2 of 4
2
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
Posted: 29 January 2012 11:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  191
Joined  2010-10-09
Sandy Price - 29 January 2012 08:02 AM

 

I do not want the government to take from the rich and give it to the poor.

Sandy, whyever not? Seems to me it’s been exactly the reverse for many decades, so it would be only fair to do the opposite for a while. You seem like a person with a conscience, so I’m amazed you can say something like that.

The Neo-Conservative philosophy, to the extent it can be called a philosophy and not just a collection of prejudices, seems to be “Poor people have too much money, and rich people deserve more.” This has certainly been so in the U.S ever since Reagan, but especially with Bush Jnr, in Britain (in spades) with Thatcher, and is currently the case in Canada with Harper. I can’t see any of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates being any different.

The rationalization for “rich people deserve more”, apparently, is that they would use the extra money to invest in new industries and thus create jobs; a total fallacy, since they mostly seem to squirrel the money away in non-taxable offshore accounts, and the tendency in established industries since at least the 1970s has been to lay thousands of people off rather than create more jobs. “Trickle-down” Economics, so-called, simply and flatly does not work, has been demonstrated not to work for over 40 years, and yet the Neo-Cons still, apparently, believe in it. Amazing.

Theflyingsorcerer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

I am a Libertarian therefore do not want the government in the business of wealth redistribution.  It is a temporary bandaid and does not fix the fact that many have not prepared themselves for high-paying employment.  It is the parents responsibility to start the kids on the path of education.  I did it by not having television in my home until the kids went off to college.  We had books!  lots of books!  We all read them and instead of the boob tube, we discussed the books.  My choice, my gain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 07:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

Sandy, can you imagine a situation where you approve government redistributing wealth?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 08:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

For a quick fix, maybe.  In the long run, no!  The fix should be within the education of the kids.  This required parental involvement at no extra cost.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 08:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Sandy Price - 30 January 2012 08:28 AM

This required parental involvement at no extra cost.

And for even better results, I recommend a father who is a PhD in physics. In my opinion, your ignorance, Sandy, is as dangerous as of those of the Christian right. Go on, get angry.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 08:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2011-08-15

Referring to Occam’s post #6, if this is wealth redistribution then so be it! I personally have no problem paying taxes to support these institutions as they assist all of us, rich or poor. Also, as Sandy mentioned, for those of us in the middle class, education opens the doors to a more secure lifestyle and may also do so to those in the lower class who are ecking out a living. Education grants help those who couldn’t afford a decent college or technical ed. and students loans are invaluable for this as well. The higher the income, the more the spending power and the fewer on the public assistance rolls. There will always be shirkers and parasites but the system can be altered to eliminate them by more closely examining each case as to need. So it benefits all of us to increase funding for education, better schools, more up to date equipment and better trained educators. That’s been my contention all along and I’ve seen it in operation. And while it’s difficult to get away from the “boob tube”, the best way to get kids to read is to read to them while they’re young (pre-school age) and surround them with books and ideas. Those who can’t afford them can go to any library in their town or county. All a parent has to do is to stress reading, reading, reading, and math. And become politically aware both at the state level and nationally.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 08:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07

There was a great quote I saw a while back but can’t remember it’s author or exact wording. It said something like

“That which you receive directly as a result of your labor is rightly yours. Everything beyond that was given to you by society (i.e., not really earned by you).”

I have no problem with wealth redistribution to help those less fortunate. While I might have been a libertarian back the the days of the wild west, I recognize that that is no longer reasonable.

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  191
Joined  2010-10-09
Sandy Price - 30 January 2012 06:02 AM

I am a Libertarian therefore do not want the government in the business of wealth redistribution.

So your objection is for ideological rather than pragmatic reasons, and thus suspect. I know all about Libertarianism; I’ve read Ayn Rand and, while I agree with some of what she says, much of it is frankly stupid. Refusing to redistribute wealth for ideological reasons is a virtual guarantee of popular uprisings, strikes, civil disruption and, in extremis, bloody revolution. Is that what you want?

People become unemployed for all kinds of reasons, most of them having nothing to do with laziness, shiftlessness, lack of education or any of the usual Libertarian shibboleths. I speak from experience. I have an HNC in Mechanical Engineering, a British qualification generally agreed to be almost equivalent to a degree, a B.Sc.in Geology and M.Sc. in Oceanography plus several years experience in design, production, prototyping, research and development, mineral exploration and oceanographic research, and even I, along with tens of thousands of other highly qualified people, was unemployed for two years during the economic slump of the 80s. I was damned glad of tax-funded Government-controlled Unemployment Insurance, I can tell you.

I was chronically underemployed for several years after that, and had little choice but to work at a variety of low-paying jobs just to survive. I lost count of the number of times a prospective employer told me, “Sorry, you’re just too over-qualified”; but the work I was qualified for simply wasn’t there. And I tried self-emloyment too, but in times of recession people simply don’t buy stuff.

Libertarianism cuts no ice with me. I get the feeling many Libertarians have little or no experience of the real world as it affects most of the planet’s population. Either that, or their belief system (or BS) blinds them to what is really going on.

Theflyingsorcerer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

When I was younger I was a real Rand fan. Today, while I agree in principle with Ayn Rand, her vision was Eutopian and wholly impractical.
She advocated no taxation of any kind, but she admits that acting in self defense is proper, thus taxation for a military national defense is just. She admits that there are shared responsibilities, thus taxation for a national infra-structure is just. She states that egoism is morally just, but what of children? Is self-sacrifice for the sake of your child unjust? There goes egoism! We are not single, independent organisms, we all depend on the support and cooperation with others at one time or another or life becomes anarchy.
Her objectivist tenet that observed (subjective) reality is true and independent of actual objective reality, is false. Apparently she wrote this before Einstein’s relativistic view of reality. Things are not always what they appear to be in reality and are true only from the point of the observer, which offers only a small glimpse of reality itself and any observation must be integrated with observations from others (consensus), thus there is no self evident truth, but only as interpreted by the observer. But you cannot build a society on subjective observation, regardless wether you call it Objectivism.

[ Edited: 30 January 2012 02:00 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 02:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  191
Joined  2010-10-09

Ayn Rand lived in a world of stark black and white, true or false, with no shades of grey, no maybe or maybe not. Seems to me she, along with all her imitators and worshippers, was thoroughly out of touch with reality.

You really have to wonder about the sanity of a woman who makes a rapist into a hero. Sado-masochism, anyone?

Theflyingsorcerer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 02:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

And I live in a world of right or wrong.  No shades of grey.  I’m working on a program where young children are trained to recognize right from wrong.  Academics have currently stymied the brains of our children where the old game is gone of recognizing what brings joy into the life of a child.  Instead many children only recognize right from wrong if Jesus is responsible for how we choose to live.  Too many of our children have no fear of making wrong choices because Jesus is waiting around to offer forgiveness.  There are too many variables for a child to choose the right choice as the wrong choice is often misplaced when they are caught harming others.

The Religious Right made an entire new culture on blaming others for their terribly harming ways.  I’m tired of this crap knowing our children are not trained in the survival of the fittest.  So we are different in all possible ways…so what?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
Sandy Price - 30 January 2012 02:40 PM

And I live in a world of right or wrong.  No shades of grey.  I’m working on a program where young children are trained to recognize right from wrong.  Academics have currently stymied the brains of our children where the old game is gone of recognizing what brings joy into the life of a child.  Instead many children only recognize right from wrong if Jesus is responsible for how we choose to live.  Too many of our children have no fear of making wrong choices because Jesus is waiting around to offer forgiveness.  There are too many variables for a child to choose the right choice as the wrong choice is often misplaced when they are caught harming others.

The Religious Right made an entire new culture on blaming others for their terribly harming ways.  I’m tired of this crap knowing our children are not trained in the survival of the fittest.  So we are different in all possible ways…so what?

I certainly agree that children need to be raised with secular moral values, and accepting responsibility for their own actions. That is why I support first class public schooling. In the absence of good public schools, the religious schools will become ever more influential and IMO that is the worst possible scenario.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2011-08-15

And that is precisely why I advocate increased funding for public schools to encourage higher thinking and self reliance when possible. In our area parents often use parochial schools as private academies because they have fewer students in classes and the teachers have the opportunity to work one on one with each child. It’s very difficult to work with kids when there are 25 to 30 in each class and the classroom materials are deficient where funding is limited. Also, kids learn best at their own pace but can’t with the limited time available to them. I’ve always advocated year round schooling with breaks in between the quarters. it can be done while not interfering with athletic competition. More money means fully stocked labs for science classes, language labs laptops etc. Call it socialism, investment capitalism, of whatever suits your fancy but it works. Just think, we could have more time to teach Ayn Rand, Carl Sagan, Karl Marx, Groucho Marx, he’ll all the Marx brothers! Sure it’s not the end all be all solution to the job problem but it makes for a more literate society able to control the political and economic system to the advantage of the middle class.


Cap’t jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 09:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

The bottom line is that even in a Eutopian society there will be individuals who are not able to function at a level that is required to pull their own weight. Unless we want to start “culling” for the fittest, there will alway be a shared burden. Shared social costs are not only a necessary evil, they are inevitable.

[ Edited: 30 January 2012 09:18 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2012 09:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2715
Joined  2011-04-24
Sandy Price - 30 January 2012 06:02 AM

I am a Libertarian therefore do not want the government in the business of wealth redistribution.  It is a temporary bandaid and does not fix the fact that many have not prepared themselves for high-paying employment.  It is the parents responsibility to start the kids on the path of education.  I did it by not having television in my home until the kids went off to college.  We had books!  lots of books!  We all read them and instead of the boob tube, we discussed the books.  My choice, my gain.

I sort of agree with you;if only there was a way to help the deserving poor,and terminate the undeserving poor - but,that seems impossible.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2