It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Statist's Conceit

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Not only would taxes (read: someone else’s money) fund compassion, but it would also fund their own peace of mind, absolving them from the guilt of never providing any compassion, care, and kindness themselves.
That is the Statist's Conceit


In the words of FDR:



An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government.


Against corporatists like yourself a lowly worker can ONLY turn to government to fight economic tyranny. If statists conceit is really such a problem then how come wealth inequality is at all time highs? The cabal of billionaires running this country are the ones who have conceit. The reason Bernie Sanders was so popular and had such huge showings at his rallies is precisely because he was a socialist. Again, against economic tyranny what is a worker supposed to do according to your way of thinking? Nothing I imagine.

The problems with our country are not rocket science. The lobbyists force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. The lobbyists own the politicians. The CEOs own the lobbyists. Corrporations OWN the government. Corporations ARE the government.

Every year prices continue to rise while wages are stagnant. Every year the purchasing power of the median workers wage decreases. And every year the median workers wage becomes more and more a poverty wage.

So your solution is we should cut taxes and do nothing because Bernie Sanders has statist conceit and does not help the millions of people living in poverty with his own time, money, and energy. Other than do nothing, what is your better solution?




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Painting with an awful broad brush there. I know many people on the left (some admitted socialist but most not) who spend great amounts of time, money, and energy in helping others. Many of these people have also chosen career paths based on their ability to help people as opposed to their ability to make money. The large majority of these people are quite humble and you will never heard their story told. I myself am not a socialist nor a leftist. I am in a profession where I could make a lot of money but have chosen, instead, to follow a path of service. I do this not because I'm a great humanitarian but because I measure success in a way quite different from the accepted norm.


There's no use fighting people with such profound prejudice and bigotry.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Insofar as statists give their lord and saviour The State monopoly over human affairs, a monopoly which is itself without governance, statists are far more corporatist than anyone else.

Why don’t you start a company, pay your workers better wages, and give them what they want? Either you cannot or you will not, and for whatever reason you’d rather Big Brother step up and do it for you. In the process you grant the State more power, more monopoly, and in doing so, deprive your fellow citizens of freedom. Rather, it is you who does nothing, and worse, enslave the coming generations for your short term gain.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There's some very difficult assumptions made in this study that don't necessarily lead to the conclusion. It's based on tax returns which do not include a person's political beliefs. Drawing a person's political beliefs from the state they reside in is quite a leap. Second, it's only for deductions made, not contributions made. If I spend half a day volunteering at a charity, there's no deduction for that. Lastly, many poorer conservatives are members of Christian churches which require tithing.

I'd also point out that I'm not anti-conservative as a general rule. I just disagree with the OP is all.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I'd agree that those who use it for some type of "virtue signaling" are wrong just as anyone who does so for any reason is showing a complete lack of humility as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of what virtue means.

However, to say that all, or even a majority, of the people who advocate for such programs are some how actually less virtuous than those that don't is a conclusion I've seen no evidence for in my life. Your OP doesn't give any evidence either except for one anecdotal data point.

I don't see how this is so dangerous. I can think of a many, many more issues that are far more dangerous to the US from an existential viewpoint.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson




However, to say that all, or even a majority, of the people who advocate for such programs are some how actually less virtuous than those that don't is a conclusion I've seen no evidence for in my life. Your OP doesn't give any evidence either except for one anecdotal data point.


You've misrepresented my argument again, and passed it off as a refutation. Again, and for the last time, the point of the OP is that those who advocate for government power are not showing compassion, kindness, or generosity by advocating for government power.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Again, in this thread no one knows what stereotyping is, nor the conceit involved in pretending they do.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

First, I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent anything. Language, by its nature, is ambiguous. If I've misinterpreted you, my apologies.

If I could add one word to your point I would agree with it. If it was, "Those who advocate for government power are not NECESSARILY showing compassion, kindness . . ." Or use the word "always."

It's remarkable to me that you went on with all your flowery prose to state a proposition that you have no proof of and that in fact is unknowable and yet you state it as if it is proven, axiomatic even. Even if it were knowable, or in fact known to you, who cares? Does one's political belief system have to be based upon compassion to be legitimate? Or does it even matter that one's stated reasons for advocating a particular point of view match their true motivation? If that's the case then most, if not all, federal politicians would fail that test.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson



First, I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent anything. Language, by its nature, is ambiguous. If I've misinterpreted you, my apologies.

If I could add one word to your point I would agree with it. If it was, "Those who advocate for government power are not NECESSARILY showing compassion, kindness . . ." Or use the word "always."

It's remarkable to me that you went on with all your flowery prose to state a proposition that you have no proof of and that in fact is unknowable and yet you state it as if it is proven, axiomatic even. Even if it were knowable, or in fact known to you, who cares? Does one's political belief system have to be based upon compassion to be legitimate? Or does it even matter that one's stated reasons for advocating a particular point of view match their true motivation? If that's the case then most, if not all, federal politicians would fail that test.


I'm sure lots of silly things are remarkable to you, so I could care less what is or isn't. I suppose you might not know what an argument is or how they are made, and if that's the case I understand your bafflement, but an argument is a set of reasons with the aim of persuading someone of a proposition. You didn't touch a single part of my argument, first misrepresenting it, then dismissing it with a hand wave.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   


Whose relationship to the poor and working people? The State


No, society, which is at least half private sector. Corporations are bankrupting, burning out, and abusing the American people at an alarming rate.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you for educating me and deigning to speak to me. Please tell me what evidence you have of your proposition. Tell me, how have you divined the intentions of all people who are "statists". And please tell me how this is such a danger to our republic, oh wise one.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you for educating me and deigning to speak to me. Please tell me what evidence you have of your proposition. Tell me, how have you divined the intentions of all people who are "statists". And please tell me how this is such a danger to our republic, oh wise one.


Intention is not a substitute for action.

Read the OP, genius.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Genius, look at your responses to me. You're spinning in circles and refuse to stay on topic. I'm guessing you realized your OP was in fact pointless but can't publicly admit it. You've now stated your intention in writing the OP twice and when I've asked about them you use semantics or choose to demean my level of intelligence instead of addressing any point I raise.

So now your stated proposition is that statists don't act charitably. Is that it?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Genius, look at your responses to me. You're spinning in circles and refuse to stay on topic. I'm guessing you realized your OP was in fact pointless but can't publicly admit it. You've now stated your intention in writing the OP twice and when I've asked about them you use semantics or choose to demean my level of intelligence instead of addressing any point I raise.

So now your stated proposition is that statists don't act charitably. Is that it?


The point of the OP is that those who advocate for government power are not showing compassion, kindness, or generosity by advocating for government power.

Whenever Rand Paul is not on the senate floor, he offers his services as a physician, free of charge to those in need, yet he opposes national healthcare. Rene Boucher, the man who attacked Paul, also a physician, only ever advocates for national healthcare, yet never offers his services for free to those in need.

Advocacy, rhetoric, and voting for the state monopoly on compassion is not compassion, and especially not a substitute for compassion. Society can achieve a higher quality life, without the need for burying entire generations in bureaucracy and tax burden, if there were more Ran Pauls and less Rene Bouchers.


edit on 7-11-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Although I don't agree with everything in your last response, I find it far more reasonable and therefore less objectionable than the OP itself.

PS, I very much respect Dr. Paul's political stances though I don't always agree. The information you've provided about his personal life was new to me but not surprising.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I would say that a statist has the following problem:

The statist has $5. The statist can go to Starbucks and buy himself some overpriced coffee and has every intention of doing so, but as he approaches, he sees the bellringer outside. He has the choice at that point to either be charitable with his $5 and give it to the bellringer or spend it on himself at Starbucks.

Now the statist may very well be charitable, but he then notices all the other people still going into Starbucks and getting coffee he now hasn't got the money for. Some walk past the bellringer, others give, but not as much, and others give $5 like he did.

He resents that they all have coffee where he has none.

He prefers to empower the government to force everyone to give the bellringer $5 so that more people will be miserable like he is even having given his $5. Or so that the bellringer has no need to interrupt his trip for coffee so that he doesn't have to feel bad about not giving money to charity because the government already took it and, not only that, the government took from everyone else too.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The issue raised by the OP isn't about the validity of the "statist" political philosophy. It is a statement about the virtue, or lack thereof, of the people who hold that philosophy. Personally, I'm a statist in very limited situations.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson




The issue raised by the OP isn't about the validity of the "statist" political philosophy. It is a statement about the virtue, or lack thereof, of the people who hold that philosophy. Personally, I'm a statist in very limited situations.


Just to be precise, it's an issue of distinguishing between real compassion and make-believe compassion. A man can be statist and still be compassionate, but it isn't his statist beliefs, advocacy, and voting patters, that make him compassionate. A man can vote and advocate for free healthcare, free housing, free education and the like, as much he likes, but doing so does not make him compassionate.

I think we can both agree that helping others, charitable deeds, kindness, acts of generosity and the like, is compassion. Where we might disagree is with the notion that advocating and implementing bureaucratic and statist policies is itself an act of compassion.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join