To spark a real fight -- this applies 100% to libertarians, it is not just a "Republican" thing.

Well we should also point out that QM recently outed himself as an objectivist, so add them to this heap as well. Actually it makes perfect sense within the objectivist universe because people only accomplish what they were born to accomplish under that model, so clearly the poor are poor because they don't aspire to anything better.

Note to self: don't name radio segments so they sound like violent gynecological procedures.

^ I'll speak for myself, thanks, you can think whatever you like.

By liberal logic, a taxpayer who opposes a 200-million-dollar firehouse that looks like the Taj Mahal (Obamacare) to serve a community of less than 1000 people must obviously be for random fires destroying homes.

Speaking of victimhood, don't power-hungry liberals get votes by telling minorities they are permanent victims of racism, sexism and capitalism and that these "oppressed" groups can't make it without their (government) help?

The fear here is fear of a tyrannical leviathan government. You are foolish if you think the 900lb gorilla is under your control because of your yarn leash of good intentions around its neck.

And bankrupt Air America Radio has no one to blame but themselves for their shitty ratings.

"Victim blame" is certain people's answer to those that suffer from a "victim mentality". However, the truly unfortunate get lumped in with that group.

Mind you, Abraham Lincoln was a republican, but that is neither here nor there. To say that just because you don't want government to do something doesn't mean that you don't also share a human compulsion to do it as well...liberals like to draw this false dichotomy regularly. My church regularly is involved with the less fortune of the comunity, and there are all sorts of non-faith based organizations that do the same.

This is a non-argument. I could draw the same kind of false dichotomies about certain liberal arguments. That liberals want us to be attacked by terrorists and some nonsense. Talking points like this do no one any good, it is just self congratulatory and not helpful. To assume that one person has some moral high ground is at the heart of the problem on this issue. Moral problems are not best solved by government legislation, they are solved by people.

Forcing people to agree with your moral position is the essence of oppression.

Generalization usually have something wrong with them.

I don't know if I would apply the lack of empathy problem on any one political party or even a singular idea. And that's the way I see it, as a lack of empathy issue. It is very easy to dismiss something or someone if your can't see it happening to yourself or people you know closely. When you have people walking right past people that are seriously hurt in supermarkets or on the street, then you have to start questioning what our society stands for. (I've read several stories about this... sorry, I don't have the links readily available.)


GeeSussFreeK,
I agree with you; however, it is my personal experience that the vast majority of people that fall into this category of "blaming others for their misfortunes" have been a type of conservative and/or republican.

There is a certain wisdom in people being the victims of their own bad choices, though at times, it is an oversimplification of a much larger set of problems. For instance, the blame for my toe hurting so very very badly atm, is the fact that I placed a 20 pound weight near my computer chair. However, there are those, mainly children, who are victims of things of which they weren't really able to make choices over, and that is truly tragic. Hoever, there is something you can do about it...like right now, without a piece of legislation (coercion)! Blaming someone for blaming someone for something (boy that's a mouth full!) is just like the guy who makes the SHHHHH'ing sound in the theater. Sure the the SHHH'er might feel better, but he has betrayed his cause of silence in the name of haste.

There are real problems of poverty and hardship that you can do something about...like right now...this very moment. You don't need an act of congress to do so.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
There is a certain wisdom in people being the victims of their own bad choices, though at times, it is an oversimplification of a much larger set of problems.


I am a big proponent of responsibility and accountability for individual actions so I can agree to a point. However, I can't fully agree. We all make mistakes. And beyond those mistakes, sometimes things just go wrong due to freak circumstances and/or things completely unexpected. That isn't even counting the background that we come from. One of my friends is extremely smart and went to a prestigious college. Her parents were upper middle class, but wouldn't pay for any college. Since she was under 25, she couldn't get financial aid (college rules state that she is a dependent of her parents whether they are paying or not.) She ended up with over $100,000 in loans by the time she graduated. Having that large loan forced her hand in deciding her career and what she will do in life for a while. Now albeit this is only a small (although not to her) specific example, this difference in background exists across the board to widely varying ranges. All of that combined makes me want to give people the benefit of the doubt and many second chances. How has this worked out? Well quite frankly, I've been ripped off and taken advantage by people in the past. I'm sure it will happen again, but I've learned to judge people's character quite well now due to my experiences and am more mindful of what type and degree of the help I give. Looking back, I wouldn't have done anything different.

Here's a wonderful sift on success and failure. I don't know if you have watched it yet. I didn't see a vote by you for it, so maybe you haven't.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fascinating-talk-on-success-failure-and-careers


>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
There are real problems of poverty and hardship that you can do something about...like right now...this very moment. You don't need an act of congress to do so.


I agree on a personal level and do some things that address those issues, but I am unconvinced of the argument that private charity, etc can take care of a sufficient amount of the ills. Please understand I am not implying that you are making that argument, but it is that belief that doesn't allow me to say that the government shouldn't be involved at a medium or higher level.

Neolibs have a crippling flaw - or blindness. They do not understand that MOST people are perfectly capable of solving thier own problems, and that the few people that can't solve their own problems are easily cared for by small, private voluntary charitable organizations. Showing people how they can address their own needs by their own initiative, gumption, and grit is not 'uncaring'. It is the epitome of charity.

The neolib argument is that people who try to teach people how to help themselves are heartless, cruel, indifferent bastards simply because they don't support huge @$$ government programs. It's tripe. I'm not a Republican, but I'll defend any party from BS propoganda like this sort of bilge. It's biased, leading, and illogical poppycock and anyone who beleives this gibberish is in fetters to their own prejudice.

The true measure of how successful you are at helping people is NOT the number of people who are enrolled in a government plan. The true measure of how successful you are at helping people is the day you can SHUT DOWN the government program because no one needs it.

Let us be clear, there is no perfect system (most likely). If you create a utopia, certain things will be sacrificed. If you create a system of liberty, then certain atrocities will be allowed for. If you try and be a utopia planner, then you eliminate personal morality. What I mean is that your personal morality can be legislated to a point of meaninglessness. For instance, a christian might hold a personal belief that healing the body without healing the soul is a fruitless endeavor, that any healing that he would support would also have to come with some other eternal message. This would be completely forgone in any state bound legislative work. His personal morality one issues such as life, death, and healing completely relegated to obscurity.

People who would seek to create a utopia always need to consider that as the door swings open to let your ideals sit upon the brow for a moment, it is at the cost of others (the door swings both ways). Utopia planners have to rationalize one evil for another, moral tyranny to justify means.

You don't have that problem in a state which caters only to justice and liberty. People have to take it upon themselves to solve moral problems, and in this there is no conflict. The only problem is getting people motivated and involved but that is not an evil...not like holding peoples morality hostage.

I understand and respect your sympathies, human suffering compels us to act. Be encouraged that in free societies like America, people give an disproportionate amount of income when compared to a similar amount in taxes. It would be a safe bet that as more people have leanings towards personal doings of charities, the world would be a far better place

Sorry for the soap box, but I find such talks about charities as a necessary thing, we can always do more for our fellow man! I will just bitterly oppose anyone who tries and make that a law. Morality by gun point is no society I want to live in.

O, there were 2 parts to your quote, sorry, I only addressed one. I will read that now as I though it just part of my quoted text, I shall replace the body of this with the talks of that


Like I said, not all things can be directly attributed to people...hell, one has to wonder what really could be. Indeed, the hour of which your were born was not your own, indeed, nor was the age, nor the race, social-economic legacy, ect ect. However, that does not make us have to be unaccountable for such things, those things are still true and real. Life is not fair, something that we all learned right away in life. Some are born into wealth, while others poverty, some to good health some to bad. In that, unfairness is something inherent in the system of life. However, if we wanted to make things "fair" the only way to do that is to create more unfairness. Should man with two legs be handicapped in scope of ambition for the heart of fairness of the man with one leg? This would be unfair to two people at once, the man with one leg is still not able to accomplish as much as the man with two in actual physical prowess, and the man with two legs is now diminished directly with a man of incomparable ability. To install fairness in an unfair world you have to create more unfairness, a violation of the main ambition. However, if the man with two legs willing sacrificed of the gains from his two legged prowess, then not only has the two legged man lived up to his rich potential, but out of it, the one legged man is also enriched.

This is an oversimplification, but it works as a lead-in to my main, and consistent point, freedom first, equality second. If you have freedom first, and equality second, you get a great deal of both, if you put equality before freedom, you get the bloody unending killings of the french revolution...life simply is not equal (the ending of count de monte cristo is a great wording on this.)

I shall watch the link you provided however. Thanks for the civil conversation, they are seemingly fewer in the days of yesteryear.

there is no perfect system

Very true. It is unfortunate that Kenesyian proponents like Obama believe, "We haven't had the perfect system yet, but we'll TAX our way to Utopia this time...!" They fail to learn from history, alas. Governments do not solve society's problems. They exacerbate them by stifling human initiative, curtailing human growth, and artificially widening the gap between action and consequence.

Social Security sounded 'compassionate'. Money for old ladies widowed by WW2. Who but a heartless, 'victim blaming' Republican could possibly oppose that, right? Fast foward to today and see the result of this misguided 'compassion' when it takes the form of a federal program. A bloated boondoggle that creates problems a BILLION times more costly than the original issue.

Conservatives are not against helping our fellow men. We are against the creation of idiotic, wasteful government programs. We roll up our sleeves and volunteer time & money to solve problems where they SHOULD be solved... At the individual level.

I reject the simplistic, un-nuanced "you either support our big @$$ government solution or you are an evil bastard" mentality that neolibs put forward. I have the ability to look a little further than past the end of my own nose - thanks. I can see there are many far more effective solutions to an issue than supporting the idiotic plan of a tool like Obama.

*talks about a *humanitarian issue

Adding video to channels (Humanitarian, Talks) - requested by EDD.

Also, WP, you've just illustrated that you haven't the foggiest what Keynes' economic ideas actually were. So yeah, I guess it would be too much to ask to learn to spell the name of Keynesian school of economics (which Obama's administration isn't about, anyway).

Furthermore, your "you either support our big @$$ government solution or you are an evil bastard" mentality that neolibs put forward is such a bold-faced hypocritical lie and distortion of current events and 8-year-old history that I'm left wondering whether you're a relative to the Cheney family.

Also, WP, you've just illustrated that you haven't the foggiest what Keynes' economic ideas actually were. So yeah, I guess it would be too much to ask to learn to spell the name of Keynesian school of economics (which Obama's administration isn't about, anyway).

Any fool can say "yeah - you don't know what you're talking about". That isn't an argument. That's a cop out, and I dismiss such pithless verbosity as the vapid denial of a person who doesn't like the fact that their ideas have been accurately described. Please elicudate exactly how I misapplied the term by applying it to Obama. I can literally write pages and pages describing exactly how Obama is Keynesian. What reasoning do you have that he isn't? You're going to have a tough row to hoe because you are simply mistaken. From wiki...

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector... Keynesian economics has provided the theoretical underpinning for the plans of President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other global leaders to rescue the world economy.

Furthermore, your "you either support our big @$$ government solution or you are an evil bastard" mentality that neolibs put forward is such a bold-faced hypocritical lie and distortion of current events and 8-year-old history that I'm left wondering whether you're a relative to the Cheney family.

See - you follow the same school of debate that typical neolibs do. "You disagree with me so you must be a relative of Cheney..." The entire Obama and Democrat position to date has been one where they ignore other points of view, belittle opposing positions, and demonize opponents. Standard Saul Alinsky stuff. I phrased the neolib position bluntly, but accurately. This video is a shining example of the tactic. They ignore the many other things Republicans do to address issues, and instead insult them as cruel, evil summbiches for not supporting the neolib big government solutions of massive federal spending programs.

I think you're mad not because I'm inaccurate. I think you're mad because I'm adacious enough to tell the truth accurately.

Any government that has a policy of solving social problems by using government funds or employment is operating on a Keynesian principle. Lets be fair though, John Maynard Keynes was a brilliant mathematician and economist. Notions of GDP and other such macroeconomics ideals are all his creation. However flawed and unrealistic they are, there is no doubt of its brilliants for what it was. Same could be said of Communism, however, practical realities and the evils they create to obtain those things rule them out if one wants to be free..that is for both Communism and Keynesian principles. Friedrich Engels and John Maynard Keynes were not idiots, just people trying to solve problems, however history shows they had the wrong answers.

Obama and pretty much every western government has been largely Keynesian for a good long time. Though, the term Keynesian need not be rigorously applied...this is just a forum conversation. The truth is that you can either have government making choices with yours and other peoples money making moral decisions (theocracy for all intents and purposes). Or you can have a system of liberties where we are free to make our own moral choices. The terrible things that come about because of freedoms are blatant and unhidden, in a way, that makes them better. Problems that are more insidious, like stagflation, inflation, corruption, cronyism , nepotism, the list goes on; (o hell, lets not forget high powered lobbyists) are all the results of highly powerful centrally planed governments.

Well said Freek.