Who Agrees With This Post?

[Laudate_Dominum]

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/13/the-pillars-of-apathy/

An excerpt:

[quote]I refuse to believe government programs launched in the Forties, Sixties, and Seventies are indestructible features of our lives, immune to repeal or reform. I don’t believe a nation with a 234-year history of courage and industry is destined to suffocate in a shallow pool of nanny-state cement, poured only a few generations ago. It will be difficult for the American giant to rise again… but history unfolds in the space between difficult and impossible...
Above all, I reject the essential premise of statism: the belief that we don’tneed each other.

This is the distilled essence of Obama liberalism, which teaches us to look to the State for our needs, instead of seeking the voluntary cooperation of our fellows. Draining money from the private sector is a means of limiting our ability to work together. It damages our ability to generate wealth by finding opportunities for mutually beneficial trade. Nationalized and subsidized industries represent the forced reversal of our decision to avoid doing business with certain companies. You paid a lot of money to General Motors this year, even if you’ve never driven a GM car in your life.

There is a message hissing through the static of bailouts, moratoriums, takeovers, and mandates filling the past year. The code for that message was written in the pages of the New Deal and Great Society. It says we’re foolish to offer our services to each other, or invest in each other’s designs. Only the State can be trusted. Only compulsive force can resolve the great challenges facing us. The State requires all of us, and it’s the only thing any of us needs...

The apathetic victims who accept that message are sitting around Hoping for Change, instead of hiring each other to get things done. Free men and women exploit opportunities, instead of waiting for rescue[/quote].

[CatherineM]

These kinds of articles are rarely written by someone who has experienced a seriously ill child, or a long term disability. Not everyone comes from a benevolent, loving family that takes care of their own. Some of us don't have a safety net underneath us. Our society has become very self-centered. 20 years ago when I first became disabled, there wasn't any private charity or society who could or would help me. Without government assistance, I'd still be on the street. So would my husband.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='13 June 2010 - 09:59 AM' timestamp='1276441188' post='2128066']
Our society has become very self-centered. 20 years ago when I first became disabled, there wasn't any private charity or society who could or would help me. Without government assistance, I'd still be on the street. So would my husband.
[/quote]

Taking money from people by threat of violence doesn't make society any more benevolent or any less self-centered. On the contrary, such a system creates real incentives for people to try to take what they can without putting much in on their own. It's why the pilgrims starved and froze when they had a collective system, and thrived with abundance when each was forced to work for himself. Once there is surplus, one [i]can[/i] charitably give much to others. Money collected by threat of violence and inserted into an uncharitable milieu (the only milieu where such an action would ever be "needful") will not rectify an underlying lack of charity. Charity comes from the human heart, not the barrel of a gun. There is no moral substitute for individual charity.

The Church couldn't or wouldn't help you? But men with guns could, and therefore should? There's at least one problem with that scenario, and I'll leave it for every individual to figure out what it is on their own.

~Sternhauser

Edited June 13, 2010 by Sternhauser

[TeresaBenedicta]

I'm not a huge fan of debating these kinds of things, mostly because it's not my forte. I don't really have the breadth of knowledge required to really talk in depth about it.

I took a course this semester, the only economics course I've ever taken, called "History of Economic Thought." The title does little justice for the overall thesis of the course. My professor sought to dispel the myths of anti-capitalists; he was not trying to be pro-market, but merely to show that the so-called downfalls of capitalism are not inherent in the system. They are found in other economic systems as well and there has been more gain in the past century than ever before yadda yadda yadda. Anyways, his argument was that rather than worrying about the system and trying to make the system good so the people will be good, we need to start working on making the people good... and then they'll make good choices in the system.

I'm not a huge fan of government interference, in principle. I think it represents a flawed view of markets and capitalism as a whole.

Side note: The United States, as a whole, gives [i]far more[/i] to charity than any other country and any other economic system.

[Resurrexi]

tl;dr

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote]
A great deal more than this Presidency is in the process of failing. Dismantling the bankrupt system we’ve accepted for our entire liveswon’t be easy, and success is not guaranteed, but I see plenty to beoptimistic about. Nothing prompts Americans to create alternativesfaster than angry politicians insisting there aren’t any.
[/quote]


This part I liked specifically, because it will be key to have people realize that they themselves make up the government and that they themselves have to change it, not the politicians, since obviously we have seen with the healthcare reform, they cannot be entirely depended upon.

I think, Americans in general just need to be woken up to the reality and that the government cannot take care of everything nor baby us at the same time. Luckily, I think the whole trouble in the Gulf is waking people up.

They are taking larger chunks out of my pay check, but I am not seeing any results. We need to start something and see results ourselves. Enough of the lobbying, because obviously the politicians are not doing the job.

Personally, I enjoyed the upbeat tone to this article.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]I refuse to believe government programs launched in the Forties, Sixties, and Seventies are indestructible features of our lives, immune to repeal or reform.[/quote]

Yes, I believe in obsolescence.

[jeffpugh]

I voted, but I deleted it because I'm not 100% sure if it applies to me. I think what struck me was the comment about the bailout and forcing other people to pay a company they'll probably never support. Now I get why people are all "kawwmeeyewnisumm" re: the bailout.

[NunMother]

Excellent article. Let's revisit it again after the November elections.

[goldenchild17]

[img]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/funny-pictures-unpolitical-cat-is-on-a-fence.jpg[/img]

[sistersintigo]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='01 July 2010 - 05:02 AM' timestamp='1277971331' post='2136513']
[img]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/funny-pictures-unpolitical-cat-is-on-a-fence.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

U Mugwump.

Ur hed iz on 1 side
n Ur wump iz on the other.

[Selah]

[quote]tl;dr [/quote]

Shall I translate it into Latin for you?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='20 June 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1277046302' post='2131723']
Yes, I believe in obsolescence.
[/quote]
I'm dying of laughter right now because of your avatar.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='01 July 2010 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1278025892' post='2136771']
I'm dying of laughter right now because of your avatar.
[/quote]
L_D communicating with LD? Is the universe going to explode? Dopplegangers!

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

capitalism and communism are twins,not identical though.