should, of course, be “non-commercial outlets FOR news and education”…
Actually, what elucidator was pointing was that your argument is logically flawed. A good idea is a good idea (in both senses of the word “good”) no matter who is advocating it. It’s as if you are saying that I must have math degree in order to advance the notion that 2+2 = 4, that no one can look at the proposition itself without looking at the proposer.
Just keep your greedy, thieving hands out of my pocket, bucko, and I’ll be happy.
Sir! I barely know you! Hmf!
If the goodness of the idea is objectively verifiable, then I agree.
But the idea Thieflucidator is advancing is that we should be motivated to give, because we should be viewing all men as our brothers and thus be compelled to dig deep. A way to test that hypothesis is to examine how the proponent of the idea conducts himself. If his view of the brotherhood of man is limited solely of going around picking others’ pockets, then we might reasonably question whether he really holds that idea.
Actually, what I think is being missed by the “I’m volunteering time; leave my money alone!” crowd is that education, non-commercial news and cultural promotion are basic positives of the public welfare (not the financial kind, the “general” kind that the government is supposed, according to the preamble of the Constitution, to promote). I know there are loon-nuts who think that all education should be private and those who own (er, lease) the airwaves should do what the hell they want with them, but those of us in the reality-based community are quite happy to have media outlets that bring culture, unbiased news and education to EVERYBODY, regardless of whether they can afford cable or not.
Sure. A gun is in play everytime you are forced to pay for something you don’t want to pay for.
Holy Toledo. How did we get from PBS to chest thumping about how much charity work we do?
I think we can all agree that helping others who are truely down on their luck is a good thing. We should be able to agree that using tax dollars to do this is OK. We may argue about the amount and the method, but I think we can agree on that.
Why can’t reasonable people disagree about whether or not PBS gets federal $$? Is there truely one and only one right answer to that policy question? This is the kind of thing we decide democratically and right now the votes are leaning against. I’m sure they’ll lean the other way in the future.
We’re not talking about livfe or death issues here. It’s “Antique Roadshow” for Christ’s sake!
-
I don’t agree it’s unbiased. NPR and PBS are both left-leaning.
-
How small does the “reality-based community” have to get before you start question whether it is, in fact, based in reality? Hmmm? The relaity-based community doesn’t seem to be winning elections lately. What’s up with that?
If they do, I will accept that decision with good grace.
I object only to this sense of “I’m right, regardless of what the public thinks!” business. Right now, there is apparently public support for cutting public-funded television and radio. Deal with it.
A lie can go three times around the world before the truth can get its sneakers on.
You are really full of it, Bricker. Not only in calling elucidator a thief, but also by forgetting that your personal savior, the one you supposedly model yourself after, commanded us to view all men as our brothers. He compelled us to dig deep. Is Jesus a thief too?
Why does saying, “I hope our government does not screw over the CPB” require one to cut a check to the CPB at every donation drive? If I say “I hope our government doesn’t let the illegal immigrants in”, am I required to stand border guard patrol before others will believe me?
Taxes.
No. He commanded us PERSONALLY to dig deep. He did not tell you to dig deep into your next-door neighbor’s pocket.
The sentiments above go well beyond “I hope our government does not screw over the CPB.” They say, “The government has a moral mandate to fund CPB.”
So if the public voted to trash the Establishment Clause of the Constitution (assuming there’s a reasonable mechanism to do so) and established a Protestant USA, forcing Catholics to abandon their religion or be jailed/killed/lose all rights of citizenship, that would be okay because it’s what the “public” wants?
If a sizeable majority wanted to restrict your freedom in such a way that I think (and you would too) is tyrannical, you’d be okay with it because at least it’s a majority?
Now, obviously that’s a much more insidious issue than cutting funding for NPR and PBS, but I think the analogy can stand. Or at least, that’s what I’m getting out of it.
Do you extend this philosophy to those who “support” the war, but have neither signed up to serve nor tried to persuade their kids to serve?
Anyone who thinks taxation is the same as being mugged at gunpoint whenever those taxes happen to benefit the poor–but has no qualms about funding a multi-billion dollar killing adventure indefinitely–really needs to go get some spiritual healing. I just can’t imagine Jesus comparing welfare to being robbed, no matter how much I try. Nor can I imagine him condoning prideful attempts at proving who does the most good works.
But hey, maybe that’s just me.
Since the amount of money people are unwillingly paying into NPR and PBS has come up, I will again mention the number cited from my NPR Station. According to them, the amount of money per citizen that goes to public broadcasting is $1 a year.
Does anybody have any other numbers on this?
Whereas you, on the other hand, would say that government has only a mandate to let people starve/die/suffer. Guess which nation looks better to me?
How about an analogy?
Let’s say there is a family. Mom, Dad and three kids. The kids are aged 19, 15 and 8. Now, let us also say that the 8 year old falls ill (or whatever). Should this kid, if Mom and Dad do not wish to, be forced to pay for his/her own care? Should Mom and Dad, who are earning more than the child, pick up the tab - by means of force if needed?
What makes you think that society as a whole is much different?
You might say that you do not know or like some members of society. Fair enough. I do not like some members of my family either. Some parents and children do not like each other. But that does no abrogate their responsibilty.
Let us look at another case. How about we have a guy called “Steve”. Steve has a partner and a couple of kids. He is in a job that pays (for the sake of argument) $8/hour. You tell Steve to go get an education and better himself. The problem is that Steve has already risen as far as his abilities will take him. Not everybody is capable of getting a degree, not everybody is capable of advancing any further, regardless of the training they might receive.
In your world, Steve and his family are left on the garbage heap, subject only to the fickle whims of the rich. In mine his kids get an education at public expense - including a tertiary one. I mine nobody gets sick because they cannot afford medication or treatment. In mine his kids can still watch Sesame Street on free-to-air television. In yours they are able to do none of the above.
Fuck that.
If you ever get your way, if the society you envisage ever comes to pass, I will fight it. I will fight everything it stands for. By whatever means seem necessary. it is not at that state yet, but there is a movement (and I think you are part of it consciously or not) that would have us living that way.
I can understand Liberal because I think he is actually driven by a desire to see everybody achieve more. I think his methods are incorrect, but his heart is in the right place.
You, on the other hand, seem motivated only by an attitude of “Fuck you Jack, I’,m all right”. I am aware you do charitable work, but wonder if your motivation is only to assauge your conscience.
You seem to agree with the ‘trickle-down’ theory. The only thing that trickles is the lard dripping from the jowls of the rich, as they suck ther fat and lick the gravy of their paper profits.
“…easier for a rich man…”
Strange that so many Christians seem to ignore this.
They also ignore that the early church was completely communistic. So much so that Ananias and Saphira were KILLED BY GOD for not giving the whole amount of the sale of their possessions to Peter.
Voluntary my agnostic butt…