system in which I have
no representation. I guess it's a matter of choosing who
and by what means should I be run over.
MJ:
If one is treated the SAME as all others ... how is this possible?
MJ:
Why must you carelessly toss around emotive language in an
attempt to obscure the issue?
Edward Britton wrote:
Clearly a matter of interpretation :-)
MJ:
Sure.
Regard$,
--MJ
The anointed don't like to talk about painful trade-offs. They
like to talk about happy "solutions" that get rid of the whole
problem -- at least in their imagination. -- Thomas Sowell
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
