One of the luckiest and best things that ever happened to me and my family was when my folks decided to take a foster son into our family. I was 11 years old, and so was Kevin. I wasn't sure about him coming, because with my oldest sister moving out, I would have finally had a bedroom to myself when my older brother moved into her newly empty room, but I got over it quickly enough.
Kevin is developmentally and physically disabled because of brain damage he had suffered from child abuse. He can't talk very clearly (although those of us in the family can understand him pretty well), read much, or do much math. He has always moved pretty slow, and now has cerebral palsy and is having more and more trouble moving at all. But before getting CP, as long as he was able, Kevin went to work every Monday through Friday in structured workplaces, making money to support himself and pay taxes.
He is fun to be with, as engaging and good-natured as anyone I know. Although he's not able to talk very clearly, Kevin tells great stories, is genuinely funny, and is always interested in hearing about what is going on in my life. He has a better memory on some things than I do, and despite not being able to read a map, he is better at finding his way around Lincoln, Neb. (our hometown) than I am. He calls our mom every single day (which is better than I do) with stories about his day. Most importantly of all, he cares for others wherever he is. Since he left our house after we all grew up, and Mom and Dad got older, Kevin has mostly been in group homes in Lincoln. We still see him on holidays and whenever we come to town, but since leaving my folks' house, he has usually lived with others who have mental and/or physical disabilities. Even with his developmental challenges, his cerebral palsy, and the fact that he is losing some hearing and eyesight, Kevin has helped his housemates. For example, he has been a strong source of comfort, support and friendship for a young man he is living with now who is worse off than him in terms of his disabilities.
My brother Kevin, with all his challenges, is in every way the kind of person we would want in our society: a wonderful son, a great brother, someone who looks out for and helps everyone around him. This is the kind of person Republicans would leave by the side of the road in order to, as my friend Bob Creamer put it, "protect tax loopholes for CEOs who fly corporate jets." They would devastate Medicaid and programs for the disabled, so that the wealthiest most powerful people in America would not have to pay a single extra dime in taxes. But Kevin is not the only son of the middle class who would be badly hurt by the Republican position on the budget and the debt ceiling. Conservatives are threatening everything that helps support a decent middle class, including help for our family members who have disabilities; including money for education and student loans; including middle-class consumer protection from financial predators; including Social Security and Medicare for elderly folks. And they are playing chicken with our entire economy, because as a vast majority of economists believe, a debt ceiling default would traumatize a very weak economy. We could have another major financial panic, millions more in job losses. And all so that people making over $500,000 don't have to pay one more penny in taxes.
Now obviously, this is terrible policy, sociopathically insane. But it also goes to the core of who we are as a country, our deepest foundational values and vision of ourselves. Are we a nation built on Ayn Rand's philosophy, which celebrates selfishness and wealth above all other things, and mocks people like my brother Kevin as defective parasites? Or do we follow the ideas of Martin Luther King, Jr. who had a dream, "deeply rooted in the American Dream," that we would be an American family sitting down at the table of brotherhood where we were all judged on the content of our character? By that test, my brother Kevin would far outshine people like Paul Ryan.
Our economy is at stake in this budget and debt ceiling debate, perched on the edge of a precipice. But so is the content of our character as a country. I hope it is not found wanting.
Deborah Weinstein: Paving the Road to a Hungrier, Unhealthier and Less-Educated Nation
Of course, they have heard of it. But it isn't an idea they are equipped to challenge by means of reason. They haven't an argument to justify thuggery - to justify 'might makes right' - because there is no justification for it. The initiation of force is immoral - evil. So they engage in massive evasion - utilizing every fallacy they can dredge up, from straw men, to ad homs, to the aforementioned false alternatives.
That is what we have here. The evil of initiating force (ie of the actions they demand) is what they are desperate to avoid addressing.
So do you. You're so blinded by your philosphy that you aren't able to see it. You BELIEVE that one either subscribes to YOUR belief of objectivism, or they want to hold everyone at gunpoint...LITERALLY (as you've stated numerous times). We're discussing philosophy...and there exists NONE that is absolute. You consistently fail to understand this.
I've given you several definitions of the words that you use to describe people on this thread and you seem to not care about DEFINITIONS, but rather these loose, philosophical definitions that you have YET to verify. We're just supposed to believe you're right based on what you've deemed a "logical", or "rational" reasoning. I'm yet to see a description from you on WHY you believe your philosophy is absolute. You just keep SAYING it is. There's no substance with you...only fluff. But you keep accusing others of it, which makes you guilty of projection.
I've stated several times that if the only government you want is one where it's limited to "defense", then how does that work in THIS country? In what society has YOUR views been tried and been wildly successful? Name me some countries or times when this has worked. You have not as of yet. If you cannot back your philosophy with ACTUAL situations that PROVE it is the BEST method of living, then you have no point.
It is a *fact* that human beings can either interact with each other voluntarily or by physical force. If Moe believes there is a third alternative, he needs to name it.
I seek a government which is limited to a defense against the initiation of force - ie limited to defense against theft, rape, subjugation, slavery, murder, etc - rather than a government which allows or itself engages in any or all of them. When asked if he supports such a government, Moe explicitly rejected it. He *demands* a government which initiates force against its citizens. He claims there can be no such thing as a government which does NOT initiate force against its citizens.
Put simply, he is the perfect example of the premise I stated: that the collectivist/altruist wants everyone to believe there can only be government which initiates force - or no government. Government which is LIMITED to the defense against the initiation of force? As I said, they evade the concept completely. Moe proves it.
End Pt1
"then how does that work in THIS country"
Same way it did with slavery. You abolish it.
"In what society has YOUR views been tried and been wildly successfulÂ?"
The United States came the closest. But, as with slavery, it has contradictions to its own principles. Of course, just as with slavery, such contradiction can and properly must be eliminated.
It is those who desire to initiate force who stand in the way of its abolition.
We are the modern abolitionists. Those who say freedom from the initiation of force simply 'can't work' are the modern defenders of subjugation - like the southern slave owners of old.
"PROVE it is the BEST method of living"
No one has to prove their freedom is "best" for them. That presumes others have the right to object to the individual's freedom from their initiation of force. They have no such right. They have no claim to the life or effort of anyone else whatsoever.
It is Moe who appeal to force - to a gun - as his argument. That is a logical fallacy. It is all the 'proof' one needs against his position.
Your article is intellectual pap that sounds good but does not address the real issues. I have no doubt that some politicians and businessmen, both Democrats and Republicans, benefit from huge salaries, tax breaks, etc. That is a separate issue.
In a free society, you may make the choices that affect your life. You may chose to work to improve the quality of your brother's life (a very worthwhile goal by the way). That is the virtue of selfishness a la Ayn Rand, in which you pick the things that are most important to you.
Your support of a raising the debt limit is typical of those that wish to continue to borrow money to "help others," and will most likely will never be repaid so they can promote their own special interests at the expense of others. In the long run, this approach will not help people, but hurt them. Your brother will the first left by the"side of the road" by the economic system you are promoting.
The government is NOT the vehicle for helping those who NEED it. We, as individuals, are the vehicle. The government does very little in an efficient manner!
Semper fi
We were sold on outsourcign for the military on the grounds that private contractors can be so much more efficient than the military--because, after all, according to you righties the government is so inefficient.
So tell me--do you think hiring KBR in Iraq and Afganistan has been more efficient? Do you think the electricuted soldiers would agree? Do you still agree every time we hear about billions more in fraud?
Even in they were more efficient, it wouldn't necessarily mean it was for the public good.
Semper fi
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-government-climate-change-policy.html
In an earlier time, the author's brother would have stayed at home. Other members of the family might have stayed nearby in order to help. This might not have been the best thing for everyone, but he would have had the care of those who loved him most, and other people would not have been expected to bear the cost. The family would have had to make it work. Local people in their community and church would have chosen to help them and that help would have been personal and appreciated.
I am my brother's keeper, but the question is: to what extent am I your brother's keeper? We continue to creep closer to a society where we expect, or even demand, that someone else bear the cost and the effort of making things work out. We expect that the government, using money that has not been freely given and for which thanks are never received, will provide. We look to those nameless "rich" people to supply all the benefits that we deserve.
This kind of emotionally-charged class warfare is dishonorable and not what America is about. But it's this kind of discourse that we get with Democrat leaders attempting to convince people that all of our problems could be solved by more taxation.
We live in a country where the Supreme Court has decided that money is equivalent to free speech and that corporations are persons. Meanwhile, the soulless Republican party is making a hard drive towards eradicating any sense of community, of nationhood or of shared responsibility for civil society entirely. Their "vision" for America is Ayn Rand's paradise of superior beings dictating to the slovenly masses who are lucky to be allowed to live. It's the standard authoritarian ideal. It has nothing to do with American founding principles or the American dream. It's just the age old human struggle where the strong dominate the weak - and when government has been neutered, as they seek to do, then there is nothing standing in the way of their form of plutocratic dictatorship.
It will be a rude awakening when most of these teabaggers realize they are on the losing end of the process their stupidity has enabled. But if we let it happen, it will be too late. It's much easier to destroy middle class America than it was to build it up.
By pulling out a (govt) gun and demanding other people's money or their life, you demonstrate that you do NOT value human life at all. You place your desire for stolen wealth above "human life and the dignity of each person".
You have a typically superficial view of Rand's ideas. Her dream for all people was that they seek individual excellence. It was the opposite of authoritarianism and dictatorship, which are the domain of centralized collectives. Her heroes like Howard Roark pursued "the conquest of nature" and despised those whose "concern is the conquest of men."
Maybe the biggest thing we inherited from the Boomers, no matter where they ended up, is an adolescent tendency to blame someone else and avoid taking any real responsibility.
What an expression of "brotherhood".
Our government (Legislative, Judicial, Executive) has become only an three headed "appendage" to a Leviathan Corporate Monster of Greed, that is now consuming, devouring, destroying a long ago, once great nation, that today has been reduced to an corporate-owned creature consumed by greed.
This Corporate Monster of Greed has been a long time coming. Make no mistake it is here & it is VERY hungry, VORACIOUSLY famished, for MORE, MUCH MORE - PROFIT!
"I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, "corporations" have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the "money power" of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until "wealth is aggregated in a few hands" and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war."
- Abraham Lincoln
Nov. 21, 1864
Semper fi