Check out this article I found

[K-Gun]

Restoring Focus on Progressive Values Means Fighting for a Better World

Anonymous


“Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us do our duty as we understand it."
-Abraham Lincoln

In recent decades, liberalism has been the target of sustained attack. The main focus has shifted from an assault on liberal values, to a campaign to illegitimate liberalism itself. The effectiveness of the war on liberalism is due in large part to the unwillingness, or the inability of liberals to effectively articulate their value system. To liberals, defending oneself in the face of right-wing onslaught may seem trivial. Typical reflections occur on the order: why give credit to fallacious arguments by engaging their advocates in their own terms? And so, the conclusion often drawn is that one ought not to play their game. But this line of reasoning is inappropriate for several reasons.

To the honest conservative, and they are the majority on the right, liberals who refuse to defend their value system only reinforce the claim that liberals have no values. Progressives should take note, engaging in honest dialogue with people who possess strong convictions, and contrasting values, is very different than stepping into a viper’s pit to prove one has strong moral grounding. It appears that liberals and progressives alike do disservice to their cause when they ignore honest questions from honest conservatives. In fact, this has gone on for so long, it seems that many on the right truly believe progressives do not have a well formed since of morality. It is high time for this game to end.

One of the classic arguments that attempts to paint liberalism as a value free philosophy was recently presented on C-Span’s Book TV by author and BBC correspondent Douglas Murray. In his talk, presented by the Hudson Institute, Mr. Murray recapped the general thesis of his book “Neo-conservatism- Why We Need It.” The argument is simple and well known:

P1. Liberalism entails relativism.
P2. Relativism does not allow one to make absolute moral judgments.
xxxxTherefore, liberalism is a form of nihilism.

This argument is simply unsound. When progressives talk about relativism they mean that different people, faiths and philosophies hold different values dear. From the conclusion of this argument, Mr. Murray would have us believe that progressives possess no values. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Incidentally, it is interesting to note Mr. Murray’s definition of neo-conservatism. His claim is such that neo-conservatism is firmly rooted in a sense of realism, or “how the world is” (read: nasty and brutish), yet guided by a sense of idealism, or “an attempt to construct the world as they see fit.” It is necessary for traditional conservatives and progressives alike to understand what neo-conservatives mean when they talk about grounding their philosophy in the way the world really is. And it is this basic principal that allows neo-conservatives to make absolute value judgments, as well as attempt to impose their will upon the world. What they mean is: “might makes right.” This tenet must be roundly rejected by progressives as well as conservatives, and provides all the more reason for progressives to once again effectually advocate their value system.

So what are progressive values? Let us start with a strong juxtaposition with the neo-conservative value system. Progressives, from Socrates to Jesus Christ have known and advocated the position that “right makes might,” though it took an awkward looking American progressive to put it so eloquently. Another basic tenet of progressive morality is the Golden Rule, and a philosophical version known as moral contractualism. Moral contractualism professes that the source of one’s morality comes back to a basic motivation to justify one’s actions to others. That is, a motivation to act in such a way as being justified, which is itself rooted in empathy for others and a drive towards personal responsibility. If another person, real or imaginary, would have grounds to reject one’s action, one’s action would be immoral. The progressive value system has profound implications.

Dr. George Lakoff has analyzed this value system in his book “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think,” and has come to some extraordinary conclusions. He found that progressives believe in a basic family structure known as the “nurturing parent model.” In the view of progressives, parents are supposed to stand as role models of personal responsibility, and nurture their children with love and empathy. The basic assumption is that people are basically good, and love and empathy help foster moral adults. Neglect and abuse cause people to view the world negatively, as a place that does not care about them; in the mind of the neglected and abused, why should they care about anyone if no one cares about them? To progressives, those with high moral character are altruistic simply because it is the right thing to do. This is very different from the conservative value system, which Dr. Lakoff has labeled the “strict father model.” In this value system, the father must impose discipline upon his children because people are born inherently evil. Through severe punishment the father engrains self-discipline in his children. To the conservative, the most honorable people are self-motivated and self-disciplined, and act in their own self-interest within the law. Dr. Lakoff extends these models into nearly every area of the political arena with some astonishing results. But most important is his demand that progressives once again promote their value structure.

I cannot emphasize the need for a proactive approach in this matter strongly enough. No longer should progressives feel the need to defend anything. Despite the rhetoric, the American people are not at war with each other. There are honest differences at play between honest people, but unfortunately the vipers on both sides hiss the loudest. What are no longer needed are tricky debate tactics and a win at all cost mentality, but rather an attempt to reach across the dividing lines to the nurturing parent in every conservative. Deep down, they too want to believe the world is a good place for their children to grow; they only need reassurance from their progressive counterparts that we in fact believe that good triumphs in the end. It is only with honest dialogue that the grip of neo-conservatism can be exposed to those who do not share the fundamental tenet that “might makes right.” How un-American and un-democratic that principal really is, for it wants to make the world as it sees fit—as it aims to make the world subject to American military and economic dominance—simply because we have the ability to do so. Progressives, on the other hand, know America is the greatest moral force manifest in human history, and that neo-conservatism is eroding our moral superiority. With strength of conviction, progressives and conservatives can find common ground, and fight for a better world founded firmly in the faith of our moral duty to promote the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness both at home and abroad. But, this process will only begin when progressives stop taking cues from their silent liberal compatriots, and start standing up for their core values.

[Gibby]

lot of good stuff in here JKIG. BTW I'm about half way through your philosopher friend.

[K-Gun]

lot of good stuff in here JKIG. BTW I'm about half way through your philosopher friend.

lol, give me some notes on Margolis when you're done.

[Gibby]

lol, give me some notes on Margolis when you're done.

sure will. He is an interesting read.

[Green Lantern]

Thanks for the post.

I have said that conservatives and liberals need to take back politics from the neo-cons before.

As one of the neo-con founders said, neo-cons are liberals who were mugged by reality.

They are no longer idealistic liberals or realist conservatives but something in between. It is more like that they are a twisted composite of both traditions. Man, they must hate themselves to have both those urges competing within them all the time.

They are like gollum.

[Gibby]

Thanks for the post.

I have said that conservatives and liberals need to take back politics from the neo-cons before.

As one of the neo-con founders said, neo-cons are liberals who were mugged by reality.

They are no longer idealistic liberals or realist conservatives but something in between. It is more like that they are a twisted composite of both traditions. Man, they must hate themselves to have both those urges competing within them all the time.

They are like gollum.


I completely agree.

[K-Gun]

In my opinion, what neocons mean by "absolute moral judgments" or authority is that that authority stems from natural rights, and natural rights stem from natural law.

There are two opposing conceptions of natural law, the ancient and the modern sense.

The ancient sense means that man must act in accordance with nature i.e. the strong rule the weak, or as this author has stated, "might makes right."

The modern conception of natural law, as expounded in the US Constitution, believes that men have certain inalienable rights that no government can take away. So, when you put the two conceptions up against each other, the ancient notion of natural law contradicts modern natural law, in that strong government has the right and duty to impose its will upon its subjects.

Neoconservatives believe in ancient natural law, as developed by the philosopher Leo Strauss, their intellectual father.

In a sense, and the reason why I agree with this author, neoconservatives are anti-American, in that their conception of natural law/right contradicts the very foundation of the American Constitution, and that foundation is the root of their claim to possess absolute moral authority, because America is the strongest country militarily.

Why they have been able to own traditional conservatives is precisely on the issue of absolute moral judgments, because most traditional conservative believe in the absolute moral authority of God. It is funny when you find out that most neoconservatives are atheists, but they never let that stop in their way of telling Christian conservatives that good and evil are absolute entities, and we the American people are absolutely good. To the neocon this has nothing to do with God, but rather with our absolute military dominance.

[Gibby]

In my opinion, what neocons mean by "absolute moral judgments" or authority is that that authority stems from natural rights, and natural rights stem from natural law.

There are two opposing conceptions of natural law, the ancient and the modern sense.

The ancient sense means that man must act in accordance with nature i.e. the strong rule the weak, or as this author has stated, "might makes right."

The modern conception of natural law, as expounded in the US Constitution, believes that men have certain inalienable rights that no government can take away. So, when you put the two conceptions up against each other, the ancient notion of natural law contradicts modern natural law, in that strong government has the right and duty to impose its will upon its subjects.

Neoconservatives believe in ancient natural law, as developed by the philosopher Leo Strauss, their intellectual father.

In a sense, and the reason why I agree with this author, neoconservatives are anti-American, in that their conception of natural law/right contradicts the very foundation of the American Constitution, and that foundation is the root of their claim to possess absolute moral authority, because America is the strongest country militarily.

Why they have been able to own traditional conservatives is precisely on the issue of absolute moral judgments, because most traditional conservative believe in the absolute moral authority of God. It is funny when you find out that most neoconservatives are atheists, but they never let that stop in their way of telling Christian conservatives that good and evil are absolute entities, and we the American people are absolutely good. To the neocon this has nothing to do with God, but rather with our absolute military dominance.


This post is very good JKIG

[Green Lantern]

In my opinion, what neocons mean by "absolute moral judgments" or authority is that that authority stems from natural rights, and natural rights stem from natural law.

There are two opposing conceptions of natural law, the ancient and the modern sense.

The ancient sense means that man must act in accordance with nature i.e. the strong rule the weak, or as this author has stated, "might makes right."

The modern conception of natural law, as expounded in the US Constitution, believes that men have certain inalienable rights that no government can take away. So, when you put the two conceptions up against each other, the ancient notion of natural law contradicts modern natural law, in that strong government has the right and duty to impose its will upon its subjects.

Neoconservatives believe in ancient natural law, as developed by the philosopher Leo Strauss, their intellectual father.

In a sense, and the reason why I agree with this author, neoconservatives are anti-American, in that their conception of natural law/right contradicts the very foundation of the American Constitution, and that foundation is the root of their claim to possess absolute moral authority, because America is the strongest country militarily.

Why they have been able to own traditional conservatives is precisely on the issue of absolute moral judgments, because most traditional conservative believe in the absolute moral authority of God. It is funny when you find out that most neoconservatives are atheists, but they never let that stop in their way of telling Christian conservatives that good and evil are absolute entities, and we the American people are absolutely good. To the neocon this has nothing to do with God, but rather with our absolute military dominance.


First, I think you give most neo-cons too much credit. I had to do research on them for my thesis and they are not prone to philosophical thought; not even the philosophical ones (Muravchik). Nor are they much for consistency in thought. They will call things facts that they cannot prove, call people liars who they have not read...basically all the worst parts of the bible.

Second, I do not know where you get your "natural law" theory. The ancients, from my studies, believed in the "nature" of man, which contradicts our modern assumptions about the nature of man but they did not have a "natural law". Natural law theory was invented by Thomas Hobbes while trying to end religious civil war in England by trying to show that "by nature" man is to be ruled by other men.

Third, please read Leo Strauss before condemning him to the neo-con camp.

[K-Gun]

First, I think you give most neo-cons too much credit. I had to do research on them for my thesis and they are not prone to philosophical thought; not even the philosophical ones (Muravchik). Nor are they much for consistency in thought. They will call things facts that they cannot prove, call people liars who they have not read...basically all the worst parts of the bible.

Second, I do not know where you get your "natural law" theory. The ancients, from my studies, believed in the "nature" of man, which contradicts our modern assumptions about the nature of man but they did not have a "natural law". Natural law theory was invented by Thomas Hobbes while trying to end religious civil war in England by trying to show that "by nature" man is to be ruled by other men.

Third, please read Leo Strauss before condemning him to the neo-con camp.

First, I don’t consider your descriptions of necons to be at all accurate. They may call themselves such, but have no philosophical grounding in the tradition, thus they have no bearing on the discussion.

Second, the concept of natural law originated with Heraclites around 600 BC. Here’s a good read on the subject:

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/04/clnatlaw.html

Third, I've read many commentaries on Strauss, Gadamer's is particularly informative in Truth and Method. But I have also read a number of Strauss’s correspondences. The letters between he and Karl Loewith are particularly insightful... Let me quote you some of the juicy tidbits:

“Just because Germany has turned to the right and has expelled us, [the Jews] it simply does not follow that the principles of the right are therefore to be rejected. To the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the right—fascist, authoritarian, imperial [emphasis in original]—is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to ‘the inalienable rights of man’ to protest against the mean nonentity [meaning the Nazis]… under imperial rule the subjected are spared and the proud are subdued… there is no reason to crawl to the cross, even to the cross of liberalism, as long as anywhere in the world the spark glimmers of Roman thinking. And moreover, better than any cross is the ghetto.” May, 1933, Strauss here criticizes the Nazis from the right, say99ng they are not authoritarian enough.

But what of natural right? Here he Strauss’s letter to Helmut Kuhn:


“Natural right (jus or justum naturale, physikon dikaion or to physei dikaion), is I contend, an important and even central theme of both Plato and Aristotle. As for Plato, I refer to the Republic 501 b 2 (and context). This passage must be read in conjunction with such passages as Republic 484 c 8-d 3 and 597 b-d. It thus becomes clear that for Plato "natural right" strictly understood, that which is right by itself and not in particular through man's making it right, is the same as "the idea of justice." Besides, the whole order of the best polity is emphatically "according to nature," whereas the "present" arrangements are apparently "against nature." (456 c 1-2). The very justice of the polity of the Republic depends upon its being "according to nature." The legislator in the Laws follows "the natural order" of the various good things (631 d 1-2). The domination of prudence or law is "according to nature." (690 c 1-3). Cf. also Laws 765 e for a clear statement of the relation between "nature" and "end." The whole Platonic doctrine of the order of the soul and of the order of the virtues is the doctrine of natural right if it is true that `justice" does not necessarily mean one of the many virtues but the all comprehensive virtue. Cf. furthermore Laws 757 c 3-d 5, regarding the relation of distributive justice to "nature." To summarize, Plato's best polity is the order of human things dictated by natural right.”

My point, is, that Strauss’s “imperial, authoritarian” roots, has him siding with Plato’s Thrasymachus, that indeed, justice is the will of the strong over the will of the weak, thereby fulfilling the greatest of all virtues, in Strauss’s estimate, in accordance with nature…

http://www.straussian.net/letters.html#lowith

http://www.straussian.net/letters.html#kuhn

[Gibby]

First, I don’t consider your descriptions of necons to be at all accurate. They may call themselves such, but have no philosophical grounding in the tradition, thus they have no bearing on the discussion.

Second, the concept of natural law originated with Heraclites around 600 BC. Here’s a good read on the subject:

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/04/clnatlaw.html

Third, I've read many commentaries on Strauss, Gadamer's is particularly informative in Truth and Method. But I have also read a number of Strauss’s correspondences. The letters between he and Karl Loewith are particularly insightful... Let me quote you some of the juicy tidbits:

“Just because Germany has turned to the right and has expelled us, [the Jews] it simply does not follow that the principles of the right are therefore to be rejected. To the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the right—fascist, authoritarian, imperial [emphasis in original]—is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to ‘the inalienable rights of man’ to protest against the mean nonentity [meaning the Nazis]… under imperial rule the subjected are spared and the proud are subdued… there is no reason to crawl to the cross, even to the cross of liberalism, as long as anywhere in the world the spark glimmers of Roman thinking. And moreover, better than any cross is the ghetto.” May, 1933, Strauss here criticizes the Nazis from the right, say99ng they are not authoritarian enough.

But what of natural right? Here he Strauss’s letter to Helmut Kuhn:


“Natural right (jus or justum naturale, physikon dikaion or to physei dikaion), is I contend, an important and even central theme of both Plato and Aristotle. As for Plato, I refer to the Republic 501 b 2 (and context). This passage must be read in conjunction with such passages as Republic 484 c 8-d 3 and 597 b-d. It thus becomes clear that for Plato "natural right" strictly understood, that which is right by itself and not in particular through man's making it right, is the same as "the idea of justice." Besides, the whole order of the best polity is emphatically "according to nature," whereas the "present" arrangements are apparently "against nature." (456 c 1-2). The very justice of the polity of the Republic depends upon its being "according to nature." The legislator in the Laws follows "the natural order" of the various good things (631 d 1-2). The domination of prudence or law is "according to nature." (690 c 1-3). Cf. also Laws 765 e for a clear statement of the relation between "nature" and "end." The whole Platonic doctrine of the order of the soul and of the order of the virtues is the doctrine of natural right if it is true that `justice" does not necessarily mean one of the many virtues but the all comprehensive virtue. Cf. furthermore Laws 757 c 3-d 5, regarding the relation of distributive justice to "nature." To summarize, Plato's best polity is the order of human things dictated by natural right.”

My point, is, that Strauss’s “imperial, authoritarian” roots, has him siding with Plato’s Thrasymachus, that indeed, justice is the will of the strong over the will of the weak, thereby fulfilling the greatest of all virtues, in Strauss’s estimate, in accordance with nature…

http://www.straussian.net/letters.html#lowith

http://www.straussian.net/letters.html#kuhn


:popcorn: good stuff, so is your book.

[Green Lantern]

First, I don’t consider your descriptions of necons to be at all accurate. They may call themselves such, but have no philosophical grounding in the tradition, thus they have no bearing on the discussion.

Second, the concept of natural law originated with Heraclites around 600 BC. Here’s a good read on the subject:

http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/04/clnatlaw.html

Third, I've read many commentaries on Strauss, Gadamer's is particularly informative in Truth and Method. But I have also read a number of Strauss’s correspondences. The letters between he and Karl Loewith are particularly insightful... Let me quote you some of the juicy tidbits:

“Just because Germany has turned to the right and has expelled us, [the Jews] it simply does not follow that the principles of the right are therefore to be rejected. To the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the right—fascist, authoritarian, imperial [emphasis in original]—is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to ‘the inalienable rights of man’ to protest against the mean nonentity [meaning the Nazis]… under imperial rule the subjected are spared and the proud are subdued… there is no reason to crawl to the cross, even to the cross of liberalism, as long as anywhere in the world the spark glimmers of Roman thinking. And moreover, better than any cross is the ghetto.” May, 1933, Strauss here criticizes the Nazis from the right, say99ng they are not authoritarian enough.

But what of natural right? Here he Strauss’s letter to Helmut Kuhn:


“Natural right (jus or justum naturale, physikon dikaion or to physei dikaion), is I contend, an important and even central theme of both Plato and Aristotle. As for Plato, I refer to the Republic 501 b 2 (and context). This passage must be read in conjunction with such passages as Republic 484 c 8-d 3 and 597 b-d. It thus becomes clear that for Plato "natural right" strictly understood, that which is right by itself and not in particular through man's making it right, is the same as "the idea of justice." Besides, the whole order of the best polity is emphatically "according to nature," whereas the "present" arrangements are apparently "against nature." (456 c 1-2). The very justice of the polity of the Republic depends upon its being "according to nature." The legislator in the Laws follows "the natural order" of the various good things (631 d 1-2). The domination of prudence or law is "according to nature." (690 c 1-3). Cf. also Laws 765 e for a clear statement of the relation between "nature" and "end." The whole Platonic doctrine of the order of the soul and of the order of the virtues is the doctrine of natural right if it is true that `justice" does not necessarily mean one of the many virtues but the all comprehensive virtue. Cf. furthermore Laws 757 c 3-d 5, regarding the relation of distributive justice to "nature." To summarize, Plato's best polity is the order of human things dictated by natural right.”

My point, is, that Strauss’s “imperial, authoritarian” roots, has him siding with Plato’s Thrasymachus, that indeed, justice is the will of the strong over the will of the weak, thereby fulfilling the greatest of all virtues, in Strauss’s estimate, in accordance with nature…

http://www.straussian.net/letters.html#lowith

http://www.straussian.net/letters.html#kuhn

OK. I can't get into a philosophical discussion with you about this because it would take up a whole forum, not just it's own thread.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I was trained in Political Theory from an eminent neo-con and I think you are mis-interpreting or mis-reading the passages you cite here, other than the Strauss one which I cannot speak to since I have never read that selection specifically.

Nature, according to the ancients was "the end" goal of a thing. As in, it is in the nature of an acorn to grow to be a tall, strong oak tree. Not all do because some are eaten, some grow in poor soil, or are stuck by lightning. Whatever. Their NATURE is the end of their natural process. So, NATURAL law is law that is consistent with the nature of man. It is not Might Makes Right. I see that right in the second to last paragraph as referenced by Strauss. What is best is what is natural for man. The best regime is the regime which has its law based on the nature of man. It would be called natural law, in other words.

But the laws of nature, kill and be killed, etc. this is not what the ancients meant when they described government.

That is as far as I can go into it without getting paid for the effort.

Again, as to Strauss, I do not know anymore than I have read and I have not read what you posted. So, again, I could be wrong.

[shiva2999]

Despite the rhetoric, the American people are not at war with each other. There are honest differences at play between honest people, but unfortunately the vipers on both sides hiss the loudest. What are no longer needed are tricky debate tactics and a win at all cost mentality, but rather an attempt to reach across the dividing lines to the nurturing parent in every conservative. Deep down, they too want to believe the world is a good place for their children to grow; they only need reassurance from their progressive counterparts that we in fact believe that good triumphs in the end.

The left wants to rehabilitate the right but once again refuses to accept the fact that the right wants to kill the left.

BTW aqua, We've discussed Leo Strauss here for a few years.

I'm sure we could give your neo-con prof a run for his money.

Strauss was a horror show.

[Green Lantern]

The left wants to rehabilitate the right but once again refuses to accept the fact that the right wants to kill the left.

BTW aqua, We've discussed Leo Strauss here for a few years.

I'm sure we could give your neo-con prof a run for his money.

Strauss was a horror show.

Actually, she is labelled a Straussian by others but does not believe that she is. When I asked her about it, she said she is labelled thus because she does not rely on the opinions of others to interpret the readings of the ancients or other greats but, rather, relies on HER reading of them. This, apparently, was Strauss's advice. Ergo, she is a Straussian in others' eyes.

I say she is a neo-con half jokingly because she gives invited lectures at the American Enterprise Institute, the neo-con thinktank...but then again, I hear her on NPR too.


All that said, I don't think you could give her a run. She is the most brilliant person I have personally met. She knows what she knows backward and forward and delivered an entire semester of political theory from memory, no notes, from Socrates to Marx, with quotes from the texts. It was an amazing thing to witness.

[K-Gun]

The left wants to rehabilitate the right but once again refuses to accept the fact that the right wants to kill the left.

BTW aqua, We've discussed Leo Strauss here for a few years.

I'm sure we could give your neo-con prof a run for his money.

Strauss was a horror show.

I think you may have missed the subtly, or else it didn’t hit the mark.

By separating necons as immoral proponents of "might makes right" the left is trying to rehabilitate the right, by drawing conservatives to the left, away from neo-conservatives. I don’t think the article in any way moves towards the right to appease conservatives. But it does reclaim territory that conservatives have stolen from liberals. It says neocons are the true nihilists, look into your heart you know we’re right. The implication is that, if you're a true conservative you will are self-interested within teh law. The implication is that necons are self-interested outside the law.

[K-Gun]

:popcorn: good stuff, so is your book.

Here's another one you may find interesting.

http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=kt9k4016d3&brand=ucpress

[35Pete]

This is the root of liberalisms rejection by society

"Progressives, from Socrates to Jesus Christ have known and advocated the position that “right makes might,” though it took an awkward looking American progressive to put it so eloquently. Another basic tenet of progressive morality is the Golden Rule, and a philosophical version known as moral contractualism. Moral contractualism professes that the source of one’s morality comes back to a basic motivation to justify one’s actions to others. That is, a motivation to act in such a way as being justified, which is itself rooted in empathy for others and a drive towards personal responsibility"

It is the "I want to do good. Therefore I am morally superior. As such then I have a right, no an obligation to force you to do the same. Hand it over (money) buster!".

Problem is that not everyone thinks that your way of doing things is the correct way. I sure don't. I think welfare and public assistance is cruel. What happens is this:

A woman is hungry...
You give the woman a fish...
She comes back the next day....
You give her another fish....
The process repeats itself again and again.....

Then something strange happens.
She eventually comes back and demands two fish.

Some time later she comes back with her friends.
Now they demand two fish and a loaf of bread. You don't have it.
They say: "That guy over there has plenty of bread. Give me some of his".
You control the fish. You don't want to lose that power. So you take that guys bread because if he refuses then he is going to jail.

And this is moral superiority?

You just breed dependancy and sap the human spirit of the desire to thrive. And by doing that you destroy lives. This is not compassion. This is a sick joke.

[twosheds]

Then something strange happens.
She eventually comes back and demands two fish.

Not strange, it's called inflation. ;)

[anEinherjer]

I'm a little late to this party, but...

If another person, real or imaginary, would have grounds to reject one’s action, one’s action would be immoral. The progressive value system has profound implications.

Isn't one of the most profound implications of the first sentence be that progressives will be unlikely to achieve anything? Surely if progressives believe that there are other honest viewpoints on various issues, they'll find that nearly anything they profess to act upon would have at least some faction fighting against that act?

Let's take, oh, anything that requires coercive taxation to accomplish. If I don't agree with the action that you must tax me to pay for, you cannot morally do the taxing, can you?

And even though I might agree with the action you might want to take on, I wholeheartedly hate the idea that you can force me upon penalty of jail or death to pay for it.

Seems to me that what's written here argues for a near anarchy, of the "good kind", not the "Sex Pistols kind"..... We must agree together to do things, we mustn't force others to do things we want.

Sounds like my utopia, in the end. Unless I've completely misread that quote.

[anEinherjer]

(edit, never mind that first bit)

Also, I'm seriously having trouble comprehending the point of this paragraph:

The modern conception of natural law, as expounded in the US Constitution, believes that men have certain inalienable rights that no government can take away. So, when you put the two conceptions up against each other, the ancient notion of natural law contradicts modern natural law, in that strong government has the right and duty to impose its will upon its subjects.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the Constitution gloriously espouses the idea that there are a few rights that individuals possess "naturally" and that goes against the idea of "might makes right", in a moral sense anyway. But I'm confused about the last bit where you say that "strong gov't has the right and duty to impose its will upon its subjects"... I'm not sure where that follows from the rest.

[35Pete]

(edit, never mind that first bit)

Also, I'm seriously having trouble comprehending the point of this paragraph:



Don't get me wrong, I understand that the Constitution gloriously espouses the idea that there are a few rights that individuals possess "naturally" and that goes against the idea of "might makes right", in a moral sense anyway. But I'm confused about the last bit where you say that "strong gov't has the right and duty to impose its will upon its subjects"... I'm not sure where that follows from the rest.

That is why I am COMTEMTPOUS of liberalism. It is an authoritarian ideology that subverts human freedom. And I quite frankly do not trust people that think that they are morally superior and thus have a right to enforce their will.

[anEinherjer]

Which is why I've seen you shift from rightie apologist to independent renaissance man, Pete. It's good to come to the conclusion that both of our glorious parties are just different sides of the same authoritarian coin.

[Green Lantern]

That is why I am COMTEMTPOUS of liberalism. It is an authoritarian ideology that subverts human freedom. And I quite frankly do not trust people that think that they are morally superior and thus have a right to enforce their will.


Here is a question: ARE some people morally superior?

[Meathead]

only I am morally superior

[35Pete]

Here is a question: ARE some people morally superior?

Well I am. But that does not give me the right to take from one and give to another.

[Green Lantern]

Well I am. But that does not give me the right to take from one and give to another.


Didn't say it did.

But you bring up an interesting question. Does moral superiority give anyone claim to any title? Are they to be the leaders or just like the rest? Do they have the right to impose any form of governance or control on those around them?

[shiva2999]

Actually, she is labelled a Straussian by others but does not believe that she is. When I asked her about it, she said she is labelled thus because she does not rely on the opinions of others to interpret the readings of the ancients or other greats but, rather, relies on HER reading of them. This, apparently, was Strauss's advice. Ergo, she is a Straussian in others' eyes.


LOL! Did you question her use of a strawman to sidestep the question?

I make up my mind too? Does that make ME a Straussian?

I say she is a neo-con half jokingly because she gives invited lectures at the American Enterprise Institute, the neo-con thinktank...but then again, I hear her on NPR too.

NPR has been under tremendous pressure to move to the right.

All that said, I don't think you could give her a run. She is the most brilliant person I have personally met. She knows what she knows backward and forward and delivered an entire semester of political theory from memory, no notes, from Socrates to Marx, with quotes from the texts. It was an amazing thing to witness.

Oh, I think we could. Drop her name. If she's at all noteworthy she will have material on the net.

I'll take a shot. I'm sure JKIG would like a pop too.

Personally, I've seen a ton of American "experts" and "professors" paraded across the news networks over the last 10 years and all in all I'd have to say as a group they're pretty ****ing stupid.

Especially if they're right-wing, but there are a lot of stupid left-wingers too.

It's just that left-wingers and right-wingers are stupid in different ways.

[SpikedLemonade]

It's just that left-wingers and right-wingers are stupid in different ways.

The rest was too deep and long for me to read, but I do agree with the above statement.

P.S.: Are you serious about NOT being able to get over the border for the December 17th Miami game?

[Green Lantern]

LOL! Did you question her use of a strawman to sidestep the question?

I make up my mind too? Does that make ME a Straussian?



NPR has been under tremendous pressure to move to the right.



Oh, I think we could. Drop her name. If she's at all noteworthy she will have material on the net.

I'll take a shot. I'm sure JKIG would like a pop too.

Personally, I've seen a ton of American "experts" and "professors" paraded across the news networks over the last 10 years and all in all I'd have to say as a group they're pretty ****ing stupid.

Especially if they're right-wing, but there are a lot of stupid left-wingers too.

It's just that left-wingers and right-wingers are stupid in different ways.



You can take my word on her abilities or not, but I'd rather not drop a name since I am not in the position to know if she would like to be publicized by me.

So with regard to that, I apologize for bringing her into the conversation. It was not my place. I withdraw.

[K-Gun]

What a bunch of horse manure. You got Pete who jumps from a meta-ethical foundation of morality to taxes, brilliant jump in logic by the way, and then anEinherjer misreading the message altogether… It’s the ancient version of natural right that allows government to oppress its people, not the modern, but of course the jump from that to taxes is clearly another brilliant move in the history of the Buffalorange.

Hey poptarts, YOU PAY TAXES TO LIVE IN THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. YOU DON’T WANT TO LIVE HERE GET THE **** OUT!

I just love how everything comes back to your wallet. What a couple of jerks.

[anEinherjer]

Hey JKiG, up yours, buddy. I said in post #20 that I didn't get what it was trying to say and that's still the case - it's poorly worded in a truly magnificent fashion.

Maybe you wanna-be philosophers have a different version of grammar that you'd like to share with us.

I couldn't give a single turd if you don't like the fact that I picked coercive taxation as my example - you aren't avoiding the question by name-calling.

Hey poptarts, YOU PAY TAXES TO LIVE IN THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. YOU DON’T WANT TO LIVE HERE GET THE **** OUT!

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest phrases ever posted on the Range - good job!

Listen, you prance around here pretending to be smart, so let me spell it out for you in 4th grade English:

Your quote in post 1, that I quoted, says that I have no moral authority to act if what I do is rejected by another person (even your imaginary friends!). If I don't want to spend money on the same things you do, your use of government force to make me to pay for what you want is immoral.

Defend yourself.

[35Pete]

What a bunch of horse manure. You got Pete who jumps from a meta-ethical foundation of morality to taxes, brilliant jump in logic by the way, and then anEinherjer misreading the message altogether… It’s the ancient version of natural right that allows government to oppress its people, not the modern, but of course the jump from that to taxes is clearly another brilliant move in the history of the Buffalorange.

Hey poptarts, YOU PAY TAXES TO LIVE IN THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. YOU DON’T WANT TO LIVE HERE GET THE **** OUT!

I just love how everything comes back to your wallet. What a couple of jerks.

You feed the lazy bastards if you feel that strongly about it. Double your own goddamned taxes. Then don't be surprised when the 2 fish and a loaf of bread turn into riots over filet mignon.

[Green Lantern]

You feed the lazy bastards if you feel that strongly about it. Double your own goddamned taxes. Then don't be surprised when the 2 fish and a loaf of bread turn into riots over filet mignon.

Pete, are you a social darwinist?

[35Pete]

Pete, are you a social darwinist?

Let me put it this way. You teach a man to fish, you don't just give handouts. And if people did this without being able to rely on the taxpayer to support their reckless breeding then they might not breed so much, right?

I am a huge believer in self reliance. Huge.

[K-Gun]

Last time I checked, temporary assistance for needy families was never higher than 5% or so. That also occurred when about 12% of the general population was in poverty.

Since we both can agree that poverty will never be cured, how the **** can you say that assistance should be taken away from the poorest 5% of our country? Your argument is that welfare itself is what makes people poor. BULLSHIT. The poverty line was far higher, around 30% prior to temporary assistance...

Defend yourself-- your idea screws those who need help feeding themselves. Prove that assistance creates more poverty... It has gone DOWN with the aid of assistance. People get help which allows them to pull themselves up, out of poverty and off assistance.

Notice the trend in poverty as temporary assistance was introduced? You simply aren’t thinking about this correctly. You think assisting people to pull themselves out of poverty means they don’t have to work. BULLSHIT, people want to work, and they want good jobs. Prove me wrong.

By the way, I hope you're ok with being taxed for education, how else are we going to teach your poor woman to fish?

If you are, then it isn't a problem you have with taxes, just what the taxes are going for.

Do I get to tell you to pay for the Iraq war, I want no part of it? Didn't think so.

[anEinherjer]

Are you daft, JKiG? Or do you just not get what I'm saying about taxation? Let me educate you: ALL taxation is simply one special interest taking money from everyone to do their own thing, no matter what the rest of us say. My point is that coercion by one group to get another to do what it wants breaks what your original states about morality: Progressives are just as immoral as their conservative counterparts in that regard!

You're conflating Pete's argument and mine, by ignoring mine. Curious.

But to Pete's argument, if you're going to cry that people like Pete are going to kill poor people (again), you might want to look at the results of the '96 welfare reform.... less assistance, lower % in poverty.

[K-Gun]

Are you daft, JKiG? Or do you just not get what I'm saying about taxation? Let me educate you: ALL taxation is simply one special interest taking money from everyone to do their own thing, no matter what the rest of us say. My point is that coercion by one group to get another to do what it wants breaks what your original states about morality: Progressives are just as immoral as their conservative counterparts in that regard!

You're conflating Pete's argument and mine, by ignoring mine. Curious.

But to Pete's argument, if you're going to cry that people like Pete are going to kill poor people (again), you might want to look at the results of the '96 welfare reform.... less assistance, lower % in poverty.



Please, it isn’t “something is immoral if someone objects.” Something is immoral if someone has a reason to object, a reason that stands up against other people’s reasons. You have no right to reasonably reject being taxed all together, in fact it would be immoral for you to reject taxation all together because you are the beneficiary of so many things that you obviously take for granted. You receive the benefit of living in a county with the best medicine, best education, best infrastructure, and the best homeland security in world, not to mention the right to take those who have harmed you to court, be it individuals, the government or corporations, all because we decided long ago to share our commonwealth and build these things together. America isn’t free my friend. After all, you live in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that is what it means to be a Commonwealth, to pool resources through taxation to create a better society than could be achieved individually. Anyone who is against taxation is un-American.

Pete has the right to vote against certain programs that he believes tax money should not be used for, but he has no right to talk as if taxation itself is an affliction. Taxation itself is the reason why society is civil. Buy your own damn island if you’re so put out.

[shiva2999]

You can take my word on her abilities or not, but I'd rather not drop a name since I am not in the position to know if she would like to be publicized by me.

So with regard to that, I apologize for bringing her into the conversation. It was not my place. I withdraw.

I don't see why you're being so delicate.

IMO, when you purchase the right to be taught by someone, you purchase the right to tell people who you've been taught by.

I won't press you on it but I have no problem revealing who my teachers were, it just doesn't seem like a big deal.

[Gibby]

I don't see why you're being so delicate.

IMO, when you purchase the right to be taught by someone, you purchase the right to tell people who you've been taught by.

I won't press you on it but I have no problem revealing who my teachers were, it just doesn't seem like a big deal.

For once you have a good post.

[Green Lantern]

I don't see why you're being so delicate.

IMO, when you purchase the right to be taught by someone, you purchase the right to tell people who you've been taught by.

I won't press you on it but I have no problem revealing who my teachers were, it just doesn't seem like a big deal.

Let's put it this way: I should be able to argue on my own, with my own abilities, without having to resort to calling upon some famous person as a character witness for my opinions.

Academia does not work like politics, it is WHAT you know, not who you know. I would rather not stoop to name-dropping.

Beyond that, it is irresponsible of me to tell you what someone else I know thinks.

It is not a big deal, I just thought better of the tack I was taking. That's all.

[Green Lantern]

Let me put it this way. You teach a man to fish, you don't just give handouts. And if people did this without being able to rely on the taxpayer to support their reckless breeding then they might not breed so much, right?

I am a huge believer in self reliance. Huge.

I'll take that as a yes.

Are you gonna answer that post of mine before this one? About morality.

[K-Gun]

Anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

[deconstruction]

That is why I am COMTEMTPOUS of liberalism. It is an authoritarian ideology that subverts human freedom. And I quite frankly do not trust people that think that they are morally superior and thus have a right to enforce their will.

Isn't this a case of the kettle calling the pot black? The far right is usually very busy talking about morals, and other people's lack there of, and how this grants them rights to do all sorts of things to the immoral.

[deconstruction]

This is a good thread, great kickoff by the way. What people are missing here is that relativistic ethics (I avoid the term morality here) is based on concensual rule. So perhaps we need to agree as to what we have consensus on before deciding what is unethical.

[anEinherjer]

Please, it isn’t “something is immoral if someone objects.” Something is immoral if someone has a reason to object, a reason that stands up against other people’s reasons. You have no right to reasonably reject being taxed all together, in fact it would be immoral for you to reject taxation all together because you are the beneficiary of so many things that you obviously take for granted. You receive the benefit of living in a county with the best medicine, best education, best infrastructure, and the best homeland security in world, not to mention the right to take those who have harmed you to court, be it individuals, the government or corporations, all because we decided long ago to share our commonwealth and build these things together. America isn’t free my friend. After all, you live in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that is what it means to be a Commonwealth, to pool resources through taxation to create a better society than could be achieved individually. Anyone who is against taxation is un-American.

Pete has the right to vote against certain programs that he believes tax money should not be used for, but he has no right to talk as if taxation itself is an affliction. Taxation itself is the reason why society is civil. Buy your own damn island if you’re so put out.

Alright JKiG, I understand where you're going - but don't assume that I am against ALL taxation. I did not catch the hidden phrase "a reason that stands up against other people’s reasons".

I guess then you'd have to define what "stands up against" means. Because when I argue that a particular something should not be paid for out of my pocket (or you argue, rightly, that your tax dollars should not be spent in Iraq!), how does one decide whose standing is "tallest"?

I do think your "taxation is the only reason we're civil" is over the top. Consensual communities are quite possible (and one in particular survived for over 400 years).

Either way this is a bit off your original topic - my apologies. I'm no philosophizer. :)

[anEinherjer]

Isn't this a case of the kettle calling the pot black? The far right is usually very busy talking about morals, and other people's lack there of, and how this grants them rights to do all sorts of things to the immoral.

Decon, you're right about that. Which is why Pete's not far right.

[K-Gun]

Alright JKiG, I understand where you're going - but don't assume that I am against ALL taxation. I did not catch the hidden phrase "a reason that stands up against other people’s reasons".

I guess then you'd have to define what "stands up against" means. Because when I argue that a particular something should not be paid for out of my pocket (or you argue, rightly, that your tax dollars should not be spent in Iraq!), how does one decide whose standing is "tallest"?

I do think your "taxation is the only reason we're civil" is over the top. Consensual communities are quite possible (and one in particular survived for over 400 years).

Either way this is a bit off your original topic - my apologies. I'm no philosophizer. :)

Now that we understand each other a little better, let me begin by saying I didn’t aruge that I have the right to demand that my tax money NOT go to fund Iraq. I have the right to vote people into office that will end the war, and thus my tax burden for it.

My point is, the price we pay living in a democratic society is that sometimes you have to accept losing. Now, that simply doesn’t apply to cases where one side cheated during an election. If the Republican’s stole the last two elections, all bets are off. The only problem is, we don’t have a media that would report the truth. Notice my use of the word “would.” They didn’t report election fraud in 1960 (although Kennedy would have still won the election without Illinois.)

On another point all together, I think you are incredibly naïve concerning the free market. We can both agree it is the best form of economy, but we disagree about the way in which it should be used. I think you assume free trade means fair trade, and it doesn’t. Fair trade is the most important aspect of a free market, but corporations have proved time and time again that we cannot simply leave them alone on their honor. I could go on and on about corporate fines, and the need for class action lawsuits to keep corporations in check, but I’m willing to hear what you have to say on the matter.

[Green Lantern]

Here is a question: ARE some people morally superior?

Well I am. But that does not give me the right to take from one and give to another.

Didn't say it did.

But you bring up an interesting question. Does moral superiority give anyone claim to any title? Are they to be the leaders or just like the rest? Do they have the right to impose any form of governance or control on those around them?



Pete,

Where'd ya go?

[K-Gun]

Pete,

Where'd ya go?

Yeah, where'd he go?

[shiva2999]

He's passed out in a gutter.

[Green Lantern]

He's passed out in a gutter.

He's online again.

H-e-l-l-o-o-o-o.... PETE!

[deconstruction]

Screw morals, I'd rather be ethically superior!

[nehemiah]

you might want to look at the results of the '96 welfare reform.... less assistance, lower % in poverty.lies, lies, lies.

[Green Lantern]

lies, lies, lies.

C'mon Nehe, you know that if they ain't captured in the stats, they ain't there.

[anEinherjer]

On another point all together, I think you are incredibly naïve concerning the free market. We can both agree it is the best form of economy, but we disagree about the way in which it should be used. I think you assume free trade means fair trade, and it doesn’t. Fair trade is the most important aspect of a free market, but corporations have proved time and time again that we cannot simply leave them alone on their honor. I could go on and on about corporate fines, and the need for class action lawsuits to keep corporations in check, but I’m willing to hear what you have to say on the matter.

What I have to say about corporations should, I hope, surprise you. Go ahead and regulate 'em. **** 'em. The only reason they exist at all is because they're a government entity, so the government can certainly set up whatever rules they want concerning them.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree about "fair trade (being) the most important aspect of a free market"! Fraud (in any form) is the one and only non-violent crime that matters. I find the current concept of corporations to be a disaster. I find corporations to be a useful tool for savvy types to get government to do what they want to make money.

I'm not a corporatist.

Nehe: Bring on your proof it's "lies". I'd like to see it.

[nehemiah]

first off, there is not "less assistance"

secondly, poverty rates have not lessened during "welfare reform".

poverty rates have been reasonably stable since 1966 (war on poverty). length of time for welfare receipt has been steady.

welfare reform was an unnecessary malicious attempt to harm a particular group of people - single moms.

you're posted the original assertion. don't be an upstart, anEin.... let's dig into some numbers!

[anEinherjer]

Here are a couple bits that will give you some guffaws, I'm sure.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/30/when-generous-people-stop-kidding-themselves/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/31/more-welfare-more-poverty/

[35Pete]

He's online again.

H-e-l-l-o-o-o-o.... PETE!

Hey. I don't walk away from a conversation. Accept that I am not always here. I was installing 2 GB of DDR and one goddamned mega fast video card as well as doing Windows security updates on my PC.

I'm online at that time but that does not mean that I am around. A morally superior person is one that would do everything possible as a leader to minimize the influence that a coercive government has on my daily life.

Aqua. Here is the sick joke that some around here propagate. They talk about "rights". And the funny thing is that the rights that they want I will be compelled to provide for them. I become their servant. And that is their "right". But in order to secure these fabricated rights they want to take away an enaliable right from me. The right to be secure in my possessions. Now when I pay for a service such as national defense against harm, roads and bridges, and other elements that bring a net return to me that is, in my opinion, a consumer cost for enhancing MY life. When I pay for someone elses "rights", they get a freebee and it comes out of my hide. My possessions are taken and it is not an exchange, service, or trade. They have the right to take care of themselves. Or not. That is their right. Not my fault what the consequences are of not earning for advancement of their condition.

[35Pete]

What I have to say about corporations should, I hope, surprise you. Go ahead and regulate 'em. **** 'em. The only reason they exist at all is because they're a government entity, so the government can certainly set up whatever rules they want concerning them.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree about "fair trade (being) the most important aspect of a free market"! Fraud (in any form) is the one and only non-violent crime that matters. I find the current concept of corporations to be a disaster. I find corporations to be a useful tool for savvy types to get government to do what they want to make money.

I'm not a corporatist.

Nehe: Bring on your proof it's "lies". I'd like to see it.

Good post anEin. Speaking of corporate welfare we have a little scam going on here in South Florida. Every year we spend a few hundred bucks on hurricane supplies like durable foods, water, batteries, propane, ect...Each household. I spent $400 this year. And my Honda generators are a $1000 bucks. Plus $80 for gas....OK, so what is the point.

The primary reason for hurricane supplies is lack of power. No power ANYWHERE. So, no electricity, no stove, no clean water, no fresh food, nothing. Primitive as hell.

So why don't the power companies bury all the lines underground to protect the grid?

Because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will reimburse them with a nice fat corporate welfare check if they have to rebuild the above ground power grid. Took three weeks and over a billion dollars after Hurricane Wilma smacked us in the nose last year. So the utilities are more than willing to let us spend thousands every decade preparing for no power, will allow us to go without energy for weeks at a time, because it is cheaper for them NOT to do the technically right thing.

Makes me want to get homicidal. Stop that federal bailout right now. Let them pay for their own damn grid. They'll bury the lines and they'll do it fast.

[Green Lantern]

Good post anEin. Speaking of corporate welfare we have a little scam going on here in South Florida. Every year we spend a few hundred bucks on hurricane supplies like durable foods, water, batteries, propane, ect...Each household. I spent $400 this year. And my Honda generators are a $1000 bucks. Plus $80 for gas....OK, so what is the point.

The primary reason for hurricane supplies is lack of power. No power ANYWHERE. So, no electricity, no stove, no clean water, no fresh food, nothing. Primitive as hell.

So why don't the power companies bury all the lines underground to protect the grid?

Because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will reimburse them with a nice fat corporate welfare check if they have to rebuild the above ground power grid. Took three weeks and over a billion dollars after Hurricane Wilma smacked us in the nose last year. So the utilities are more than willing to let us spend thousands every decade preparing for no power, will allow us to go without energy for weeks at a time, because it is cheaper for them NOT to do the technically right thing.

Makes me want to get homicidal. Stop that federal bailout right now. Let them pay for their own damn grid. They'll bury the lines and they'll do it fast.

Pete,

Doesn't it also have to do with lightning strikes? I thought I heard that if you bury copper wire with all the lightning strikes down there the the lightning would make the wire porous and less capable of carrying the current.

Just a myth?

[35Pete]

I love CATO. Most sane and reasoned think tank on the planet. And hated equally by both democrats and republicans. LOL.

My favorite group of policy wonks.

[K-Gun]

Hey. I don't walk away from a conversation. Accept that I am not always here. I was installing 2 GB of DDR and one goddamned mega fast video card as well as doing Windows security updates on my PC.

I'm online at that time but that does not mean that I am around. A morally superior person is one that would do everything possible as a leader to minimize the influence that a coercive government has on my daily life.

Aqua. Here is the sick joke that some around here propagate. They talk about "rights". And the funny thing is that the rights that they want I will be compelled to provide for them. I become their servant. And that is their "right". But in order to secure these fabricated rights they want to take away an enaliable right from me. The right to be secure in my possessions. Now when I pay for a service such as national defense against harm, roads and bridges, and other elements that bring a net return to me that is, in my opinion, a consumer cost for enhancing MY life. When I pay for someone elses "rights", they get a freebee and it comes out of my hide. My possessions are taken and it is not an exchange, service, or trade. They have the right to take care of themselves. Or not. That is their right. Not my fault what the consequences are of not earning for advancement of their condition.

Earth to Pete, its for you too, buddy. Let's say you get broad sided tomorrow and hurt that big brain of yours, do you think you we should just leave you to walk the streets talking to yourself? No, Pete, we wouldn't do that, though your company would shit can you faster than you can type shit can.

And before you remind me about the difference between temporary assistance and disability, let me tell you this, the number of seriously mentally ill people who can not get on disability is fairly close to the number of people on welfare.

In my opinion, temporary assistance should be there for mother's who don't receive child support, for the mentally ill, and for those who need temporary help getting back on their feet. How can you argue with me? I'll grant you that there will always be leaches, what do we do, kick mothers, children and the mentally ill to the street to prevent leeches from leeching?

[35Pete]

Pete,

Doesn't it also have to do with lightning strikes? I thought I heard that if you bury copper wire with all the lightning strikes down there the the lightning would make the wire porous and less capable of carrying the current.

Just a myth?

No Aqua. Kudos for doing your research. That is NOT a myth. Well, for the most part.

Lightening is at a few million volts. And copper is a conductor which when buried under the ground is covered by two insulators: typically a PVC type derivative, and well, good ole' fashioned dirt. But at such high potentials (we engineers use "potential" rather than voltage), you can induce currents, HIGH currents in the copper because not even air is a perfect insulator (hereto known in my jargon as a "dielectric"). But there are BETTER insulators to rectify this problem and the thickness is hypercritical. But this costs more money. And money makes the world go round. And corporate FPL is not going to spend that kind of cabbage unless it becomes too painful not too.

Here is the cute part. No charge (electrons) passes through the dielectric (insulator). None. But the rapidly changing super high powered electromagnetic field in the bolt can INDUCE charge movement in the copper because the field CAN permeate the dielectric (e-fields CANNOT permeate conductors). Charge is in units of Columbs so the movement is in Columbs per second.

We have another term for "Columbs per second". We call it amperes.

[35Pete]

Earth to Pete, its for you too, buddy. Let's say you get broad sided tomorrow and hurt that big brain of yours, do you think you we should just leave you to walk the streets talking to yourself? No, Pete, we wouldn't do that, though your company would shit can you faster than you can type shit can.

And before you remind me about the difference between temporary assistance and disability, let me tell you this, the number of seriously mentally ill people who can not get on disability is fairly close to the number of people on welfare.

In my opinion, temporary assistance should be there for mother's who don't receive child support, for the mentally ill, and for those who need temporary help getting back on their feet. How can you argue with me? I'll grant you that there will always be leaches, what do we do, kick mothers, children and the mentally ill to the street to prevent leeches from leeching?

1. I buy long-term disability insurance. I am golden there. Part of my self-preservation policy.

2. Take your tax cut from cutting off social programs and give it to charity. I still believe in teaching a man to fish. I would add part of that to my charitable contributions. But then I REALLY control the purse strings. And if the organization that I donate to doesn't work to make people self-sustainable then no more checks. I'll find one that IS effective.

[nehemiah]

Here are a couple bits that will give you some guffaws, I'm sure.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/30/when-generous-people-stop-kidding-themselves/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/31/more-welfare-more-poverty/first link doesn't make any sense. throws out numbers with nothing further to say.

second link stops short. argues against the "welfare state" and stops at 1964? the so-called "welfare state" was created by roosevelt.

i would like to have this discussion, anEin. let's do this.

:rockon:

[K-Gun]

1. I buy long-term disability insurance. I am golden there. Part of my self-preservation policy.

2. Take your tax cut from cutting off social programs and give it to charity. I still believe in teaching a man to fish. I would add part of that to my charitable contributions. But then I REALLY control the purse strings. And if the organization that I donate to doesn't work to make people self-sustainable then no more checks. I'll find one that IS effective.

I love charities too, but you didn't answer my question. Should we throw the mentally ill, the children of single mothers who receive no child support, and others in a temporary bind out on the street?

Article I

Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sorry bud, but the general "Welfare" is enumerated as well as defense...