Exactly what is the definition of "Fair Share?"

[Unclebill]

Liberalism, progressivism and collectivism are not synonymous terms.

Collectivism is no longer your enemy. This is a battle that has been fought and won. Collectivism lost.

The -isms that are around today are entirely different.

Equality of opportunity is entirely different from equality of outcome. It seems to me you are quixotically tilting at windmills.

The world outside the United States, as well as some of your fellows, find these obsessions inward-looking. Things have moved on. There's a financial crisis or two, maybe a recession to worry about, climate change to argue about, science to advance, the widening gap between rich and poor to worry at. Mises, Hayek and Ayn Rand are dead.

Patrick

The fact is, those are synonymous terms. Early twentieth century progressivism began in earnest with Woodrow Wilson. His philosophy was that individualism must be subordinated to the 'common good' or the 'greater good of society', i.e. collectivism. His label of progressivism does not later the fact that philosophically, they are the same. Liberalism today is the chameleon concealing itself under a different name based on the same philosophy when progressivism was recognized be the American public for what it truly is and resoundingly rejected.

America was founded on the principles of individual rights and freedom. The defined purpose of government in the Founding Fathers' terms was to protect those rights. The rights recognized by the founders are directly counter to the government vision of Wilson and progressives [like Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, et al]. In essence, his progressive/liberal philosophy is anti-American based on the fact that the philosophy is diametrically opposed to the founding philosophy of America.

If you know your history of America, you know that the progressive income tax was created under Wilson's administration. You would also know that Teddy Roosevelt was a strong proponent of the inheritance [or estate or death] tax. The fact is, both of these taxes are right out of the Communist Manifesto under the portion where Marx and Engels lay out their methodology for converting any society to Communism. Likewise, the propaganda used to advocate for them is class warfare, which is yet another Marxist idea based on unequal distribution of wealth which is the inevitable result of freedom.

Both of these anti-American taxation systems have been used incessantly to fund the wealth redistribution ideas of progressive/liberals/collectivists since that time by ever increasing degrees. They are perpetuated and used to support the fallacy that the purpose of government is social engineering or social evolution as directed by the collectivists who advocate for such ideas.

If you recall, both Hillary and King Hussein called themselves progressives during the campaign, Hillary even being specific as to "early 20th century progressive".

One of the tenets of this ideology is that the purpose of government is social engineering based on the thoughtful knowledge of the political elite whose duty it is to manage the great unwashed masses who are in their enlightened opinion like children who need control and direction.

This idea is the foundation of the Obama administration. He's just another in a long line of statists who area still pursuing the conversion of America to communism or some variant of collectivism since there is no truly clear, definitive meaning of any particular strain of these diseases.

Since FDR in particular, America has been moving steadily toward collectivism primarily under the rule of the Democrats but facing little opposition from Republicans and that mostly in degree, not in substance or principle.

The most blatant examples are Social Security, government welfare, MediCare, MedicAid, FDIC, FSLIC, etc.

So collectivism has not lost: on the contrary, it continues to make inroads in America as we speak with Chairman MaObama being the most virulent proponent yet.

George Bush did his bit as an FDR socialist to add to it with his idiotic prescription drug program, more socialistic/communistic government stealing the wealth of one American for the benefit of another.

While von Mises, Hayek and Rand may be dead, the truths they spoke remain as true now as when spoken. If one were to apply your implied suggestion that their deaths necessarily negated the value of their ideas, then one could just as reasonably conclude that since Abraham Lincoln is dead, his idea that slavery was evil and should be abolished died with him and thus slavery today is once again valid. Such reasoning is the epitome of the fallacious.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The fact is, those are synonymous terms.

In much the same way that "Conservatism" is synonymous with "Facism" and "Nazism", i.e. there's a political philosophy I don't care for, so I'll attempt to conflate it with other unpopular philosophies.

If you know your history of America, you know that the progressive income tax was created under Wilson's administration. You would also know that Teddy Roosevelt was a strong proponent of the inheritance [or estate or death] tax. The fact is, both of these taxes are right out of the Communist Manifesto under the portion where Marx and Engels lay out their methodology for converting any society to Communism. Likewise, the propaganda used to advocate for them is class warfare, which is yet another Marxist idea based on unequal distribution of wealth which is the inevitable result of freedom.

"right out of the Communist Manifesto"?

It's right out of Thomas Paine, which most people with a cursory understanding of American History realize. Being the utter intellectual fraud that you are, we see a pathetic attempt to link progressive taxation with Communism.

Your arguments are utterly without merit, old man.

 

[Beco]

You know all about that. Do not play dumb, Miles.

shut up

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not really.

TR even had to take his "progressive" ideas outside the Republican party to run on them. BTW, nothing about Obama, who has no ideas of his own, can be accurately compared to TR.

Military service! Wait...no. Never mind.

 

[Unclebill]

In much the same way that "Conservatism" is synonymous with "Facism" and "Nazism", i.e. there's a political philosophy I don't care for, so I'll attempt to conflate it with other unpopular philosophies.

Once again the liberal fallacies abound. The truth is, liberalism/progressivism are more socialist or fascist than is conservatism. For those who know a bit about history, Nazi was an abbreviated term for National Socialist. This label might be legitimately applicable to the progressives on the republican side but to apply it to conservatives is false as conservative ideas are generally anti-collectivist.

"right out of the Communist Manifesto"?

It's right out of Thomas Paine, which most people with a cursory understanding of American History realize. Being the utter intellectual fraud that you are, we see a pathetic attempt to link progressive taxation with Communism.

Your arguments are utterly without merit, old man.

Perhaps it was borrowed from Paine by Marx but it is specifically cited in the Communist Manifesto despite your denial. That's an indisputable fact for anyone willing to read it and to recognize the truth. It's in the same area where Marx cites the necessity for a "free education in a public school system", a necessary tool for indoctrination of the children of a society against freedom and prosperity which are typically fellow travelers.

But the fact is, I am not, as you accuse, trying to “conflate it with other unpopular philosophies”, I am stating a simple fact that Marx & Engels specifically cited it as such in their Communist Manifesto. Anyone can look it up and read it for themselves and once they do, then they can make an informed decision as to which of us seeks to deceive. I’m not asking them to accept my statement but to check for themselves.

By denying such a blatantly obvious and provable truth, perhaps the chameleon is trying to conceal his true political/philosophical affiliation. Such vehement protestation certainly raises that question with me.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Once again the liberal fallacies abound. The truth is, liberalism/progressivism are more socialist or fascist that is conservatism.

Wanting something to be a "librul fallacy" doesn't make it so, no matter how fervently you wish it to be true.

For those who know a bit about history, Nazi was an abbreviated term for National Socialist. This label might be legitimately applicable to the progressives on the republican side but to apply it to conservatives is false as conservative ideas are generally anti-collectivist.

And those of us with more than a cursory knowledge of history understand that "National Socialism" was a market-tested buzzword coined by post-World War I businesses in an attempt to forestall the growth of Communism, which was spreading rapidly in Europe immediately after the "Great War". "National Socialism" was, and is, a fig leaf to cover garden-variety business-knows-best Fascism, the sort of government policies espoused by today's "Republican Conservatives'.

"National Socialism" was no more "socialism" than the "Democratic Republic of North Korea" is "republican".

Perhaps it was borrowed from Paine by Marx but it is specifically cited in the Communist Manifesto despite your denial. That's an indisputable fact for anyone willing to read it and to recognize the truth. It's in the same area where Marx cites the necessity for a "free education in a public school system", a necessary tool for indoctrination of the children of a society against freedom and prosperity which are typically fellow travelers.

But the fact is, I am not, as you accuse, trying to “conflate it with other unpopular philosophies”, I am stating a simple fact that Marx & Engels specifically cited it as such in their Communist Manifesto. Anyone can look it up and read it for themselves and once they do, then they can make an informed decision as to which of us seeks to deceive. I’m not asking them to accept my statement but to check for themselves.

I, too, urge people to "check for themselves"! People that take the time to check would find that you are, once again, "cherry picking" your facts to fit your political argument. "Progressive Taxation" has had four major proponents within the past 400 or so years:

• Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations (free market economist)
• Thomas Paine, in the pamphlet Agarian Justice (classic liberalism)
• The French Revolution, in the Declaration of Rights of Man (natural law)
• Karl Marx, in Das Kapital (communist)

"Progressive Taxation" is not, therefore, beholden to one particular political ideology, authors across the political spectrum have advocated for the adoption of progressive taxation, a fact that you seem singularly unable to reconcile with your preconceived political notions.

By denying such a blatantly obvious and provable truth, perhaps the chameleon is trying to conceal his true political/philosophical affiliation. Such vehement protestation certainly raises that question with me.

The only thing "blatantly obvious" is your cherry picking of facts and sins of omission in your hackneyed attempt to define progressive taxation in the worst light possible.

My "vehement protestation" is simply to call attention to what is at best, your lack of intellectual heft, or at worst, your outright intellectual fraud.

 

[patrick1]

Once again the liberal fallacies abound. The truth is, liberalism/progressivism are more socialist or fascist that is conservatism. For those who know a bit about history, Nazi was an abbreviated term for National Socialist. This label might be legitimately applicable to the progressives on the republican side but to apply it to conservatives is false as conservative ideas are generally anti-collectivist.



Perhaps it was borrowed from Paine by Marx but it is specifically cited in the Communist Manifesto despite your denial. That's an indisputable fact for anyone willing to read it and to recognize the truth. It's in the same area where Marx cites the necessity for a "free education in a public school system", a necessary tool for indoctrination of the children of a society against freedom and prosperity which are typically fellow travelers.

But the fact is, I am not, as you accuse, trying to “conflate it with other unpopular philosophies”, I am stating a simple fact that Marx & Engels specifically cited it as such in their Communist Manifesto. Anyone can look it up and read it for themselves and once they do, then they can make an informed decision as to which of us seeks to deceive. I’m not asking them to accept my statement but to check for themselves.

By denying such a blatantly obvious and provable truth, perhaps the chameleon is trying to conceal his true political/philosophical affiliation. Such vehement protestation certainly raises that question with me.

In my opinion you are unduly obsessed in your history with Marx and Engels.

The idea of 'collectivism' in the broad sense you're meaning, begins with Rousseau in the Social Contract, following Hobbes and Locke, and Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations.

From there three broad strands developed: liberalism, as represented say by John Stuart Mill; democratic socialism, as exemplified by the British Fabian Society, which morphed into modern social democracy; and Marxism.

It mystifies me why you think these three separate strands are somehow one. For 200 years thousands of thinkers have regarded themselves as belonging to one or another tradition. Were they all stupid?

Indeed some of your present-day right-wing Libertarians, for instance, are interested in whether Jeremy Bentham's 'utilitarianism', as part of the liberal strand, has a fudnamental role to play.

Much of what you say seems to address primarily American concerns. The world doesn't look the same in say Britain or South America. To us Obama seems a moderate centrist, and the raw hostility of American politics seems strange and needlessly unpleasant, when actually you all differ so little. Your fantastic military budget for instance seems little different under whatever regime

But that's how it looks to a Brit interested in American affairs.

Patrick

Patrick

 

[Unclebill]

Wanting something to be a "librul fallacy" doesn't make it so, no matter how fervently you wish it to be true.

I need not "want" these things to be "librul fallacy" as you so eloquently state. Liberalism itself is fundamentally dishonest. Irrationality, fallacies and lies are the meat and potatoes of the philosophical basis of liberalism.

It offers utopian fantasies disguising the slavery that necessarily entails and when told honestly that they are being offered slavery, rational people reject it.

And, as usual, when faced with truth you cannot deny, the next effort is to obfuscate by throwing as much irrelevant information as possible hoping it diverts and distracts the reader. You've made an excellent attempt at it below.

And those of us with more than a cursory knowledge of history understand that "National Socialism" was a market-tested buzzword coined by post-World War I businesses in an attempt to forestall the growth of Communism, which was spreading rapidly in Europe immediately after the "Great War". "National Socialism" was, and is, a fig leaf to cover garden-variety business-knows-best Fascism, the sort of government policies espoused by today's "Republican Conservatives'.

"National Socialism" was no more "socialism" than the "Democratic Republic of North Korea" is "republican".

First and foremost, what I stated was the Nazi is a contraction of National Socialism. Denying that National Socialism is socialism is a frantic effort to evade the truth once again.

Since virtually every practitioner of collectivism of whatever variant creates their own particular set of parameters for whatever they call it, i.e., socialism, communism, fascism, democratic socialism, etc., all variants of collectivism are fundamentally the same.

The three common tenets are: (1) negation of individual rights, (2) truth is whatever advances the agenda at the moment and (3) the ends justify the means.

The differences are facades, window dressing, propaganda to make them look unique and palatable.

Second, if you recall your history correctly, the communists joined with the National Socialists in Germany with the slogan "brown then red" meaning that the communists would aid the socialists [Nazis] in taking power and then the communists intended to usurp the power grabbed by the socialists with their support.

I, too, urge people to "check for themselves"! People that take the time to check would find that you are, once again, "cherry picking" your facts to fit your political argument. "Progressive Taxation" has had four major proponents within the past 400 or so years:

• Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations (free market economist)
• Thomas Paine, in the pamphlet Agarian Justice (classic liberalism)
• The French Revolution, in the Declaration of Rights of Man (natural law)
• Karl Marx, in Das Kapital (communist)

"Progressive Taxation" is not, therefore, beholden to one particular political ideology, authors across the political spectrum have advocated for the adoption of progressive taxation, a fact that you seem singularly unable to reconcile with your preconceived political notions.

Once again, the fundamental truth I stated stands. The progressive income tax is a Communist vehicle. If not, why would Marx & Engels put it in their Manifesto? All this other extraneous and irrelevant info does is offer a fog or smokescreen probably in the hope of diverting attention from the simple truth.

Your one attempted insinuation that a progressive income tax is part of a free market system is utterly false. A free market necessarily entails private property rights and a progressive income tax subverts property rights by giving the political thugs the authority to steal the wealth of the populace. The Communist Manifesto is quite clear in its perspective on private property (cited below), i.e.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, ...

.

The only thing "blatantly obvious" is your cherry picking of facts and sins of omission in your hackneyed attempt to define progressive taxation in the worst light possible.

My "vehement protestation" is simply to call attention to what is at best, your lack of intellectual heft, or at worst, your outright intellectual fraud.

I'm not cherry picking facts. I simply stated a fact and apparently it is one that you would rather not have people grasp hence your efforts to obfuscate and confuse the issue. If there's intellectual fraud, the rational readers will understand who is the practitioner here.

I wonder; are you a proponent of FDR?

 

[koalabear]

I need not "want" these things to be "librul fallacy" as you so eloquently state. Liberalism itself is fundamentally dishonest. Irrationality, fallacies and lies are the meat and potatoes of the philosophical basis of liberalism.

It offers utopian fantasies disguising the slavery that necessarily entails and when told honestly that they are being offered slavery, rational people reject it.

And, as usual, when faced with truth you cannot deny, the next effort is to obfuscate by throwing as much irrelevant information as possible hoping it diverts and distracts the reader. You've made an excellent attempt at it below.



First and foremost, what I stated was the Nazi is a contraction of National Socialism. Denying that National Socialism is socialism is a frantic effort to evade the truth once again.

Since virtually every practitioner of collectivism of whatever variant creates their own particular set of parameters for whatever they call it, i.e., socialism, communism, fascism, democratic socialism, etc., all variants of collectivism are fundamentally the same.

The three common tenets are: (1) negation of individual rights, (2) truth is whatever advances the agenda at the moment and (3) the ends justify the means.

The differences are facades, window dressing, propaganda to make them look unique and palatable.

Second, if you recall your history correctly, the communists joined with the National Socialists in Germany with the slogan "brown then red" meaning that the communists would aid the socialists [Nazis] in taking power and then the communists intended to usurp the power grabbed by the socialists with their support.



Once again, the fundamental truth I stated stands. The progressive income tax is a Communist vehicle. If not, why would Marx & Engels put it in their Manifesto? All this other extraneous and irrelevant info does is offer a fog or smokescreen probably in the hope of diverting attention from the simple truth.

Your one attempted insinuation that a progressive income tax is part of a free market system is utterly false. A free market necessarily entails private property rights and a progressive income tax subverts property rights by giving the political thugs the authority to steal the wealth of the populace. The Communist Manifesto is quite clear in its perspective on private property (cited below), i.e.
.



I'm not cherry picking facts. I simply stated a fact and apparently it is one that you would rather not have people grasp hence your efforts to obfuscate and confuse the issue. If there's intellectual fraud, the rational readers will understand who is the practitioner here.

I wonder; are you a proponent of FDR?

He sucks on Soros' shorts.

 

[rustywilliams]

"Fair" is determined politically, contingently and in context.

In 1100 AD, it was "fair" for the local lord to take half your harvest and rape your comely daughter in exchange for occasionally drafting you to pick up your flail or pruning hook and go off to fight some other poor bastards who were in the same boat.

In medieval England the landowners actually were the ones who went to war; it was part of the deal.
Also, when Rome was a republic, the wealthier members of the community did the fighting.

Mainly this was because they were the ones who could afford weapons (swords were enormously expensive) and perhaps because they were protecting their own belongings and their right to ream out the peasants.

That was their idea of fairness.

The argument about "fairness" seems to center around people who made their own money.
What if we let everyone who made their own money keep it?

But what about their layabout good-for-nothing children who feel entitled to be pampered, yet have done nothing to earn the privilege?

 

[Loring2]

Tyler Palko should make exactly as much as Aaron Rogers and Drew Brees...

You don'r understand 4est_ ... Brees and Rogers should earn the same as everybody else with a smalll bonus for 3 TD passes in one game. This as an incentive to strive for excellance.

Don't you see? .... Why within just a few generations we can bring the country to the levels of 1934.

Shoot the bastards !!!

 

[patrick1]

Since virtually every practitioner of collectivism of whatever variant creates their own particular set of parameters for whatever they call it, i.e., socialism, communism, fascism, democratic socialism, etc., all variants of collectivism are fundamentally the same.

Once again, the fundamental truth I stated stands. The progressive income tax is a Communist vehicle. If not, why would Marx & Engels put it in their Manifesto? All this other extraneous and irrelevant info does is offer a fog or smokescreen probably in the hope of diverting attention from the simple truth.

Your one attempted insinuation that a progressive income tax is part of a free market system is utterly false. A free market necessarily entails private property rights and a progressive income tax subverts property rights by giving the political thugs the authority to steal the wealth of the populace.

To repeat my earlier remark about the history of collectivism. Progressive taxation, like collectivism in its broadest sense, is associated with three separate broad strands of thought: liberalism, social democracy and Marxist communism.

These are not 'fundamentally the same'. Here is one tiny difference, I know I'm splitting hairs here but what the heck. The Communist Soviet Union under Stalin murdered millions of its citizens. The liberal and social democratic states did not.

Patrick

 

[Unclebill]

To repeat my earlier remark about the history of collectivism. Progressive taxation, like collectivism in its broadest sense, is associated with three separate broad strands of thought: liberalism, social democracy and Marxist communism.

These are not 'fundamentally the same'. Here is one tiny difference, I know I'm splitting hairs here but what the heck. The Communist Soviet Union under Stalin murdered millions of its citizens. The liberal and social democratic states did not.

Patrick

As much as you might dislike it, the fact is that if you strip away all the facades, the propaganda, the unique little quirks, all of these and all other variants of collectivism are based on thees three fundamental tenets:

1. Negation of individual rights
2. Truth is anything that advances the agenda of the collective at the moment
3. The end justifies the means

The second tenet explains [for anyone who hasn't grasped it yet] how liberals/progressives can make statements that are blatantly false from the objective perspective without no compunction whatsoever and tomorrow say the direct opposite of what they said yesterday.

It's the practice known from the days of the Soviet Union as propaganda, telling the subjects of the collective what they are to believe rather than the truth.

I think perhaps you are intentionally 'forgetting' the National Socialists in Germany under Hitler's reign. I seem to recall a little thing called The Holocaust during which a couple of million people were exterminated. Or maybe because the National Socialists in Germany didn't achieve murder on the grand scale of the socialists in Soviet Russia or the Chinese communists, you're dismissing their efforts. Or is that 'one tiny difference' the 20,000,000 or so margin between the slaughters in Germany and Soviet Russia? Both being socialist if you recall (USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)

Or are you among the growing number today who outright deny that the holocaust in Nazi Germany actually occurred?

The end result of collectivism has always been destruction and it is now destroying America.

Collectivism always needs a scapegoat. In America, that scapegoat has become 'Big Business', the 'one percent', 'the rich'. To my recollection Karl Marx was the originator of using class warfare to persecute this scapegoat, FDR applied Marx's strategy marvelously during his reign of terror and the Democrat Party has been using it increasingly ever since FDR's magnificent success in turning one American against another with lies and distortion.

Chairman MaObama is simply practicing the tried and true policies and propaganda of his predecessors and philosophical mentors Marx, Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson to name a few.

 

[eyer]

Exactly what is the definition of "Fair Share?"

Comments?

Exactly whatever I deem it to be at whatever applicable time...

...

Who'd you like to see as the next American president?

 

[rustywilliams]

The second tenet explains [for anyone who hasn't grasped it yet] how liberals/progressives can make statements that are blatantly false from the objective perspective without no compunction whatsoever and tomorrow say the direct opposite of what they said yesterday.

Why do right wingers keep trotting out this nonsense when the right is far guiltier?

Have you heard Gingrich trying to explain how he is against the health care mandate he championed in the 90's?
How about all the right wingers wailing about the budget deficit, and yet when they were in power, we were told it didn't matter?
Jesus, do you really believe this rubbish?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Why do right wingers keep trotting out this nonsense when the right is far guiltier?

Have you heard Gingrich trying to explain how he is against the health care mandate he championed in the 90's?
How about all the right wingers wailing about the budget deficit, and yet when they were in power, we were told it didn't matter?
Jesus, do you really believe this rubbish?

face it, you want higher taxes and more entitlements, right?

 

[Unclebill]

Why do right wingers keep trotting out this nonsense when the right is far guiltier?

Have you heard Gingrich trying to explain how he is against the health care mandate he championed in the 90's?
How about all the right wingers wailing about the budget deficit, and yet when they were in power, we were told it didn't matter?
Jesus, do you really believe this rubbish?

I can't speak for the right-wingers to whom you refer but as for myself, I bring it up because it is true.

Regarding the budget deficit, those who said it don't matter are those of the progressive/liberal mindset and are not "right-wingers" but are politically and philosophically left, i.e., authoritarian, totalitarian collectivists. Despite being a (R)republican, George Bush was at least partly of the leftist liberal mindset of the FDR sociofascist in that he sought to expand the collectivist welfare state via the prescription drug program.

The one inescapable fact they all ignore is the simple truth that there is no free lunch. Everything they want to give away as 'free' is paid for by someone but so long as the victim whose wealth is stolen for these collectivist fallacies and fantasies remain unseen, the myth can be perpetuated.

Just because someone has the Republican Party identification does not mean they have rejected the tenets of liberalism/progressivism/collectivism, e.g., John McCain aka Obama-lite. How do you suspect (R)republicans can continue to support the perpetuation of Social Security, Medicare, the welfare state, insidious government regulation and intervention into the economy when they have no constitutional authority to do so?

If you listen to the typical right-winger, the message they constantly preach is limited government which happens to the be the philosophy of the Founding Fathers as manifest in the Constitution.

As to being guilty of this, it's an absolute lie to suggest that the right-wingers are more guilty. But then, when you have taken the position that principles are irrelevant which liberals clearly did during the Clinton debacle, then you can state as true anything as you have so eloquently displayed here. You merely employ collectivist tenet #2, i.e., whatever you say is true since there is no objective measure and reality is irrelevant.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

just like with the USPS we must terminate 1/3 of the workers. in government we must terminate min of 1/3 of the government workers and take pay back down to year 2000 levels.

government mustn't be the 1%

I can't speak for the right-wingers to whom you refer but as for myself, I bring it up because it is true.

Regarding the budget deficit, those who said it don't matter are those of the progressive/liberal mindset and are not "right-wingers" but are politically and philosophically left, i.e., authoritarian, totalitarian collectivists. Despite being a (R)republican, George Bush was at least partly of the leftist liberal mindset of the FDR sociofascist in that he sought to expand the collectivist welfare state via the prescription drug program.

The one inescapable fact they all ignore is the simple truth that there is no free lunch. Everything they want to give away as 'free' is paid for by someone but so long as the victim whose wealth is stolen for these collectivist fallacies and fantasies remain unseen, the myth can be perpetuated.

Just because someone has the Republican Party identification does not mean they have rejected the tenets of liberalism/progressivism/collectivism, e.g., John McCain aka Obama-lite. How do you suspect (R)republicans can continue to support the perpetuation of Social Security, Medicare, the welfare state, insidious government regulation and intervention into the economy when they have no constitutional authority to do so?

If you listen to the typical right-winger, the message they constantly preach is limited government which happens to the be the philosophy of the Founding Fathers as manifest in the Constitution.

As to being guilty of this, it's an absolute lie to suggest that the right-wingers are more guilty. But then, when you have taken the position that principles are irrelevant which liberals clearly did during the Clinton debacle, then you can state as true anything as you have so eloquently displayed here. You merely employ collectivist tenet #2, i.e., whatever you say is true since there is no objective measure and reality is irrelevant.

 

[HAL_9000]

Karma is the ultimate arbitrator of "fair shares".

Some people actively attempt to boost their karma by volunteering, working hard every day, donating, etc.

Others have a philosophy that "less is more". Hard work is for the mentally impaired, donating and volunteering is a waste of energies, and hoarding to the point of futility is the ultimate expression of self-worth.

Tne reality, as always is somewhere in the middle. Shades of gray in a politically black and white world.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

and sadly we have others that refuse to work and demand that society pay for them to live. just look at that baby welfare mother, what she had 15 kids and demanded others to pay for her sorry ass and children?

we need to end welfare as there shouldn't be any free rides

Karma is the ultimate arbitrator of "fair shares".

Some people actively attempt to boost their karma by volunteering, working hard every day, donating, etc.

Others have a philosophy that "less is more". Hard work is for the mentally impaired, donating and volunteering is a waste of energies, and hoarding to the point of futility is the ultimate expression of self-worth.

Tne reality, as always is somewhere in the middle. Shades of gray in a politically black and white world.

 

[renard_ruse]

In medieval England the landowners actually were the ones who went to war; it was part of the deal.
Also, when Rome was a republic, the wealthier members of the community did the fighting...

Bravo for someone who actually knows a little about history.

Traditional societies were often hierarchical but not necessarily unequal when the totality of rights vs. responsibilities is considered. I've read that the average peasant in the middle ages worked less hours per week and had more free time than the average cubicle worker in the early 21st century.

Life was hard for everybody because of disease, famine, early death, etc, but in some ways things really weren't that much worse than they are today, just different. In some ways things were more fair.

 

[renard_ruse]

Why do right wingers keep trotting out this nonsense when the right is far guiltier?

Have you heard Gingrich trying to explain how he is against the health care mandate he championed in the 90's?
How about all the right wingers wailing about the budget deficit, and yet when they were in power, we were told it didn't matter?
Jesus, do you really believe this rubbish?

Then you fall on your face in another post. Taking your back.

 

[Bob Waters]

The super-duper rich pay less than they have at any time in the last 60 years. OTOH, we have more people than ever before who pay no taxes at all. IMO, neither group is paying their 'fair share'.

But given that I think the Government is spending too much I don't get too worked up about it. I won't support the idea of tax increases until I see some serious reductions from present spending levels.

 

[HAL_9000]

The super-duper rich pay less than they have at any time in the last 60 years. OTOH, we have more people than ever before who pay no taxes at all. IMO, neither group is paying their 'fair share'.

But given that I think the Government is spending too much I don't get too worked up about it. I won't support the idea of tax increases until I see some serious reductions from present spending levels.

And yet, if we reduced "defense spending" , ie: rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, we would probably have a budget surplus without having to raise taxation at all.

But no, it seems better to pour money in to improving shitholes on the other side of the globe rather than doing any sort of domestic work.