Good thing for me that I live in a country where the framers of the constitution more agreed with my views than the liberal douche view. Bad thing is that we are moving in the wrong direction. However, the up-coming elections should get us back on track on this issue (which comes with a side of religious nutjob, but I can’t have everything I want).
You mean like not allowing women to vote? And only men of property? Those views? Atta boy, Rand, that’s more like it, that’s the RR we know and loathe!
Le sigh. This is the second most common and baseless charge you guys like to level against me (after “you hate poor people”). I would reword your little saying as “I got mine through hard work, you go get yours through hard work too, I’m not going to hamper your ability to do that by treating you like a pet (ie, someone absolved of all responsibility to provide for themselves).”
Luci, the views I referenced were obviously only those about the legitimate activities of the government.
And I’m sorry if I’ve shattered your conception of me as evil incarnate. I do care about other people. I care enough to not “care” about them in the same way you do. I think this will be the central them of the GD thread with Maeglin–ie, am I being doctrinaire or am I really being practical and wanting the government to act in everyone’s best interests. It comes down to the fact that I view social welfare and public good differently than does Maeglin.
Yep, and that those who argue differently from you are “mentally disordered” or “liberal douchebags.” I guess in Rand-World those terms are the equivalent of “My Right Honorable Friend.”
How are you going to play in that thread without your only weapons, amigo? You know you’re bringing a rubber band to a gunfight, right?
Private actors (such as charities) can do whatever they want. If they want to treat the poor like pets, then that’s fine by me, I’m not paying for it.
Duke, your streak of misrepresenting something I said in every post you address to me remains unbroken. I never said that those who argue differently from me are mentally disordered. I said that there is something to the idea that those who hold conflicting views are perhaps suffering from some form of a mental disorder. Incidentally, I feel the same way about religious lawyers–they research and write arguments during the week then throw that out the window come sunday morning. But I digress.
Where ever did you get the quaint notion that you deserve to keep all the money you earn?
Dude, you don’t have the balls to come out and say that applies to Bricker.
You. No. Balls. No balls.
Because you don’t give a shit about them. We know. You won’t admit it, but we know.
You’ve gotta realize that** RR** really does believe that he owes everything to himself and his own hard work - that the position he holds today and the money he earns bears no relationship whatsoever to anyone else, past or present, or to the society in which he lives. It’s all down to HIS own hard work.
He also believes that he is perfectly representative of the whole; that his experience is exactly like everyone else. Everyone clearly had the same opportunities that he had, and it is only because others are lazy or stupid that they cannot succeed.
It is a convenient world view, because it allows one to escape uncomfortable thoughts, and to imagine that you are harder working than others, and this was the ONLY reason for your success.
It allows one to think of themselves as a hard-headed realist, a hard working man who takes care of himself. It allows one pretend that people who have less than themselves are less deserving because they did not work hard.
This is the third time you’ve used the “pets” meme. It does not get any less stupid by repetition.
FI and EP, I’m fully aware that my life would be much worse if the US government didn’t exist. My job depends on it, after all. Which is why I am willing to pay my fair share to support its legitimate functions.
When you start speaking in terms of me owing everyting I have to the existence of the government, then your argument fails through proving too much. At that point, what justifies me in keeping anything?
Our patience. Which is wearing thin.
What exactly do you think this line of analysis proves? My own view of the reasons for my success don’t have anything to do with what I think are the legitimate activities of government.
Also, you are getting at an idea that I also find to be a curious liberal contradiction. You see me as being greedy for not wanting to pay taxes, but those that want the government to give them money are not greedy in your view. Every dollar I earn is freely given to me and backed by the value of the services I provide. That’s not true for money handed to people by the government, yet somehow I’m the greedy one.
RR, you tend to think in extremes. Thus your quote that
You have represented my view as an extreme - nobody thinks you owe EVERYTHING you have to the existence of government. This is silly, and a straw man.
There is a continuum of what each of us thinks the government should provide in services, paid for by taxes. You are quite far down one end of the continuum. (I don’t think you could argue otherwise)
I have pointed out that I think that your views are simplistic, and do not stand up to an analysis of what the ramifications of MUCH less government would look like. Also, you have rationalized your personal philosophy by essentially blaming others for not getting the success you enjoy - they must not have worked as hard.
In terms of healthcare being operated by charities for those who are not “hard working” like you some practical questions are raised:
-
How would charities manage to raise the enormous amounts needed? Who would administer this?
-
Would healthcare charities for the poor be vetted somehow? Who would make sure that corrupt people did not start a “charity” and fleece people?
-
Given a finite amount of resources, how do these charities ration healthcare?
-
What to do about “free riders” who give nothing to charity, but reap the benefits of a healthy, functioning society that provides them with customers, clients, and service people?
-
What happens to private insurance companies when they are competing with tax-exempt charities? Is this fair?
-Is it OK if healthcare is vastly different in quality in different geographic areas due to economics? Would it be acceptable for average life expectancy in a poor state or city to be 45 years?
It is reasonable to expect everyone to “pay their own way” for healthcare, when a health crisis can occur at a young age, before you have been able to gather resources? For example, a 20 year old cancer patient - are they irresponsible for not having saved a nest egg of $100,000 for treatment?
- Can everyone accept that begging a charity for your life is something that is reasonable or OK for our fellow citizens to have to go through? They’re not begging for a jet plane. They’re begging for their life. Does this fit with everyone’s moral code?
Good Lord, that’s some funny shit.
Are you a screenwriter for the John Stewart Show or something?
That would be work. I hate work.
EP, you are assuming that my discussion of health care has something to do with solving the problem of poor people not getting health care. It doesn’t. it’s about the legitimate activities of government. Providing health care is not one of them. So I’m not glossing over those issues or being simplistic, I’m just dismissing themn as irrelevant.
Also, if you analyze those issues and determine that poor people or all people would have better outcomes if government provided health care, then I still wouldn’t think that the government should provide health care. Here’s where Maeglin gets on my ass about being doctrinaire and I counter by arguing that I’m just looking at social good from a different perspective.