What is interesting to me is how those of you who keep going back to “we are helping those in need” prefer not to do it all yourselves but rather turn it over to the state, which is an external entity composed of bureaucrats. It is almost as if you are saying ”I can’t decide how to do it best myself, I don’t even want to choose where to put my helping money, I can’t organize a group or a charity, (even though they use mostly volunteers, which are WAY more cost effective, FREE in fact.) No, I would rather you the State just did everything and I can still have that helping the needy feeling and not have to choose” States do not use volunteers very often. They have to pay them exceptional wages and benefits, thus diluting the effectiveness. What you seem to be saying is “they know better than I do” That is OK with me, it just seems like giving away yourself to the state, which is the thing I am against. If you believe so strongly in helping the needy, why not just do it without the state? I would like to choose the areas I think need the most help. Governments that take most of your money don’t let you do that.
Doctors without Borders is an amazing group, (who need MONEY for some reason, I don‘t know why. ) They didn’t wait around for some bureaucrat to do something, they just did it themselves. And when the State sends troops to Afghanistan or does something else you don‘t like? In the name of “helping and protecting?” Too late, you handed your money and your control over to “them” already. It is always “them” who get to choose. You think you are choosing, but it is clear that you are not. You can make a fuss, but it did not stop them did it? You know what the ULTIMATE in “voting” is? Capitalism. Every single dollar you spend is a vote. A vote that will be counted too! Can’t be taken away from you. Everything you choose to spend money on is a vote for it. Think about that the next time you spend your money, what you have left of it, you already voted to give most of your choices away already. You don’t approve of something? Don’t buy it. There is no more powerful message, and it is your direct vote. I believe in personal choice. If you don’t, that is OK with me. On Aug 27, 7:44 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I do like Kunkel's take on capitalistic ventures and time. "Not the > least way that Marxism is opposed to capitalism is in its relationship > to time. Capitalist culture approaches a pure instantaneousness: no > future, no past". > Sure it's true that the culture of capitalism sees the now and > disregards the ramifications, such as issues of environmental > destruction, causal poverty and overall degradation of the extended > life cycle. So we do have profits in the hundreds of billions while > little attention is paid to the imperative which then leads to the > death of ducks. > Overall I don't think there is anything new when viewing the annals of > human history, the deaths of many for the ideals of the few. I think > it's a great topic which hopefully can elevate the group perspective > and focus. Thanks Chris! > > On Aug 27, 10:12 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > From > > here:http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/08/24/what-we-are-not-emb... > > > " > > > Here is a good debate proposition: It ought to be less embarrassing to have > > been influenced by Ayn Rand than by Karl Marx. > > > The most powerful way to argue the affirmative is to compare the number of > > human beings murdered by the devotees of each. That line of attack ought to > > be decisive, but I’m afraid it won’t get you far with the multitude of > > highly-self-regarded thinkers influenced by Karl Marx. Fact is, commitment > > to some kind of socialism and fluency in the jargon of Marxism used to be > > mandatory for serious intellectuals. And there’s something glamorous in the > > very idea of the intellectual. Even for those of us who came of age after > > 1989, Marxism, like cigarettes, remains linked by association to the idea of > > the intellectual, and so, like cigarettes, shares in the intellectual’s > > glamour. I don’t know if cigarettes or Marxism have killed more people, but > > it’s pretty clear cigarettes are more actively stigmatized. Marxists, > > neo-Marxists, crypto-Marxists, post-Marxists, etc. have an enduring > > influence on intellectual fashion. So it is not only possible proudly to > > confess Marx’s influence on one’s thought, but it remains possible in some > > quarters to impress by doing so. It ought to be embarrassing, but it isn’t. > > Being a bit of a Marxist is like having a closet full of pirate blouses but > > never having to worry." > > > This gave me pause for consideration. Rand's philosophies have been much > > maligned as "uncompassionate", while certain "socialist" (Marxist Communist) > > policies have been held up as an ideal, and yet, how many people have been > > killed in the name of Randian philosophy, and how many have been killed in > > the name of Marxist philosophy? > > > What do YOU think? ;)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
