Couldn't agree more

[Darth Sandmich!]

From VDH (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052703/content/limbaugh_letter_interview__victor_davis_hanson_pag e_4.guest.html) :
Every time I saw a professor who would tell me that he came back from a peace march, I’d say, “How did you feel to support fascism?” The people who organized those marches were mostly World Socialist Worker’s parties, out-and-out Communists, anti-Americanists. People would say, “Well, I didn’t know who organized it.” That would be like going to a rally against affirmative action and having David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan run it. It’s no excuse that you were being led and used by those duplicitious people. They did a lot of damage, because I think they empowered people in Iraq to be emboldened and to resist the efforts to solve that crisis diplomatically.

[DogStarMan]

...sphinctersays"what?"

[Duemellon]

General Robert E Lee was against slavery...
But his people fought to preserve it.

The Nazis were against non-whites (a generalization)...
But the Japanese fought for it.

Gen. Patton was a reincarnation-ist, not a standard God-fearing man..
But we followed him.

Martin L King Jr. was a not a Catholic, Lutheran, etc...
Yet they followed him.

C'mon, how corny can you get?

Our country is lead by a conservative Christian, does that mean you can't follow him if your views are more liberal?

I will walk alongside a Klansman to accomplish one of my important goals. Our relationship won't go past that, but if we end up getting what we want, then what's the harm?

Are you concerned that these groups gain some form of power and influence through niave support of their actions?

heh, no.

I can march with a 9-11 hijaacker against classism, and if his group decides to move on, make it into something else, we go our separate ways.

... i guess you support terrorism by thinking the Pres didn't need to fly himself in on an aircraft carrier.

[tobedawg]

The reverse argument for people who supported the War on Iraq...

"How does it feel to support dropping bombs on innocent people?"

I mean since the entire Pro-War movement was created by right-wing propagandists. Hmmm.. didn't Hitler use propaganda during his divide and conquor campaigns?

Not that I'm even making the comparrison between Bush and Hitler. Hitler was an intellegent and strong leader who brought prosperous economic times to the people of Germany. I'm just saying that comparing people who take part in a march against a war that they felt to be unjust to fascists is like comparing people who supported the war to a bunch of neo-nazi's.

[postfeminist]

tobedawg, feel free to make the comparison between bush & hitler...you wouldn't be the first one.

[BigSugar]

whatever you do, don't go to the Dakota's where Bush has his "Liberal Death Camps"....eerrrr.....ummmm.....i mean "Re-education Camps".....ignore the smell, it's just burning rubber....not that Tobe was trying at all to compare Bush to Hitler (and failing utterly to come even .0005% close:) god knows that no good liberal politician would ever dare use <gasp> propaganda/press/popular support to further their cause....i mean, the horror....will Republicans stop at nothing!??!?? damn dirty apes!

ps: anyone that really is stupid enough, moronic enough, or just plain ignant enough to attempt to compare GWB to Hitler, i'll personally come paper your bedroom with pictures of the dead from Auchwitz/Dachau and the other death camps until you get it through your fucking silly heads that you are simply petty, wrongheaded, spiteful liberals with an agenda....is that cranky enough?? because it really is starting to piss this history major off just a little....more from an education/history standpoint than any conservative/liberal fight....don't make me go "Stalin" on you!

[sadgirlseven]

Originally posted by BigSugar
ps: anyone that really is stupid enough, moronic enough, or just plain ignant enough to attempt to compare GWB to Hitler, i'll personally come paper your bedroom with pictures of the dead from Auchwitz/Dachau and the other death camps until you get it through your fucking silly heads that you are simply petty, wrongheaded, spiteful liberals with an agenda....is that cranky enough?? because it really is starting to piss this history major off just a little....more from an education/history standpoint than any conservative/liberal fight....don't make me go "Stalin" on you! [/B]

i'm gonna ignore the rest of this post and ask a question.

what political group DOESN'T have an agenda?! your blessed republicans or libertarians (or whatever group you belong to, sug) surely have an agenda. it's certainly not to free us from the shackles of government intrusion, as they say...

[RichmondVA]

The argument that protests against war somehow actually caused the war are pure crap. But let's assume that argument is true, just for grins.

If protesting your leader empowers your enemies, then is it not reasonable to assume that the GOP trashing Clinton over eight years might have emboldened terrorists to launch 9/11 in the first place? Surely the incessent conservative attacks and impeachment sent a strong signal that our leadership was fractured. And what about when the conservatives were out protesting Clinton's miltiary intervention? Where was the outcry?

[solomon]

But his people fought to preserve it.

Among other more pressing reasons.

didn't Hitler use propaganda during his divide and conquor campaigns?

All governments and government parties use propaganda.

or libertarians (or whatever group you belong to, sug) surely have an agenda. it's certainly not to free us from the shackles of government intrusion, as they say...

That's true regarding republicans, but that is indeed the agenda of libertarians.

[Duemellon]

The Sun is an orange.

Not all the time, not most of the time, but certain times; the Sun is orange.

I just compared the Sun to an orange. I said, the Sun IS an orange. It's called a metaphor, a similie if done a slightly different way, and, overall, an analogy.

The Sun's main characteristics are that it gives off light & heat; That it's in the sky; And that it goes away at night.

Oranges don't have those characteristics at all.

So how could one say that the Sun is an orange and not feel foolish for such a limited comparison?

They are both round, they both have the same hue between red & yellow, and they both can be seen in Florida with regularity.

The reason why the person who says "The Sun is an orange" doesn't feel stupid, is because they are comparing the attributes they have in common, not the differences.

Does the fact that the most common attributes of these two things are not shared? Or there are more things they don't share than they do share?

No, the analogy is limited, but it is an analogy.

If you want to dismiss the statement that the Sun is an orange because of the amount of ways they are dissimilar...

u'r missing the point of the metaphor.

All analogies are inheirently flawed.

[shivui]

i agree due. i was flamed for comparing hitler to dubya once. my friend brought up all the differences when all i was pointing out was the similarities.

just because two things are alike doesn't mean they're the same.

often people make this mistake when analyzing other's comments.

[RichmondVA]

I disagree. Vehemently.

I don't know how many times Duemellon has made the "all analogies are flawed" argument and it makes me cringe every time. Sure, all analogies are flawed-- BUT SOME ARE MORE FLAWED THAN OTHERS.


Not to go all postmodern, but you got to get your signs and signifiers straight. The term Hitler brings up an concept in people's minds-- that of a genocidal maniac who imprisoned and killed Jews in his own country and in others.

You could make the point that Bush is like Hitler but to a lesser degree. You could even say that Bush IS like Hitler but you need context. I could see maybe Solomon or Yoshomon might making that analogy, because of their view that all government is evil just with different names and window dressing.

Context, that's the key.

If someone questions your analogy, you've got to be able clarify exactly what you meant. If you really think Bush and Hitler are comparable in "evilness" or whatever, then say so. Then you and Big Sugar can argue about it. Otherwise it gets us nowhere.

You are Hitler. So am I. So is Mother Theresa. We're all humans. Big deal. Clarify your terms when you use them so we're all on the same page. This ain't no poetry class.

And if this WERE a poetry class-- uh,"The sun is orange?!?" 'nuff said.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by RichmondVA

Context, that's the key.

If questions your analogy, you've got to be clarify exactly what you meant. If you really think Bush and Hitler are comparable in "evilness" or whatever, then say so. Then you and Big Sugar can argue about it.

I agree with your postmodern rant....context IS important when trying to frame a comparison or successfully use an analogy.

However, I know that if I were to compare Bush and Hitler (which I have been known to do) and place it in a specific context as a way to be not only clear but convincing....big sug would take it OUT OF CONTEXT and tell me to get my head out of my ass.


so...we would still get no where.

[shivui]

i often speak vaguely. i constantly have to clarify. so...
read the words for what they are. if they are vague then they are vague. don't say they say things they don't. saying something vague is the same as saying nothing specifically, but can be taken as anything imaginable. it's all just misunderstanding.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Sovrana
However, I know that if I were to compare Bush and Hitler (which I have been known to do) and place it in a specific context as a way to be not only clear but convincing....big sug would take it OUT OF CONTEXT and tell me to get my head out of my ass.


so...we would still get no where.

Yeah well, I'm certainly not one to defend Big Sug since I disagree with the majority of his opinions and I get pretty snarky too (see above rant).

But I do think you have to be very careful when you compare people to Hitler. The things he did were pretty terrible and the wounds are still not healed for many Jewish and Europeans. Rightly or wrongly, comparing someone to Hitler makes a far bigger impact than comparing them to say, Atilla the Hun or Genghis Kahn.

If you really feel that strongly about it and you MEAN to make that sort of statement, then fine. I might disagree but I know you aren't taking the comparison lightly.

I'm a liberal who hates Bush but I don't care for some of the Hitler comparisons myself (not by anyone on the board per se, just stuff I've heard or read). Not because it insults America or our leader or whatnot, but because it belittles the suffering of those who went through WWII.

I found the bird picture in today's Pitchfork EXTREMELY offensive and irresponsible, and sent them an e-mail letting them know what jackasses they were.

[Duemellon]

Sure, all analogies are flawed-- BUT SOME ARE MORE FLAWED THAN OTHERS.yep. The Sun is an Orange is an extremely flawed analogy. There are so few similarities between them that it is quite possible for someone to not make the connection whatsoever and consider the statement a ridiculous claim.

ie: be dismissive to the message behind it out-of-hand, not because of context, but because they are unaware of the similarities or refuse to accept those similarities because of the differences.

Heh, I could say Tangerines are Oranges, and some orchard-grove specialist could flame me for saying they aren't. Even though this is on the opposite side, there is a flaw which is enough for anyone willing to harp on that flaw to dismiss the analogy as irrelevant.Context, that's the key. I agree with you. However, when the speaker &/or the listener decide to commit to make the analogy work/not work they can dismiss the importance of context, or project their opinions onto the context much easier.

If I said Collin Powell is like Osama Bin Laden because of how many people he directed others to kill, you and me would include all forms of supporting unspoken context to compute the allusion. In the end the only way I could use the analogy and be assured the characteristics I am claiming are paralleled, is to spell them out afterwards.

If I have to spell them out, what's the point of using an analogy?Not because it insults America or our leader or whatnot, but because it belittles the suffering of those who went through WWII. I agree with you there. Just like claiming rape, racism, immorality, and such, overuse can dilute it's poignancy & relevance. Personally, I don't think that Bush could come close to the amount of deaths that Hitler caused unless we get into a WoMD war. I do see his actions as imperialistic, and that scares me because we're being told his actions are this way to protect us, and to SHUT UP and be happy that he's protecting us this way. He's bringing the world to order.

Why wait until this turns for the worst and the authorities have the ability to whisk away "probable criminals", or we have to express undying loyalty to our government without question.

Oh, we're there already.

It could get worse. I'm not expecting it to and I pray that my nightmare doesn't come true.And if this WERE a poetry class-- uh,"The sun is orange?!?" 'nuff said. heh, did you feel I was being patronizing? Sorry. I was trying to elucidate the analogy by creating an analogy using another analogy as the model. It was fun to write, got me to think it through clearly.big sug would take it OUT OF CONTEXT and tell me to get my head out of my ass.no, he didn't take it out of context, he used the context he saw it in already. When you say "Bush = Hitler" you're saying such from your viewpoint as a dem/rep/lib/anarch, whereas he's reading from the BS/bS/Bs view. So, unless you want to spell out all the similar characteristics each time you speak that association, expect to be misunderstood by those who dont want to agree with you.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
[B]


But I do think you have to be very careful when you compare people to Hitler. The things he did were pretty terrible and the wounds are still not healed for many Jewish and Europeans. Rightly or wrongly, comparing someone to Hitler makes a far bigger impact than comparing them to say, Atilla the Hun or Genghis Kahn.


again, I agree...I generally have more success comparing Bush to Saddam...and with the current news, such a comparision is neatly contextualized :)

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Sovrana


I agree with your postmodern rant....context IS important when trying to frame a comparison or successfully use an analogy.

However, I know that if I were to compare Bush and Hitler (which I have been known to do) and place it in a specific context as a way to be not only clear but convincing....big sug would take it OUT OF CONTEXT and tell me to get my head out of my ass.


so...we would still get no where.

please define for me in specific terms why exactly you think Hitler and Bush are comparable. i'll be happy to debate the issue with you without taking a single thing out of context....

but if you or others insist on simply relying on your opinion that Bush and Hitler are comparable without providing facts and reasons, i'll stick to my opinion that you are insufferably wrong.

an analogy (substantially better than the laughable "the sun is an orange", but inherently flawed as well) would be if i said that Clinton and Caligula were equivalent....they were both men, and they both had sex, so therefore, they must be exactly alike in all ways, right? i'm sure some would take me to task on that....right? i mean, clearly Clinton was much more like Ron Jeremy, only with a small penis....

[monkey neck]

And bent, mind you.

[RichmondVA]

You guys never miss a chance to take a cheap shot at Clinton do you?

It might be a little more amusing if you two didn't whine like p*ssies anytime some comes close to criticizing Bush.

[BigSugar]

puhhhhlease.....criticizing bush is fine.....i do it too....saying he is the equivalent of hitler is ignorant and unsupportable...at least no one has come up with a decent supportable argument to date, despite being challenged to do so....

as for clinton, i thought it was clear by the "porn" reference that i was just joking....but for those that missed it, i was just joking when i compared clinton to Ron Jeremy and Caligula.....although, his autobiography "The Oval Orifice" was stunning! :D

[watusi]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
You guys never miss a chance to take a cheap shot at Clinton do you?

It might be a little more amusing if you two didn't whine like p*ssies anytime some comes close to criticizing Bush.


thats f*ckin hilarious!!!!!! most of whats posted on these forums is all about Bush bashing.
I'm not an across the board Bush supporter by any stretch of the imagination,but come on!
hello,pot, i'm the kettle...guess what? You're black!

[shivui]

yeah, i personally think that most people wouldn't like the president no matter who he was or is. i'm probably one of those people. i naturally rebel against power.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by watusi

thats f*ckin hilarious!!!!!! most of whats posted on these forums is all about Bush bashing.
I'm not an across the board Bush supporter by any stretch of the imagination,but come on!
hello,pot, i'm the kettle...guess what? You're black!

Sorry, just a bad joke.

See, I was trying to go with the whole theme of like Bush=Hitler like Clinton=Ron Jeremy like monkey neck and Bigsugar=whiny p*ssies. In each, there's maybe some grain of truth but the analogy/simile so grossly exagerates the situation that it becomes offensive and. . .

ah, never mind. I knew Bigsugar was kidding. I wasn't serious. You'll know when I'm serious 'cuz I'll smack you up with one of these :mad:

:mad: :mad: :mad: Can you feel the rage? :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by BigSugar
puhhhhlease.....criticizing bush is fine.....i do it too....saying he is the equivalent of hitler is ignorant and unsupportable...at least no one has come up with a decent supportable argument to date, despite being challenged to do so....

admittedly, any such comparisons I may make between the two are fairly general....in the context of dictatorship (i.e. The Patriot Act and the like). I do realize that Bush has not employed gas chambers to wipe out groups of people so such specific comparisons cannot be made.

However, I cannot help but be troubled by our pResident's determination to kill Social Security and to leave the poor much poorer with unreasonable tax cuts for the rich. While Bush does not overtly murder groups of people, he clearly kills their opportunities for survival.

as for clinton, i thought it was clear by the "porn" reference that i was just joking....but for those that missed it, i was just joking when i compared clinton to Ron Jeremy and Caligula.....although, his autobiography "The Oval Orifice" was stunning! :D

of course the only thing you can criticize Clinton on is his sexual past...it amazes me how concerned and interested conservatives are about clinton's dick...still!!

[Phreon]

I intended to say something pithy, but I'm listening to/watching J@zz at Lincoln Center and just don't feel like stealing brain/cpu cycles away from it to bitch.

Fuck it. Clinton was a piece of shit. Bush is a piece of shit. Big government is bad.

I agree with some of you and others have said some rediculously simple-minded things.

Politicians suck. What have you done about it?

Shut up,

Phreon

[watusi]

Originally posted by Phreon

Fuck it. Clinton was a piece of shit. Bush is a piece of shit. Big government is bad.



Can I get an Amen?!?!?



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!!!!

[Duemellon]

an analogy (substantially better than the laughable "the sun is an orange", thank you for noticing the degree of frivolity in the choice of items to compare. Or are you actually upset becaue I illustrated a point you don't like?they were both men, and they both had sex, so therefore, they must be exactly alike in all ways, right?that is where the analogies seem to go wrong for you. Analogies aren't wholly binary in their comparison. This isn't math-logic where any flaw makes it a broken circuit. This is partial comparisons. That was the point of my comment. I was trying to show you that there ARE similarities if you simply stop taking offense at the comparisons and try to see the shared characteristics.saying he is the equivalent of hitler is ignorant and unsupportable again, you're introducing the concept of absolute equity. You have to stop that to hear the arguments, otherwise you'll be stuck on the imperfections of the analogy, not the message behind it.

We had a thread a few months ago where the Hitler=Bush connections were illustrated, in that one as well you (BS) continued to waylay those people speaking. If you could stop verbally intimidating posters, you'd actually get more responses to discuss with them and then you would have the answers you seek to debate or accept.

Hitler and Bush are both calling for invasions of countries who were not at war with us. Hitler's administration instituted particularly invasive laws invading privacy, right to individuality, and freedom of dissention. Bush has set up laws to do the same, and created a society which enforces it through popular opinion and practices. Both have a particular group of people they are against. Although one could argue that Bush is not being racist, it is hard to also say that he's taking a balanced approach and reacting towards others who aren't that particular race with the same vehemence.

There are more comparisons, but there's a tidbit for you. I'll see how you react to that and decide if it's worth it to continue the discussion.yeah, i personally think that most people wouldn't like the president no matter who he was or is. for me, there's "not like" and "detest". I don't trust the prez no matter who he is, but some just set off my "megalomania-driven-bullheaded-warmongering-dictator-wanna-be alert" more often than others.

[solomon]

our pResident's determination to kill Social Security

The faster he kills it the better. It's a horrible system and it's going to DIE anyway. It's just another tool of increasing government dependence and reducing the desire to save, plan ahead, and be prudent. I also think it's partly responsible (along with the host of other welfare programs) for family dysfunctionality.

to leave the poor much poorer with unreasonable tax cuts for the rich.

Tax cuts anywhere are good. Welfare programs do not "fix" the poor, you just get more poor. You always get more of whatever you subsidize, period.

By the way, great post phreon.

Sol

[RichmondVA]

I'd love to see Bush cut Social Security. In fact my respect for him would go up tremendously. I might even consider re-electing him just for having the guts to do it.

But of course Bush isn't going to touch Social Security as that would be political suicide. What he'll do is borrow money from Social Security to fund his $44 trillion deficit, then let some future politician take the blame.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
See, I was trying to go with the whole theme of like Bush=Hitler like Clinton=Ron Jeremy like monkey neck and Bigsugar=whiny p*ssies.

Hey, where's all the people coming to MY defense when people call ME names? Oh, yeah, because you're all Bush hating anti-gubment/authority libs. Big Sug and I resent being called passies, or possies, er whatever letter that nebulous "*" represents.

Have a nice day.:D

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Sovrana
.....in the context of dictatorship (i.e. The Patriot Act and the like).

of course the only thing you can criticize Clinton on is his sexual past...it amazes me how concerned and interested conservatives are about clinton's dick...still!!

1. I'm not sure what liberal fantasy camp you went to, but the PATRIOT Act does not establish a dictatorship, revoke the constitution, establish military law, or otherwise make GWB the supreme lifetime ruler of the United States. It does not call for the extermination of the liberals in the US to make a "pure" conservative state. And while i think that some of the act's provisions are unconstitutional and will be struck when the Supremes get the right case, your comparison is so far off base as to be childlike.

as for clinton, he's a has been, former attorney who had his license to practice taken away because he committed felony perjury. his 8 years were marred by scandal and intrigue the likes of which no presidency had ever seen, or likely will see again soon...i could list item after item, but it's a waste of breath with most of you, so why should i expend brain cells on it....the dick jokes are just the most funny, so that's what you'll get... :)
8---->

[cuddlyevil]

Originally posted by solomon
The faster he kills it the better. It's a horrible system and it's going to DIE anyway. It's just another tool of increasing government dependence and reducing the desire to save, plan ahead, and be prudent. I also think it's partly responsible (along with the host of other welfare programs) for family dysfunctionality.

Oh, I doubt it's the cause of family dysfunctionality--a factor in continuing it? More than likely, but the cause? Not so much. Cuts in education, failure to enforce truancy statutes, and the seemingly continual lay-offs are more along the lines of what I consider causes of family dysfunctionality. The cycle of poverty is a very real thing, you learn from your environment and no matter how hard some people try--they can't get out of it (It's hard replacing the food stamp, WIC, or subsidized food benefits when you're getting paid minimum wage at Mcie D's and no longer eligible for said benefits--so where's the motivation to better yourself?).

But, you can't really blame those on any one government-type in particular for any of that, unless you go back to the depression-era when social security was created.

Anyway, getting back on topic: Clinton may have been a scandalous, letch of a president but at least he had fun, right? Oh, and I liked that it was much easier for me to get a higher paying job due to the better economy. Still not sure if Bush's done anything that I can applaud him for...well, he did approve more money for the DOE program I work for, but not that's probably being cutback so I dunno...

[solomon]

Oh, I doubt it's the cause of family dysfunctionality--a factor in continuing it? More than likely, but the cause? Not so much.

The way I see it is, in the past, parents save up money and pass it on to their children and help them get a head start, children help take care of their parents when they are old, etc. There is an inter/intra-family dependency so it is in everyone's interest to try and put problems aside and help one another. With the birth of the welfare state, this isn't true anymore. Government "takes care" of everyone, young and old, and so the incentive to put aside grudges and build family bonds is decreased, because you need each other less. It's not THE cause, but I think it's one of the original causes.

There's absolutely no need for government in education. And truancy statutes shouldn't be laws, making kids go to school is part of parenting. But there you go, government officials trying to assume the role of parent once again.

The cycle of poverty is a very real thing

The cycle of poverty is only further aggravated by welfare programs.

It's hard replacing the food stamp, WIC, or subsidized food benefits when you're getting paid minimum wage at Mcie D's and no longer eligible for said benefits--so where's the motivation to better yourself?

Exacty, there is no motivation because you don't HAVE to do it. The big government daddy will take care of you. You can get by fine working at mcdonalds...but maybe not if you had kids too early because you thought you could go without a condom "just this one time", or thought heroin would be a nice thing to try. But this is no one's fault but their own, and no one else should be forced to bear the burden of their decisions. Unless someone CHOOSES to help them out.

When you make it easier to get by making bad decisions, you get more people making bad decisions.

Sol

[Duemellon]

his 8 years were marred by scandal and intrigue the likes of which no presidency had ever seen, or likely will see again soonbwhhahaHahahahahaHaAhahah rofl.

i love that line. Oh, that's right, it may be the only prez with scandal and intrigue like YOU've ever seen, but realistically, c'mon man, get a grip. It's the ONLY prez you've seen (Either you've only seen his "intrigue" because you were looking for it, or because you aren't looking for "intrigue" anymore).Government "takes care" of everyone, young and old, and so the incentive to put aside grudges and build family bonds is decreased, because you need each other less.Your statement smacks of accusations of rampant socialism. Is this truly how you see all government assistance programs? Do you really consider a better state of society to be "free-for-all"?Exacty, there is no motivation because you don't HAVE to do it. I disagree in this respect:
Thanks to the popular society we are programmed to accept, we act as if the one who dies with the most stuff wins and being self-sufficient is what makes you a man/woman. Consumerism is as rampant as SARS in Toronto (ok, actually consumerism is more infectious). Therefore, the bulk of the have nots are not satisfied being dependent. Some truly feel they are trapped, and give up. Others successfully escape. While new poor people are being created everyday by layoffs, job changes, pay cuts, and bad FB in Cincy. The motivation for remaining on assistance is contrary to most people's programmed self-image.

[solomon]

Your statement smacks of accusations of rampant socialism.

Of course it does. That's what we have. A MASSIVE welfare state. Handing stolen money out to practically any taker. You have a kid that you shouldn't have? don't worry, we'll take care of you. You got laid off? Don't worry, we'll take care of you. You're old, and didn't make a decision to take care of your retirement? Don't worry we'll take care of you. Etc Etc Etc.

Is this truly how you see all government assistance programs?

Yes.

Do you really consider a better state of society to be "free-for-all"?

Yes. The key word is "free". Everyone plays by the same rules. No one gets subsidized help. The main error I see is that people think that there is a "set" amount of poor and if we help them, then we've reduced the amount of poor. But what isn't realized is that this isn't true, whatever anti-productive behavior you subsidize, you get MORE OF. Because it shifts the risk-reward ratio of productive vs anti-productive behavior/decisions.

Thanks to the popular society we are programmed to accept, we act as if the one who dies with the most stuff wins and being self-sufficient is what makes you a man/woman.

No one is forced to accept this. I swear, people act like no one has a choice in the matter! No one "wins". I don't care what decision you make. I don't care if you decide to not work. But don't make anyone ELSE bear the burden of that choice. That's what gets under my skin. Go have a bunch of kids. But don't make anyone ELSE pay for them. You are responsible for your behavior and decisions. If you want to spend too much and not put some away for retirement, you go right ahead. But when it comes back to bite you, don't use government to come steal what you need from me or anyone else.

new poor people are being created everyday by layoffs, job changes, pay cuts, and bad FB in Cincy.

Losing your job is a part of life. It happens. Be prepared. Although "recessions" can firmly be traced back to government policy.

The motivation for remaining on assistance is contrary to most people's programmed self-image.

That may be true for some people. Maybe they are the ones who work hard to get off government help. But that doesn't excuse it. That's NOT your average welfare recipient.

Sol

[shivui]

solomon
Yes. The key word is "free". Everyone plays by the same rules.
nobody's free. get over it and keep it to your dreams.

without any programs, i'd hate to see what would happen to some people that are physically, mentally, or just plain uncapable of living a normal producive lifestyle. i think a "challenged" person would find your methods hard to live by if no one chose to help. sol, i can't figure out if your comments call for anarchy, communism, or whatever. what should the gov do then? if it's not handling programs to help its citizens. what's the purpose?

i'll tell you this... if everyone was "free" it would be anarchy, everyone for self. after a while some sort of government would be established to create order. history will repeat itself as it has a great history of doing.

due, i agree that the society i live in does push greed a little bit too far. i work with a guy that says he IS going to be rich one day. i asked him why and what he would do with the money. he said i don't know, i just want to be rich and i will be. i'm sorry but i just can't relate. guess i just don't care enough about having the best "stuff".

a little bit more...
i'm positive a "free-for-all" just plain would not work. if it ever happened(i stress the "if"), it would not last very long. people naturally are born with or obtain things that others want/need that they can't provide for themselves. an agreement would be reached to acquire these things that at least are necessary to sustain life. trading becomes important and you start to create a little bit of order. anyone with common sense can take it from there. moves on to a larger scale.

from my eyes... in the world today, i don't think charitable people would survive long without a lil bit of funding. stress the everybody for self routine and it creates more greed. people caring less about others. those people needing help probably wouldn't get it because the people giving it
a)can't find time or money after trying to support themselves
b)don't see any personal benefit from helping
c)just plain don't care

sometimes it's not just the people receiving help that need it. it's also the people giving it.

"no man is an island"

yes yes the system is a bit broken, but one drastic change isn't going to fix it. and remember people this is supposedly the systems that we put together and vote for as citizens.
remember, the government is for the people by the people. work for a change.

sol, believe me when i say i do get heated when people have kids they can't support them. a coworker of mine told me that all the deadbeat fathers should be hung up by their balls. this in response to me pointing out my father in the top(#?) child support violaters in butler county. my pops owes over $56K i believe. i highlighted his name and hung up the sheet as i laughed. and i still could care less.

i'll tell you what though. it's local issues that piss me off. seeing roads f'd up constantly in hamilton hits me harder than any BS dubya's got boiling in his pot. some more efficient city management is in order here.

i got the greatest compliment today. me and a coworker russ were discussing roadwork, judges, cops, lawyers, traffic laws, court, all the bs. we were complaining about getting pulled over and being hassled with ridiculous closed off streets. i told him my grandmother thinks i should become a politician. he immediately shook his head and said "you're not crooked enough". makes me smile and cry.

[Duemellon]

the concept that everyone is created equal is idyllic, and ludicrous at best.

A free-for-all would only exacerbate that disparity to a point of unshakeable capitalist-aristocracy. Right now we're heading there, but a FFA would make a mess of it quickly.

Oh? By not being created equal, I mean:
You win the genetic lottery and are the only child of a wealthy family. A family so wealthy they haven't had to work for 3 generations. You could get an education, you could become a adventurer, you could do whatever you financially wanted.

You lose the genetic roulette wheel and are born to poor uneducated parents. There is no opportunity for you to get the education needed for you to compete with even lower-class members of society. You realize your predicament but due to lack of training, marketability, and local opportunities, you're screwed.

Then you can throw in the non-capability factors of stereotypes and social behaviors, and well, the model gets even more messy.

FFA is a mess. It would create a caste-system for all intents and purposes.No one is forced to accept this. I swear, people act like no one has a choice in the matter! No one "wins". heh, even many people who claim not be in the "rat race" are still consumeristic-money-snatching-capitalist-zombies. They just are in denial of it. Most anyone you talk to in clear terms about "greed" or valuing self by material posessions, will deny they give in to the idea. Yet you'll hear them talking about their new car, or being moderately jealous of coworker X's new jewlery. You aren't forced to believe it, but it's the only thing you're taught through school, the spirit of competition, popular religion, and pop-culture.

So, even though I'm glad that you and me have attained such an epiphany, I realize the populace-at-large still hasn't "got it".Of course it does. That's what we have. A MASSIVE welfare state. Handing stolen money out to practically any taker. You have a kid that you shouldn't have? don't worry, we'll take care of you. You got laid off? Don't worry, we'll take care of you. You're old, and didn't make a decision to take care of your retirement? Don't worry we'll take care of you. Etc Etc Etc. back to this part, which is a good thing to bring up since I just made the relevant point regarding materialism...

When I lost my job it was unexpected. There were warnings, but my training and opportunities were for a specific job-force and when that market disappeared my specialization was a hurdle, not a godsend. I was unemployed for more than 1 year, working temp-jobs and contractual work. If it wasn't for govn't assistance I'd have to file bankruptcy, lose my mode of personal transportation, move back in with my parents or the street, and so on and so on. The govn't assistance helped keep me from hitting a point where I'd be spending the next 10 years digging out of a hole made in less than 1 yr. When my benefits were starting to run out I faced the humiliating proposition of going on welfare. Even though I'm not a materialistic person, I do accept the realization that I need "stuff" to be self-sufficient and being interminably poor would mean I would be dependent on my luxuries and necessities being dictated by "the man". didn't want that.

Furthermore, my mother worked all her life for the evil empire (P&G, that is). She was saving enough to retire in a decade or so, but then God struck and blessed her with incapacitating MS. So, within that 10 year period she went from "soon-to-be retiree" to "permanent quadrapeligic". Destitute from combating MS, and trying to make her living arrangements manageable, she has no more retirement $$ left. After losing my well-paying jobs there is no way I could even imagine paying for the medical attention she needs even if she was to live with me (she needs 24/7 available assistance). Thanks to Medicare/aid and DB from P&G (a form of privatized assistance) she is able to live at a run-down delapated building with 24/7 supervision, terrible food, scary residents, and such. But she's alive and I hope to one day get her out.

Most likely, it ain't gonna happen, but if this was a FFA we'd've had to leave her in the forest for the wolves or something.

Govn't assistance isn't just used by the weak-willed and lazy. It isn't a trap, it's a symptom of a trap, it's a function within the confines of inescapable poverty, but it's NOT the piston driving it.

[RichmondVA]

Unless your idea of "fairness" is the same as "efficiency," then a free market will never be fair.

As far as "utils" go, the free-market concept rejects equality as a desired outcome in favor of efficiency.

[solomon]

nobody's free. get over it and keep it to your dreams.

This is a pessimistic outlook. I'm not a pessimist. There have been conditions and societies in history that were close to what I desire. It is a possibility, even if it seems remote now, and even if it's not remote, that's not going to keep me from fighting for it.

i think a "challenged" person would find your methods hard to live by if no one chose to help.

people are VERY giving. Take a look at charity statistics. And these would have much stricter requirements for getting money, so that only those who REALLY needed it would get it. Not as easy as just filling out some forms. Just by looking at what we have, there is plenty to take care of those who are truly challenged.

sol, i can't figure out if your comments call for anarchy, communism, or whatever. what should the gov do then? if it's not handling programs to help its citizens. what's the purpose?

I call for "anarchy" but not in the sense of "no order". The problem I have is with territorial taxing monopolies of law and defense: states. I believe an orderly society can be had without this inherently coercive/aggressive structure. I want a completely voluntary/contractual society.

everyone for self. after a while some sort of government would be established to create order. history will repeat itself as it has a great history of doing.

Again, I'm not saying no order. My problem is with governments as we know them.

an agreement would be reached to acquire these things that at least are necessary to sustain life. trading becomes important and you start to create a little bit of order. anyone with common sense can take it from there. moves on to a larger scale.

This is exactly what Im saying! Free people realize the benefits to be had from specialization/division of labor and trading. I'm not against order. You don't need a taxing monopoly to get people to trade and contract with one another.

i don't think charitable people would survive long without a lil bit of funding.

You mean people requiring charity wouldn't survive long? I think they would. Besides, I have a moral problem with stealing from someone (taxes) to give to someone else YOU deem deserves it more. For whatever reason. Need is not a claim on someone's life or labor.

people caring less about others.

Why? I think people would care MORE about others. Society would be more tightly bound. People would have to rely on each other instead of government. I think more insurance type contracts would develop so that everyone could spread their risk. (In fact, there is a historical precedent for this.)

remember, the government is for the people by the people.

I think this is an illusion and propaganda that helps people be more complacent with the status quo. What a cynic :)

Sol

[solomon]

the concept that everyone is created equal is idyllic, and ludicrous at best.

I never said people were equal. They are not equal. Everyone is different, with a different allotment of skills/abilities/vices etc..

A free-for-all would only exacerbate that disparity to a point of unshakeable capitalist-aristocracy.

People aren't quite as disparate as you think in my opinion. Nearly everyone is capable of producing something. And that's all it takes. In a free market, there is a nearly constant increase in the standard of living, even for the poor, as opposed to what we have now. It's a rising tide that raises all ships.
And I'm not against a "capitalist-aristocracy" in principle, but it wouldn't be unshakeable.

As for your genetic example. Sure. Some are going to luck out. Some aren't. But just because you are a rich person's child doesn't mean you can manage those resources well. Take a look at the seagram's family, the bronfmon's I think. The son has lost a massive amount of the family fortune if I remember right. In a free society, resources travel to the best resource-managers, and away from the worst. And you are approaching education looking at how it exists in todays world. There's nothing special about education that makes it so expensive. It's just another product. It wouldn't be nearly as expensive, and would be a lot more diverse, if the market was allowed to flourish.

even many people who claim not be in the "rat race" are still consumeristic-money-snatching-capitalist-zombies. They just are in denial of it. Most anyone you talk to in clear terms about "greed" or valuing self by material posessions, will deny they give in to the idea.

But so what? I don't care what criteria people use to value themselves. Use whatever you want. I'll use what I use. I'm not going to place a value judgment on someone because of how they choose to value themselves, whether it's by material things or how many rosaries they say a day. I don't think valuing yourself by the amount of sex-partners you've had is particularly great either, but hey, whatever floats your boat. It's not my decision.

move back in with my parents

Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly is so horrible about moving back in with your parents until you get on your feet?

Regarding the rest of your example, you have to realize that I see government as "infecting" nearly every part of the economy and society, wreaking havoc and causing inefficiency and resource misallocation all along the way. Education, medicine, all forms of business, etc. The problems are systematic. You cite a current situation as proof that freedom wouldn't work, but the particulars of the situation, especially in terms of costs, would be MUCH different. The cost structure has formed AROUND government, so yes, if tomorrow we went totally free for a while it would be horrible. I'm trying to point out that we never needed it in the first place, and that in the long run, it's best for everyone if we try to ween ourselves off it. That's what's hard about getting rid of big government once you have it, it creates dependency.

RVA

then a free market will never be fair.

It is fair. You get what you give. You can only demand as much as you produce.

Sol

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by solomon
It is fair. You get what you give. You can only demand as much as you produce.

Sol

That's an efficiency-based definition of fair. That is NOT however, most people's definition of "fair."

You're sticking it to the physically and mentally challenged, those who are born poor, those who have mental illness, child abuse victims etc., etc.

[shivui]

This is a pessimistic outlook. I'm not a pessimist. There have been conditions and societies in history that were close to what I desire. It is a possibility, even if it seems remote now, and even if it's not remote, that's not going to keep me from fighting for it.
it's not so much pessimistic as it is realistic in this society. if i don't pay taxes, i'll go to jail, simple as that. i'm not free of the machine. that's all i'm saying.
people are VERY giving. Take a look at charity statistics. And these would have much stricter requirements for getting money, so that only those who REALLY needed it would get it. Not as easy as just filling out some forms
isn't the gov always trying to spew out more efficient ways to run welfare like systems?
i know people are very giving. i guess i don't have the answer on this one. i just wouldn't think in a FFA everyone would help eachother. i think they'd be to bent on their own survival.
I want a completely voluntary/contractual society.
that would be nice. how would that work exactly? is their any blueprint to follow?
You mean people requiring charity wouldn't survive long? I think they would. Besides, I have a moral problem with stealing from someone (taxes) to give to someone else YOU deem deserves it more. For whatever reason. Need is not a claim on someone's life or labor.
i meant people being charitable would require charity themselves. not everyone can be the giving tree and be fine with just a stump.
yeah, i understand and pretty much agree with the tax thing. it's definitely a conflict of interest.
(In fact, there is a historical precedent for this.)
what is it?
I think this is an illusion and propaganda that helps people be more complacent with the status quo. What a cynic
my statement was sarcastic.

i don't think we're that far apart on this thing sol. we just express ourselves differently.
You're sticking it to the physically and mentally challenged, those who are born poor, those who have mental illness, child abuse victims etc., etc.
"this is our concern dude"

[solomon]

That's an efficiency-based definition of fair. That is NOT however, most people's definition of "fair."

Ok, what is most people's definition of fair?

You're sticking it to the physically and mentally challenged, those who are born poor, those who have mental illness, child abuse victims etc., etc.

I'm not sticking it to anyone because i haven't DONE anything to them. This is what sucks about reality - there is a scarcity of resources and some people get born missing their hands. It's no one's fault. No one is "sticking it" to them. Need is not a claim on life or property. I didn't give anyone a mental illness, and they have no right to demand that I subsidize them with my labor using government as a gun. I feel bad for them, and I will DONATE money, but we can't have a society where people use government to hold other people up to get what they need.

isn't the gov always trying to spew out more efficient ways to run welfare like systems?

There's no need to. They have no pressing need to be more efficient.

that would be nice. how would that work exactly? is their any blueprint to follow?

Kind of. It has a lot to do with insurance companies. If you are truly interested this paperThe Private Production of Defense (http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf) is a brief outline that will explain the gist of it.

Sol

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by solomon

I feel bad for them, and I will DONATE money, but we can't have a society where people use government to hold other people up to get what they need.

Sol

But why would you feel bad for them? Why donate money to a handicapped person? Remember this?

You get what you give. You can only demand as much as you produce.

If you give money to someone beyond what they produce because you feel bad for them, you've just been unfair.

[solomon]

But why would you feel bad for them? Why donate money to a handicapped person? Remember this?

No I don't remember. What do you mean? I know a handicapped person is in need of assistance. I am in a position to help. But I'm not going to go force you to help too.

If you give money to someone beyond what they produce because you feel bad for them, you've just been unfair.

No no no no... ..I'm talking about the difference between coercion and voluntary action. Ok let me clarify by saying other things being equal, you get what you give. But you are right, a blind person might very well think I am being unfair by gifting a deaf person an extra $2 an hour above his market wage. But, it's my property and I can dispose of it how I wish, whether fair or unfair.

Sol

[RichmondVA]

No, I get your point about government coercion. The fact that the government forces you to do something that you wouldn't otherwise is certainly is unfair to you.

But let's leave that aside for now. I'm talking about underlying views of what is fair or unfair. And if we agree that such concepts exist, they must exist outside of the government. Something isn't fair or unfair just because the government says so.

So the argument I am making is that if your definition of "fair" is that the distribution of resources must be based upon production, then why would you do something unfair? You aren't just cheating the blind person, you're cheating yourself. You've introduced an inefficiency into the system that ultimately affects everyone in it, including you.

If you believe that the free market is not just efficient, but actually morally correct you should live by those principles. You should never feel bad about handicapped people and never give anything to someone who hasn't earned it.

[solomon]

So the argument I am making is that if your definition of "fair" is that the distribution of resources must be based upon production, then why would you do something unfair? You aren't just cheating the blind person, you're cheating yourself. You've introduced an inefficiency into the system that ultimately affects everyone in it, including you.

Any coercive distribution of resources in not fair. In the market, the distribution takes the shape of a "give and take" between buyer and seller. Efficiency/inefficiency is all dependent upon satisfying consumer demands. Ultimately making a TV cheaper isn't "more efficient" than helping someone out, if I value helping someone out more than getting a cheaper tv. See what I mean? If I choose to spend money helping someone out, that is satisfying a desire or demand just as much as buying some clothes or going to a movie.

If you believe that the free market is not just efficient, but actually morally correct you should live by those principles. You should never feel bad about handicapped people and never give anything to someone who hasn't earned it.

But people's values, which the market attempts to satisfy, aren't divided into market/materials and non-market/ spirituals or whatever. all values are scaled with each other. Helping someone out is a desire just like getting a new tv, and efficiency is defined by how resources get used to see that THESE desires get satisifed (in most urgent order), not the other way around.

solomon

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by solomon

But people's values, which the market attempts to satisfy, aren't divided into market/materials and non-market/ spirituals or whatever. all values are scaled with each other. Helping someone out is a desire just like getting a new tv, and efficiency is defined by how resources get used to see that THESE desires get satisifed (in most urgent order), not the other way around.

solomon

That's the point I'm trying to make. You stated that the free market is "fair," or at least brings about fairness. And you've used the term "fair" to imply some notion of equality, as on the private school market voucher thread. In fact captalism does not bring equality or fairness in a traditional sense and never will.

You give your cash to whoever you want for whatever reason you you want. If you give $1.00 to a homeless person, you do it because for whatever reason it makes you happy. If I choose not to do it, it's because it doesn't bring me any value. But the notion of fairness implies some universal value beyond personal choice. Something isn't fair simply because you or I say it is.

The only thing a free market brings about is efficiency. It's not going to address income disparity or inequality of opportunity because it is utterly different. If our society has 1,000,000 utils of happiness, the free market could care less whether you have 1,000,000 and everyone else has zero, or if it's evenly split or whatever. All those outcomes are equally efficient.

If you back capitalism completely, you have to not only acknowledge that it isn't fair, but also that there isn't even any such concept of fair.

[solomon]

If you back capitalism completely, you have to not only acknowledge that it isn't fair, but also that there isn't even any such concept of fair.

Okay, I think I see what you are saying. But tell me, what is your or others' definition of fair? But I do believe there is a concept of fair ..in that I don't think it's fair to use aggression or coercion to take someone's propery. I don't believe that's a FAIR, or just, method of acquiring resources. By saying that the market isn't FAIR, I don't understand what concept of fair you are using to say this...that everything is distributed equally regardless of labor? Is that how you are using fair?

Sol