The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[innerSpaceman]

In fact, I hope to channel her at many a future seance just so we can keep hearing from her.


But I'm relieved that day is yet to come.

[Snowflake]

OMG, one of my VA friends (who is a very serious conservative and reveres Reagan much as Sceagles) is a member of Team Sarah on Facebook. Devoted to defending Sarah Palin's VP campaign. Ugh, I should not be surprised, she's very right wing evangelical.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Now that I'm politically aware and all the election threads went away, I guess I need to start reading this thread, which I've mostly avoided since its inception.

President Bush Ends the Iraq War.

Gauntlet has been thrown.

[Morrigoon]

*thwack!*

[Gemini Cricket]

No, I give Bush permission to run around and desert me.

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...ams111908.php3

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it.... Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.


Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral?

Read the whole piece at the link above.

[innerSpaceman]

How is that different than taxation?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

How is that different than taxation?

He's referring to tax moneys being used for charitable works (at least, that's my reading of it), and he's against it... In other words: screw the poor, elderly, and disadvantaged.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by JWBear

... In other words: screw the poor, elderly, and disadvantaged.

No that's not what he's saying at all.

Think about it....the very fact that our democracy votes to help the poor PROVES that we would help the poor without being forced to.

Why not trust people to do the right thing? Why the need to control charity?

[Alex]

Wait, people and money aren't the same thing? I never knew that. I think the Jewish World Review for bringing this to my attention.

And, you're right I would not support the government forcing a specific individual to do pretty much any act. But I would support considering you (to use the pronoun of the article) an asshole for not offering.