I don't see the slightest relevance in your post other than some tangent thought process.
On Aug 27, 10:43 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
