Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
And there's another thing; I think you and I have sweeping, vast differences of opinion on just what those "founding values" actually were. Mine
are based off historical fact, and yours are based off nationalist mythology.
Your socialist programming has you confused. Read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist papers, the Anti-federalist
paper and the writing of the founders themselves, instead of the modern era tabloid bios of the founders and everything you say will be clearly the
polar opposite of the views and values of the founders.
Granted, perhaps the united States is a bit of an extreme in terms of intra-national diversity, but I guarantee you there are no nations in the
world that are culturally, politically, or ideologically homogenous. Somehow they manage to be countries just the same.
And then one of two things typically happens. When the scales tip in a way the people are opposed, they either have groups choose to move to other
countries or areas that share their values, or revolution.
Your values and location fit you perfectly, in that you are west coast and near Canada, both of which fit you culturally, politically and
ideologically. These ‘progressive’ views tend to develop and fester in larger urban areas, which is why the West coast and North East are so
In fact, you do not value freedom. You're the one espousing control, by the assertion that every nation's inhabitants can only be one way,
homogenous. Anyone else - me for example - is a problem that, presumably, must be "dealt with."
I’m not espousing or even remotely suggesting control. I’m not even saying a nations inhabitants can only be homogenous. America is unique in the
world in its creation. What the founders did and created here, is the greatest advancement humanity has known. The idea of free people deciding for
themselves is something that should be cultivated, not eradicated.
If by dealt with you mean that helping people understand how all the ideas and values you hold are poison for a free people, then yes. I am clearly
not for forcing anything on anyone.
With the uniqueness of the United States in its intent, I don’t understand why people like you stay, when everything you hope to change the US into,
already exist in multiple places around the world. I can only assume that sticking around to corrupt freedom is just part of your essence or some new
As for the current state of the United States, I think that, if you bothered putting even a smidge of research into it, you'll find that this
is largely do to the financial deregulations pushed for by people who were absolutely certain that "caveat emptor" is just Latin for "liberty and
justice for all," paired with a series of war by people who operated under the delusion that the best way to show you've still "got it" is to
crush third-world nations.
I disagree. I think it was the social and moral decline of groups and individuals who made certain choices that brought us to this state.
So if we ever see your dream of severing thispatch of turf up into homogenized little enclaves reach fruition, it's only natural that I'll
want Oregon and the Atlantic Seaboard, and stick you with Louisiana and Texas.
I would hate to see the US broke up, but if a few states on the lateral coasts wanted to have a go at nationhood on their own, I wouldn’t shed much
of a tear. The populations in those areas tend to be going farther and farther from US ideals and values anyway.
So if I read this right.. .you're against "government handouts" but for the government giving economic support to Americans ahead of other
nations. You're against governments dictating people's lives, but for enforced uniformity of opinion, culture, etc. You're against social
conditioning, but are undoubtedly one of its most successful studies.
It’s no wonder you are so confused about the Founders and American values as your response here can attest to your poor reading comprehension.
Remember what i just said about "caveat emptor"? Now perhaps you don't agree with that phrase being hte foundation of our system of
government, as it currently is. But I can tell you it's certainly not people like myself who made it that way. it actually runs counter to the moral
outlook we hold.
Moral? Can you even use that word in the same sentence when referring to yourself? Your entire view on government from a freedom perspective is
amoral. Government forcing stealing from people and dictating behavior.
Food refrigeration and treatment for infectious diseases are also unnatural in every possible sense. I think you'd be willing to agree
Not unnatural at all. These things both follow the natural laws of science, hence the technology exists. Having government force a socio-economic
equality is not natural in any sense, which is why it fails in every experiment in history. It most certainly cannot exist in conjunction with
The US was founded essentially with the idea of trying to keep people as free as possible without total anarchy. The more freedom that is taken away,
the farther from what Americas purpose we get.
I just want to reduce inequalities.
The government now as we have allowed it to be distorted, is already forcing inequalities such as affirmative action. Generally speaking, legally we
are all equal. It isn’t the governments place to be social engineers. If you want to reduce some perception of inequality, do so without taking away
someone else’s money and rights.
See, Wolf, many of our veterans are currently homeless. Meanwhile Dubya lands fifteen million for a speaking gig.
It is a tragedy that we have homeless vets. I have personally known some. Some were homeless by their own choices, others as victims of circumstance.
I don’t see how Bush’s income is relevant though. Private people pay an agreed amount and at their request. No one is forced to do anything.
I don’t know what Bush is spending his earnings on, but I know in general conservatives are more charitable than liberals. It was no surprise that
Bush gave more than 10% a year to charity while in office and Obama didn’t even hit 6%. Assuming his history is the same, some charity get’s $1.5
million per speaking event. That should warm your heart.
The children of the poor struggle for a basic education, while the children of the wealthy struggle for their own TV Reality shows.
I don’t know much about reality TV shows, so I will defer to your expertise on the matter. I will disagree about struggling for a basic education.
Coming from a poor family, public school was free and I can say it from the experience it was the effort of the individual and their parents that make
the real difference. I have seen some rich idiots come out of private school, and genius kids public school kids. I have known CEO’s of large
companies who were educated at public universities, and seen bums who went to Yale.
Under our current system, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; which only makes sense, I suppose, since poor people can't afford to
run for office, and since poor people can't buy the people who do.
Wow! At least the statement alone, we agree. I think however, we would disagree as to the reasoning to this. For the first part, the people who get
rich, typically exhibit the behavior and characteristics of success and it grows, and the opposite for a large majority of the poor.
I am very disgusted at the campaign and election rules and processes in the US. Something could be done without infringing on individual freedom.
Businesses, organizations and unions probably wouldn’t like my ideas though.
So is your belief that freedom should only be a consideration for "those with excess," then?
Again with the reading comprehension. Freedom and stuff/money have nothing to do with one another.
I sincerely doubt that when you speak of achievement being earned, you're speaking in favor of ending the practice of inheritance, after all.
Actually the founders were concerned about inheritances. It is one of the few areas where, depending on the circumstance, I think the government
should regulate. The founders worried about inherited wealth and families marrying money together would create a new type of noble aristocracy.
Those with power do not willingly cede that power to those with none.
Money is power. I see wealthy people give vast amounts of money to poor regularly.
That is, never in the history of man has poverty been alleviated by the generosity of the wealthy, but always - always by forced mandate
against the wealthy,
American history, the towns, people and businesses, are full of examples of the poor being aided by the wealthy. You cannot expect poverty to be
eliminated. Compare the poor in the US, to the poor in most other countries, American’s generosity are contributing factors to the dramatic
difference in the standard of living.
What you have hit on here is a factor of humanity, not of government. Government force does not advance humanity.