Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Catloaf]

I'll spin it the other way and ask why you expect successful people to carry you.

Confucius, and basically all major religions.  The strong should provide for the weak.  It's the principle that the existence of government is based on.  You give someone power so that that person may use that power to serve you.  And those who obtain power are expected to serve those without power.  And yes, I know this makes no sense to you.  
Also, you say you only care about your friends and family, but people you haven't met may as well be part of your family you never see or friends you haven't met yet.

[Guild]

Catloaf: Confucius said we should more heavily tax the rich? I agree with your premise of what government is ideally for (though it could be argued government is established to control chaos, which people will probably say is a semantic difference), but not the conclusion you've drawn from it.

Also, don't presume what I understand and don't understand, and I'll do you the same courtesy. If I have a question, I'll ask it. The reason I didn't ignore your rhetoric like I did the rhetoric of others is that you're entertaining this discussion with a higher level of maturity breath-holding than some.

[sei]

The strong should provide for the weak.  It's the principle that the existence of government is based on.  You give someone power so that that person may use that power to serve you.  And those who obtain power are expected to serve those without power.  And yes, I know this makes no sense to you.

Nor should it.

Specifically,

You give someone power so that that person may use that power to serve you.

In the case of elected government, sure.

Power of office is not the only power out there.  People who've worked harder (or smarter) than I have aren't more powerful than I am because they want to serve me.  In many cases in which we aid in someone's ascent, it's without much knowledge or intent; e.g., I use Windows XP because of pragmatism, not out of love for MS or wanting to line Balmer's pockets.  Those in power—or better put, at an advantage—when compared to those at less advantage had more ambition, talent, determination, or (especially) ultimately dumb fucking luck.  Bearing those does not inherently indebt them to those less fortunate.

For the sake of everyone's sanity, pick one damned term (strong, successful, rich, powerful, or whatever) and STICK TO IT throughout, so that we don't drown in ambiguity.  They're not always interchangeable and I don't want to see another thread in which people are arguing about different things entirely or unknowingly yelling "No, I agree!" like that long clusterfuck back on pyoko whose topic eludes.

[A²]

People following the tenant of "Help those who can't help themselves" is probably why I, and several other mentally challenged people, are still alive. What I'm getting from Guild here is that such a mindset is wrong. Is this true?

[Classic]

Guild's made it clear he's just spouting poorly considered (because the constituency doesn't consider it, only repeat it) party-line bullshit.

2 bits says his response runs something like:
"It's the prerogative of the better-off to help those with less, not the obligation."
Or some such a thing.

[Thad]

I feel we've established that the GOP isn't fiscally conservative in the strictest sense of the word. The alternative is throwing my hat in with the not-going-to-the-whitehouse Libertarians or the vastly-more-inflationary Dems. Given that choice, I'll take the GOP.

Yeah, if we got a Democrat in the White House, he might balance the budget, kick people off welfare, create a surplus for four consecutive years, and start paying off the National Debt.  You're obviously much better off going with the party of Reagan and the Bushes.

Speaking of the deficit, and since we're talking "lesser of two evils", Obama's tax plan is going to cost about 2/3 of what McCain's is.

[Brentai]

Obama's tax plan is going to cost about 2/3 of what McCain's is.

Please explain to me why this is the first time I've heard that.

[Kazz]

Because Obama is friends with BILL AYERS.

THE EVILLEST PROFESSOR AT UIC, EVER!

[Thad]

Obama's tax plan is going to cost about 2/3 of what McCain's is.

Please explain to me why this is the first time I've heard that.

Dunno.  It was on CNN the other night, in the "fact check" segment after the debate.  factcheck.org has some numbers.

Because Obama is friends with BILL AYERS.

THE EVILLEST PROFESSOR AT UIC, EVER!

Speaking of that whole guilt-by-association thing, Letterman is the first person in the MSM to have the balls to point out that it could just as easily be applied to McCain's relationship with Liddy.

[Mongrel]

I think the 'rich must help the poor' argument, is actually taking the whole thing one step too far.

'Everyone for themselves' runs counter to the most basic instincts of the human species. It's not about advantages and disadvantages. It's about teamwork. Sometimes, this takes the form of redistribution. Be it a potlatch or a progressive tax plan. The only difference when it comes to government is scale. Due to the impersonal nature of larger groups (i.e. nations), that group can no longer depend on the basic human instinct to help those they know.

You can accuse redistributive taxation of being an oversimplification, of being chosen because it 'feels good' or is easy for 'the masses' to understand, but it's ultimately necessary. It's simply a larger, more complex iteration of basic fucking teamwork. And when your team has 300 000 000 people on it, some of them won't always like the way that works out.

But perhaps if you don't like that argument, and think that teamwork has no place in the country that is the worlds greatest shrine to rugged individualism, I'll offer you some good ole' pithy Americanian phrases instead.

United States.

United we stand.

The Union.

One nation.

We the people.

"We must all hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately"

_{Spah's sappin' mah income}

 

[Guild]

The irony, Mongrel, is that we're one of the most individualistic countries in the world.

By individualistic I mean that we strongly value the achievements of the individual and put less focus (socially and economically) on group achievement. Contrast to Japan where workers feel more pride in their company than their next Big Promotion.

People following the tenant of "Help those who can't help themselves" is probably why I, and several other mentally challenged people, are still alive. What I'm getting from Guild here is that such a mindset is wrong. Is this true?

Not wrong, but not an obligation. (Hi Classic)

That having been said, I do volunteer work/help old ladies cross streets/defend the weak on a daily basis/generally follow the golden rule, personally, but I don't expect others to do any of these within the confines of the law.

[Friday]

I PWNED YOU

instead of

Cool, I won that match, thanks to my healing monk being on the ball with damage prevention and the necro using support curses. The ranger interrupting res sig and generally making an ass out of himself (hi sei) helped, too.

... I have no idea why I'm making this comparison, unless it's to make fun of the US by calling it a War/Mo.

[Mongrel]

I PWNED YOU

instead of

Cool, I won that match, thanks to my healing monk being on the ball with damage prevention and the necro using support curses. The ranger interrupting res sig and generally making an ass out of himself (hi sei) helped, too.

... I have no idea why I'm making this comparison, unless it's to make fun of the US by calling it a War/Mo.

Well, if we're going down that road, I suppose I could make cracks about "Personal Glory Fortress 2", and how those types usually... lose.

[Brentai]

Well, more to the point, they lose the game everybody thinks they're playing, but win the game they're actually playing.

[TA]

And if enough people decide to play Personal Glory Fortress 2, then the entire team will lose, badly.  Because as much as they might like to be playing that, it's not the damn game.

[Guild]

Maybe if all the players worked together long enough to win but still broke up and did their own thing... we could call it shmovernment.

[Brentai]

Maybe if all the players worked together long enough to win but still broke up and did their own thing... we could call it the beginning of the Cold War.

[Mongrel]

Well, more to the point, they lose the game everybody thinks they're playing, but win the game they're actually playing.

Hey independant-types, if I jerk off hard enough, does that count as sex?