One more thing. I heard that the amount of your taxes (i.e., your money) that goes to PBS and NPR amounts to about $1. Can anybody find out for sure?
In your world you consider it fucking people over. In the real world, however, we call it helping out those less fortunate. You seem to have the strange belief that the rich will help the poor if left to their own devices. Perhaps like they did before the union coalition of socialists and anarchists fought so hard for the 40 hour week, paid leave etc…, The rich looked to the interests of the poor so well!
I would rather suggest we have a moral duty to provide for those less fortunate. If that means taking more from those who have it - then abso-fucking-lutely.
People have come in here with ratings information that suggests that the target for PBS is upper middle class people. Perhaps, at some times, it is. But do you really think they are the ones benefiting from Sesame Street?
Nope. That is another argument though.
Didn’t Ray Krok’s widow give NPR or CPB or something a bequest of humpty million – I mean, half a billion, maybe a billion dollars in the last year or two? My local affiliate reported on that and then went into its semiannual Beg Mode a couple of weeks later. WTF happened to all that money? Just how much does NPR and PBS cost nowadays?
Color me ignorant, but does PBS not have commercials? If so, I see no problem with the government cutting ties with an inneficiant product, is not, then why not? And yes, Reading Rainbow appeals to the younger folk, including myself about 15 years ago (holy shit, 15 years!), but I assure you that RR will neither make nor break the education of a single young child. PBS may be educational, but I would certainly hope it’s not necessary in educating our young. I apologize for my libertarian logic on the matter.
Who is more fortunate: the poor man with good character who is happy, or the rich man with every material thing who is miserable? Maybe you should force the poor man to share his secret for happiness with the rich man.
I would too. But I don’t want you legislating morality any more than I want the Republicans doing it.
Sorry, but that’s not what you mean. Trust me, you wouldn’t have the cojones to come to my house and try to take it from me. I would defend my property from your attempted theft. What you really mean is that you don’t mind rights usurpers who have nuclear missiles taking it from me on your behalf.
Its about Tucker Carlson. His show bombed, so the tighty righties are convinced its some dark conspiracy to keep them down to rougly 11,000 media punditi. But they misunderstand, its not his politics, its not even his bow ties.
It’s because he’s a dick.
So they visit thier wrath on Big Bird.
And what about the miserable poor? The happy rich? Why are you trying to equate poverty with happiness?
Perhaps I misrepresented myself. I suspect I did. What I meant to say is that as a society we have that responsibilty. I used to hold positions similar to yours - mostly in the interest of human freedom. I came to the conclusion that human freedom cannot be achieved without a fundamental paradigm shift. I think I will stick with socialism as more conducive to freedom for greater numbers of people for now.
I can’t say that my politics on that issue have been completely sorted yet. I can see some pros and cons either way. I will say that, for the most part you would have to try pretty hard to find anything left of me.
There are no commercials on PBS, AFAIK. My parents were happy to let me watch it when I was little for this reason. It kept me from being oversaturated with the latest gotta-have-it My Little Pony or Hot Wheels ads, and provided much better educational TV than any station than Nickelodeon (which one has to pay cable premium for).
When did you include “mind reader” to you resume?
It’s a metaphor, sweetie — kinda like, you don’t want to go there.
I don’t think it’s a metaphor.
UnwrittenNocturne said: “If that means taking more from those who have it - then abso-fucking-lutely.” Liberal pointed out that this sentence did not mean a willingness to come to his home and take his property personally, but to engage people whose authority is backed up with guns and missiles to take his property.
And I love how it’s a moral duty to help those less fortunate, so you’ll take my property away and give it to someone else, even though I worked my ass off to get where I am and he didn’t… but when our elected representatives, the one that represent the whole country under the system we all agreed upon decide to stop funding a project you like, then it’s a terrible, immoral result.
In other words… it’s immoral when YOU don’t like it.
Liberal
Why is it coercion if elected representatives vote to spend tax-payer’s money in a certain way, say for public broadcasting? Can’t a representative democracy work within a libertarian framework?
Well, Bricker, here you are again. Defending the administration. I wish that words could express my surprise.
Yes. It is. Is that a form of dogma, an assertion without evidence, a fundamental principle held to be beyond argument. Uh-huh. But I have it on Good Authority.
With all due, you know this how? Is it your opinion that the only cause of poverty is laziness and/or moral turpitude? Isn’t this where you start talking about the welfare queens and their food-stamp Cadillacs? Do you imagine that a man who works hard motivated by greed is somehow morally superior to a man who doesn’t work hard motivated by laziness?
Have you never known anyone who worked their asses off and got nowhere?
Sure, so long as all are volunteers. Libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms. Even a communist system can be libertarian so long as no one is governed without his consent.
Yeah. Me. For about twenty years. But so what? Why is it my responsiblity if Joe Schmoe doesn’t succeed at his endeavors?
Like I said, its a dogma. Admitted without qualm or hesitation. That other man is either your brother, or a pointless hunk of protoplasm. You can make your choice, I’ve made mine.
Actually, it’s a point of decency. Indecency in the form of cruelty to the poor and unlucky is in fashion these days though.
I mean, I just read, from an editorial in an American business publication, that we have compulsory unionism. The right is really working itself into a proper lather these days. The more they succeed, the more radical they get.
Which is fine. They’ll just blow themselves up. Here’s to hoping they don’t take the left half of the country with them.
Good for you. But I don’t buy it. So stop imposing your dogma on me.
(I do agree that there is a moral duty to help those less fortunate; I don’t agree it’s satisfied by forcing others to do it.)
Because if he had worked his ass off and gotten where I am, he wouldn’t need financial assistance.
No. I know there are plenty of causes of poverty. I was dirt poor myself through circumstances having nothing to do with laziness.
But I never once demanded that others who were wealthy empty their pockets so I could get money. I regarded those with money in their pockets as owning their money, and I didn’t regard myself as having any particular entitlement to it.
Sure. It happens. How does that create an obligation for me to give them money?
I’ve known people that were hurt in car accidents and lost blood. It doesn’t create an obligation for me to donate blood, does it?
Actually, I do.