Diest TKO wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Foxfyre wrote:You don't have to take my word for it. Just look up a good definition of 'classical liberal' and then read the words attributed to Jesus and what those close to him and his disciples said about him. It isn't rocket science.
As a rocket scientist, I can support that, yes, this is, in fact, not rocket science.
The part about your post which we have to take on your word is that Jesus' ideas were "common sense and with attention to how good intentions can produce unintended bad consequences." Seems like your homeboy was more about the good actions and not just the intentions.
Absolutely correct. Good actions on the part of the individual. Not good actions on the part of Rome. At no point did he suggest that it was the Romans' responsibility to do good works. It is the responsibility of the individual to show mercy, to forgive, to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit those in prison. Even the despised Samaritan demonstrated such virtue and should be viewed as a proper example of a good neighbor.
If this is the stance you're going to take, then Rome is USELESS and MEANINGLESS. If our government isn't challenged with the goal of providing, then it is a trivial thing.
Even a cursory understanding of the U.S. Constitution defines the five functions of government in the Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note that the intent is to promote (not provide) the general (not individual) welfare.
To ensure a level playing field between competing interests, provide necessary defense structures, establish a unified currency, enforce laws and regulations necessary for an orderly society, business, and commerce, and ensure that unalienable and legal rights would not be infringed, the Constitution further provides for four divisions charged with responsibilities for those functions: Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice
The Founders did not want the government to PROVIDE anything other than those functions that created an environment in which people could be free to follow their dreams and prosper. And it worked just fine up until the 1940s where that all began to change, slowly at first but then rapidly picking up steam once the snowball was started rolling.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:I'm sure your intentions are good.
Not always. I have feet of clay just like everybody else. But I like to think I intend for my intentions to be good.
I guess this is where we differ philosophically. Not everybody's feet are made of clay, so it's not a valid excuse. I have a higher standard.
Well my feet of clay apparently cause me to fail to acknowledge those who are perfect, never get anything wrong, and are beyond reproach.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:
Meanwhile please explain how it is moral to require Citizen A who made responsible choices so that he could prosper to support Citizen B who was mostly irresponsible?
False premise: You assume that Citizen A is prosperous because he/she was responsible. Very poor assumption.
I did not say that Citizen A is prosperous because s/he was resonsible. I am saying that Citizen A was responsible so that he could prosper Do you see the distinction? But however Citizen A became prosperous, how is it moral to require Citizen A to support Citizen B who was irresponsible or to support Citizen B for any reason at all?
There you go again. You are framing this as if Citizen B is irresponsible. How you can so blindly demonize the less fortunate is beyond me.
And what quirk of the brain would interpret what I said as demonizing anything or anybody is quite beyond my ability to comprehend.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:That's certainly important, but it's far from the hinge.
The idea that this is a "moral" issue is laughable as well.
What about those hard working americans that are living poor? What of your notion of responsibility now?
For me it is entirely an issue of morality; i.e. right versus wrong; edifying versus not edifying; beneficial versus harmful; productive versus nonproductive. My wish is that government would consider the morality of everything it does and choose what is right over what is wrong. My definition of sin is that which harms ourselves and/or others.
I don't even know where to begin addressing all that is hypocritical about this.
1) Whose definition of "right" and "wrong?"
2) If you wish is to have a government that considers the morality of everything it does, do you not wish for accountability? How do you plan to evaluate something like that? Didn't you just soap-box about Rome?
3) If this is your definition of "sin," then I hope you can find what it takes to be absolved of either your sins or your politics. I'll put it bluntly, your cherished conservative ideals are out of touch with reality and the policies coming out of your camp are doing harm.
The definition of right and wrong as understood by those willing to look at choices and consequences of policy that are universal and beyond ideology and who do not try to deflect that analysis with unrelated red herrings by bringing partisanship into it.
Quote:Foxfyre wrote:
As for those working poor, I don't know what choices they might have made. But I know the best shot for them is for us to encourage as many people as possible to become Citizen A's so that there will be economic prosperity and job creation and more opportunity for all.
Are you kidding me? This is your answer after lecturing about how Citizen A should not have to support Citizen B? That Citizen B needs to support Citizen A? Make no mistake about what you are implying here.
Citizen B might try and help support Citizen A to provide jobs and opportunity. It's in Citizen B's interest. However, Citizen A has no insentive to hire Citizen B or help in any way. If Citizen A can hire 5 Citizen Cs in country B for the price of Citizen B, then they will hire 4 and keep the money they saved for themselves.
Lastly, you opened the door on "responcibility," so what of corparate crime? A company can behave as irresponsible as they want if they have the money for the lawyers. The individuals involved may lose little if any capitol at all. Meanwhile a responsible bussiness owner can simply lose out because they don't short-cut the rules.
Your ideas are bunk.
T
K
O
[/QUOTE]
More red herrings and logic so convoluted that it makes no sense and I can't even imagine what you are attempting to say here. My point is that no human being, short of those who have been convicted of prosecutable crimes, should be required or forced to assume reponsibility for another person not of his own immediate family. I intended to say absolutely nothing other than that.
And so far you have not presented a single good argument for why my point of view on that is bunk.
