- dmarks said...
- P. J. said: "On the comment from Soapster about libertarian view, he denies this requires a perfect world. Look around. The less regulation we have had in the banking “industry” (misnomer, IMO), the bigger the nightmare." Actually, a big regulation/intervention caused the banking mortgage collapse and the economic crisis. The government made banks make bad loans and dump them into Fannie-Mae which was a sump-hole for bad debt. Entirely unsustainable, and everything broke. Yes, the government strongly encouraged banks to make bad loans. If not for this regulation, we'd be a lot better off.
- Lista said...
- The Problem with the Regulation that Forces Bad Bank Loans is that it did not Consider the Cost Benefit Equation Correctly. The Benefit to those who are Given the Loans was Considered, but not the Cost to the Banks. The Current State of our Government is Imbalanced in the Direction of the Consumer and Away from the Needs of the Business Man. To be Balanced, any Governmental Decision has to Consider both of these Parties, not Only One, and that is the Problem in a Nut Shell.
- P. J. Grath said..
- Please, let’s not focus on bad loans so exclusively that we forget all those complicated “products” that financial institutions came up with, aimed at making money for them while they ducked any responsibility and often were purposely losing their investors’ money. Those so-called “products” would not have been possible without deregulation. The regulation was put in place because of similar, earlier (but not nearly as sophisticated in a Machiavellian way) outrages by banks. Then people conveniently forgot, and banking interests, through their lobbyists, were able to remove the protections and apply once again the BOHICA principle. (Out of deference to you, Lista, I’m leaving that as an acronym, but you can infer the meaning, I’m sure.) There were also plenty of “good” loans that were really bad owing to the overvaluation of the market—again, not by accident. I agree with you about Randism, dmarks. I belonged to that cult for a few years, long ago, but cults become wearisome if one is not a "true believer" but continues to think and question. No individual or group of humans has the WHOLE, FINAL TRUTH.
- Lista said...
- I'm Laughing, in a way, at the Length of this Comment Thread. Ok. Fine. Whatever. It's just that I Think this is my Longest One Yet. Your Last Sentence, J.B.Grath, is really True.
- Silverfiddle said...
- PJ: If the government would remove all backstops and protections from the banks, making them eat their own losses, instead of blowing a hole in the treasury to refill their pockets, the kind of crap you describe would stop immediately. These crony capitalists would not gamble so recklessly with their own money. That's deregulation I think most of us could get behind.
This is the End of the Earlier Comment Thread. Now Click on the Comments Link, cause there is More.
43 comments:
My reply to Silverfiddle has two parts: (1) Regulation does not by itself imply, let alone necessarily entail, subsidies or bailouts. Regulation sets limits to behavior. (2) Many of the big financial firms’ employees were happy to gamble with their own money, betting against the bad advice they were giving their clients, selling them shady “products” they knew to be risky, “products” made possible by deregulation.
Considering this, the Fannie Mae situation in which the government caused the real estate collapse is not actually a regulation, since it did not limit anything.
Regulations can be either Limits or Requirements. Either Way, it is the Government telling Businesses what to do.
PJ: You avoided my main point: It's human nature that people will be more reckless if they know there will be a bailout. We even have a term for it: Moral Hazard.
Those employees gambling with their own money did so with the assurance that Uncle Sam would make it all ok.
Having a simple set of laws in place that apply to all and that are evenly enforced would go a long way towards protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty.
Our "lawmakers" have constructed a monstrosity of special favors, exemptions and dense bureaucratic sludge. It is a mockery of the law and it flies in the face of the very concept of The Rule of Law.
More of the same won't fix it.
I Think Dmarks is the one Who has Touched on the Real Problem. The Government Caused the Real Estate Collapse by Requiring the Banks to Grant Risky Loans.
Silverfiddle,
"Having a simple set of laws in place that apply to all and that are evenly enforced would go a long way towards protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty."
You do, therefore, believe in some Laws and Regulations? If so, then I do not Consider you an Extreme Libertarian.
I Agree that Special Favors and Exemptions is not the Way to do it.
I am a medium core libertarian.
I was in the military and I've seen what anarchy looks like. It's not pretty.
Our problem, as I see it, is that government shields people from the consequences of their actions. Further, it rewards stupidity and greed.
thanks Lista for the uplifting comment at WHT~! enjoy the weekend~!:)
Anytime. Hey! It Looks Like your Happy Face has a Hat on. It Might even be a Hat with a Feather. Cute!! lol
I Responded more to you, Angel, on the Next Post Down. It is more of a Cute and Just Shooting the Breeze Post than this One is.
What's good for business
does not create jobs ....
I'll get Back to you when I have more Time to Read your Linked Article.
BB: Productivity is the bane of the worker. No news there. The story explains it well:
The United States has proved the exception. U.S. productivity growth doubled from 2008 to 2009, then doubled again in 2010, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Here's why our limping economy is nonetheless barely ahead of the rest of the industrialized world:
Japanese, European and Canadian companies are less inclined to purge employees. Their customs, labor regulations and unions discourage aggressive layoffs.
So what's the answer?
Fewer than 12 percent of American workers belong to unions, which provide some protection against job cuts.
Unionize so you can stifle job-killing innovations.
That Japanese plant that had its workers paint the walls took work away from painters. No overall gain to the economy. Anyway, unions would never allow that here in the US.
Of course, the real answer is to slash regulations and bureaucracy that is a barrier to business startups and job creation.
I Go Through these Phases in which I would Really rather not Think and yet in the Blogging World, it Seems that that's just not Allowed, cause there is always something to Read, so I'll just Complain just a Little and then Read the Article. lol.
My First Impression of the Article, BB was that the Businesses are Prospering because of the Hiring of Workers Over Sees. Considering this, it is just Unbelievable to me that the Liberals are Still so in Support of the Unions. Businesses should not have all the Power, but neither should the Unions. It would be Nice if there were Judges that were Unbiased and Fair when it comes to Disputes between Businesses and Unions, but there doesn't appear to be any such Thing as an Unbiased Judge any more.
Silverfiddle, though, had the Answer in his Last Paragraph...
"Slash regulations and bureaucracy that is a barrier to business startups and job creation.
General Electric made over $14 billion in profits last year; they paid no taxes at all. GE
received $24.9 million in
stimulus grants and laid
off 18,000 workers. If you think 'removing barriers' will increase employment...
please think again.
If you will Look Closer at Silverfiddle's Comment, BB, you will see that his Focus was on "Business Startups", not the Ultra Rich. The Break in Both Taxes, Regulations and Bureaucracy is for the Sake of the Smaller Business Man, not the Ultra Rich and Viewed in the Context of Smaller Business, as well as those just Starting, it does Make a Difference.
Also, When it Comes to Regulations, Businesses such as Various types of Contractors are Slowed Way Down in their Progress and therefore also in their Hiring of the Sub Contractors that Help them with their Task. I Know this though the Experiences of my Father and Brother, both Building Contractors.
We all want small business and we want it to succeed.
The number of startups is
fine
although many are one person operations and many
fail. You came from a construction family, I was a manager, we all have our
take on the economics of
business..:)
BB: If you think unions are the answer, look at Detroit and think again.
If you think technology is the answer, throw your cell phone out the window and refuse to ever have any future medical tests.
If you think increased productivity is the enemy, why not advocate eliminating trains and tractor trailers and instead pay people to distribute goods by pushing wheelbarrows from town to town. That would produce full employment.
If you think make-work is the answer, look at the lost decade known as the 30's.
If you think government is the answer, you haven't been paying attention.
Human beings, free to pursue innovation and being rewarded monetarily by fellow humans who enjoy their products and services is what has advanced the human condition.
Exactly my point, Lista: Make it easier for people to be free agents, independent contractors and small businesspeople. The irony is that the better the economy, the more empowered the worker is. That is my point.
What BB refers to in crony capitalism. GE, along with GM, are the model crony capitalists. Obama has lavished billions on them.
From a Political Perspective, BB, we Need to Look at Things from the Perspective of all Businesses, not just the Ones that we are Familiar with.
Heres a Quote from your Linked Article...
"More start-ups, however, don't necessarily mean more job opportunities."
That's because a Start-up has to be a Success. Also, Hiring is a Risky Investment, so there has to be a Reasonably High Level of Success in Small Businesses before People are Going to be Willing to Take that Risk and Hire.
Also, Part of the "Economic Responsibility" of Hiring Employees Involves Buying their Health Insurance and with the Mandatory Obama Care, this Cost is just too High for some Businesses. This is Why Something has to be done about the Cost of both Health Care and Insurance.
For an Economy to Grow in a Way that Provides Jobs, Business have to more than just Start. They have to Thrive, so that the Idea of Hiring becomes more Practical.
That's Interesting about the Latinos and also High School Drop Outs Starting Businesses.
Hi Silverfiddle,
You are Explaining rather well the Republican Philosophy, which I am not at all Opposed to, as Long as there is some Balance to it. I Think we all Agree that Stimulus Money Given to Businesses that does not Lead to Hiring is not Helpful to the Economy.
My Personal Feeling is that if there is Money Given to a Business, there should be Heavy Economy Stimulating Strings Attached. No, I did not say Environmental Requirements. I Said Economy Stimulating, Hiring Requirements. There's a Big Difference.
"Human beings, free to pursue innovation and being rewarded monetarily by fellow humans who enjoy their products and services is what has advanced the human condition."
..Ayn Rand again? Bankers are rewarded obscenely for their 'innovations'.
Some of us are creative
for the sheer satisfaction:
I hold 17 patents, and money was the least of my interests. As for Siverfish having me throw my cellphone away..heavens,
I don't have one, don't need one and well, guess I'll have to throw away my
20 year old landline!
Yes, I admit to having my
workers paint and do maintenance during slow times..much more cost effective than hiring and training people to produce tons of initiating explosives when busy times returned. (some occupations benefit from workers with an average 30 years experience) Being a scientist, I was unburdened by the inane
stuff they teach MBAs...
We all speak from our experiences, don't we?
My state is rated 2nd in
'friendly to business',
we keep our budget balanced and tax the poor,
have cut our colleges and schools to bare bones, let our roads and infrastructure rot. Great for business huh? We are better than only 7 other states in unemployment.
Doesn't take a rocket engineer to figure that
no business will move to a place with no education,
potholed highways and no customers...thats what I think.
I was an Eisenhower Republican and remember our best years. Back then, before the GOP got screws up, Ike noted:
"Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society."
"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice."
"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and they are stupid."---Republican President Dwight Eisenhower
....so your argument is with a five star general,
and one of our better leaders.
No Lista, sadly, I am not explaining the Republican philosophy. I am explaining the free-market libertarian philosophy.
The GOP has shown itself to be as guilty of crony capitalism as democrats.
I am against government giving money to any business, strings or no strings.
John Stossel sums it up best:
Unfortunately, too many people think "free market" means pro-business. It doesn't. Free market means laissez faire -- prohibit force and fraud, but otherwise leave the marketplace alone. No subsidies, no privileges, no arbitrary regulations. Competition is the most effective regulator.
(John Stossel - Corporate Welfare)
BB:
I never said workers in the free marketplace do not have the right to unionize, they most certainly do. And I am not an Ayn Rand fan, so I don't know who you are arguing with. A straw man, perhaps?
Ike was a wise man, but I do not agree with every word he ever uttered. I can't think of anyone I could say that about. How about you? Is there anyone short of God himself whom you are in complete agreement with?
Do you think Ike would approve of Obama racking up more debt than all the previous presidents combined?
I also never advocated letting infrastructure go to hell.
I also have nothing against bankers making obscene amounts of money, if they are doing it within the law and without government assistance or safety nets.
As it stands, our government subsidizes the lazy, the stupid, and the venal. It should stop on all three counts.
As for you having your workers paint the facility, great! It was a free decision made by free people. Good thing you didn't have UAW workers...
If you were to drop the preconceived notions, strawmen and stereotypes, we might be able to actually have a useful conversation.
"Human beings, free to pursue innovation and being rewarded monetarily by fellow humans who enjoy their products and services is what has advanced the human condition."
Since I don't Follow Ayn Rand, I wasn't Aware that that was something that she said. It just Sounds Republican to me.
"Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong, free labor movement..."
That's Nice, but Most Unions are Mandatory, not Freely Chosen by Employees. That Probably wasn't Quite as True during Eisenhower's Day.
I Laughed at his Last Sentence. Should I Block Eisenhower's Comment because of his Name Calling? Since he is Talking about Extreme Libertarianism, I'll Let it Go. lol.
Do you believe in the Abolishment of "Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Labor Laws", Silverfiddle? The Soapster Likely does, because I have Found him to be Extreme in Many Ways, but how about you?
There are Many Republicans that are Discontent with the Republican Party, Silverfiddle. I don't Believe that "Crony Capitalism" is an Issue that they are in Agreement on and I do not Believe that this Single Issue would Make Someone into a Libertarian.
If, by "Crony Capitalism", you Mean Bail Outs, I'm Torn on the Issue. The Bail Outs that have been Given Recently, though, have been Extremely Sloppy. They Actually Gave People Raises and that should Never have been allowed.
"Unfortunately, too many people think 'free market' means pro-business."
Well, it does sort of Mean Pro-Strong, because the Weak can be Taken Advantage of rather Easily when there are no Regulations Preventing it. Depending how the Words "Fraud" and "Arbitrary" are Defined, this may Leave Room for the Regulations that are Necessary. You Must Know, though, that there are Libertarians that Take these Things to the Extreme.
You Appear to be a Moderate Libertarian, Silverfiddle. I Never Knew there was such a Thing, yet just as I am closer to the Middle Line between Republicans and Democrats, than to the Extreme, you are Near the Line Between Republicans and Libertarians and therefore are not Really so Extreme.
BB is Arguing against a Very Common Libertarian Extreme. It is your Political Label that is Causing you Trouble in this Regard. I just see you as a Person who is Upset with the Direction that Republicans have been going in and you Lean Libertarian, but are not that Extreme. I'll Keep my Eyes Open to see if I'm Wrong.
"I am against government giving money to any business, strings or no strings." Me too! As for my Ayn Rand reference, the
idea that 'Selfishness Is A
Virtue' just kind of sets me off...
BB,
Oh Gee! Is she the one who Said that!? I don't even Listen to her.
Silverfiddle,
See there. BB-Idaho is a Liberal and he Agrees with you on the Bail Out Issue. I don't Really Think that that's a Partisan Issue and therefore it is not Really Appropriate to Point your Fingers at Republicans in Relation to it, for there are Actually more Republicans who Agree with you than who don't and I'm Basing that on the Fact that when Bush Agreed to the Bail Outs, he was Going Against the Opinions of Most of his Party.
Who says making loads of money is selfish?
Neil Young is probably loaded. Does that make him selfish?
Lista: I am a "small l," not a Libertarian party person.
Yes, I am for abolishing Social Security, unemployment insurance and probably most labor laws, but that is a more complicated issue, so I'll only elaborate on the first two.
First off, if the government would quite manipulating our currency for the benefit of a few, a dollar you made in your 20's would still be worth a dollar when you are in your 60's. That is key to people having their own wealth and being self-sufficient. They should stop taxing us via inflation and currency devaluation.
Secondly, government should stop taxing any interest or dividends from savings. These two actions would allow a modest and prudent person to take care of themselves in old age. I blogged about that here:
http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2010/06/inflation-silent-tax.html
Government should only be giving money to people who are truly indigent, and it should be done at the local level. Any federal program is ripe for fraud, waste and abuse.
Unemployment insurance: That is something that can be done more efficiently by the free marketplace. It does not need to be done by government.
My main reason for these beliefs is the inefficiency of it all. If you give a dollar to the government half of it or more is eaten up in overhead costs and handling charges. Giving that dollar to a local charity is money much better spent.
Also, government "problem solving" is a hydra-headed monster. For every problem it solves, two more pop up.
... There goes my medium-core libertarian label...
Making Loads of Money is not Necessarily Selfish, yet if someone Claims that Selfishness is Ok, then it Opens the Door for Not Caring about Costumers and Employees and Discourages Benevolence.
Inflation is Caused by Printing too much Money. No One is Going to Disagree that this is not Right. I Agree Totally that we should not be Taxed by the Means of Inflation.
As to the Rest, All I Know is that Quite Often Republicans that are too Extreme do Cut Vital Programs and to me, a Libertarian is an Extreme Republican.
"Government should only be giving money to people who are truly indigent."
You see, the Definition of "Indigent" is Controversial, Especially when it Comes to the Level of Ability or Disability that a Person has. When the Struggle is Emotional, rather than Physical, this Often Gets Judged, rather than Helped. It also has to do with the Balance between Responsibility and Mercy and Grace, the Second and Last of which, a lot of Republicans and Libertarians Lack.
Sure there is a Limit to how Much Grace can be Given, but Sometimes there is also a Limit to how much Responsibility a Person can Physically and Emotionally Handle.
PS- Trust me, Silverfiddle. Compared to Soap you are quite Moderate.
Lista: Mercy, Grace, charity, etc are moral virtues God demands of his followers.
A corporate entity or government cannot by definition possess such virtues.
In fact, discussing virtues and morality in the context of government turns the Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics debate on its head.
Christianity is a deontological religion. We owe duties to God and to our fellow man.
Utilitarianism is logically coherent, but it can lead to very immoral acts (Final solutions, euthanasia, telling individuals where to live and what job they will have) as viewed by a Jewish or Christian, or a classical liberal.
When discussing what the role of government in peoples lives should be, liberals or progressives argue from the deontological point of view (We have a duty to help the poor and the aged!), while conservatives and libertarians argue from the Utilitarian corner (Do what works. Stop doing what does not)
This entire discussion on the role of government is premised on a false belief: If government does not dole out mercy, none shall be doled out. This is nonsense. We are a very giving nation, and reasonable arguments can be made that the multi-trillion dollar war on poverty has destroyed our cities and the nuclear family, consigning even more people to a permanent underclass.
Who Says I was Talking about a Corporate Entity or Government. Of Course these Institutions can not Possess Mercy, Grace and Charity. It is the People who Run these Corporations and Governments that Either Posses or do not Possess these Qualities and it is the Voters who will either Vote for or not Vote for People who Possess these Qualities.
Political Decisions can be either Selfish or Charitable. Selfish Decisions are those that have a Positively Effect on a Certain Group that the Decision Maker is a Part of. Charitable Decisions are those that have a Positive Effect on Everyone and Usually this will Involve Some Sort of a Compromise, One Group Compromising with the Other.
I haven't Read all of your Comment and I Know that when I do, I will have more to Say, yet this is all I have Time for, so I'll Just say the Rest Later.
I wasn't accusing you of anything, Lista.
Put simpler, should we judge government actions and programs based on their good intentions, or on concrete, observable results?
Some interesting figures
about big government. If we include local (cops, firemen, teachers) state
(road workers, cops etc) and fed (park rangers, lawyers, etc) as well as the dang politicians at each level, we find:
1959 4.8% worked for gov't
1980 7.1% worked for gov't
2111 7.1% worked for gov't
...because the country grew larger and so did gov't.
Also of interest: why do
so many other countries
produce more cheaply than we? We could blame the few remaining (and ineffective) unions, or
we might ponder the ratio of ceo to worker pay:
Country Ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay
Japan
11:1
Germany
12:1
France
15:1
Italy
20:1
China
20:1
Canada
20:1
South Africa
21:1
Britain
22:1
Hong Kong
41:1
Mexico
47:1
Venezuela
50:1
United States
475:1
...that last figure should make the Atlas Shrugged folk drool!
I didn't Think you were Accusing me, Silverfiddle. I was Just Clarifying. In your 2:43 PM Comment, Yesterday, you Asked a Very Good Question.
I'm Still Reading and Processing, you Guys. Another Blogger has Somehow Inspired me to Research and Watch YouTube Videos of Old Movies. That May have been a Rather Silly Use of my Computer Time just Now. lol. Tonight, I'm going to Put more of my Priority and Focus on Responding to you guys on My Own Blog.
BB: Your government figures are of way more interest than the drop in the bucket CEO pay.
Given how much outsourcing there is now, the actual percentage of people working for government is much higher than that. Government at all levels now gobbles up 40% of GDP. That is a truly amazing statistic and it dwarfs the CEO pay issue.
Government money comes from you and me. CEO pay comes from whatever corporation is paying them.
You know, BB, I directly address the issues you raise and the questions you ask me, but I notice you do not pay me the same courtesy.
You leave my points unrebutted and just go on to the next talking point.
Hi Silverfiddle,
I Guess the Point that I was Making about Someone Claiming that Selfishness is Ok, is that "It Opens the door for Not Caring about Costumers and Employees and Discourages Benevolence." (Comment on April 2, 8:02 PM) and this is a Business and Charity Statement, not a Political Statement and I'm not Feeling Accused. I'm just Clarifying, Though I May have Later Mentioned Politics.
In my April 3 Comment, I Think I Explained rather well how the Ideas of Mercy, Grace and Charity can have a Connection to the Philosophies of Politicians and therefore to Politics. I am Actually Talking, though, about an Attitude of Charity and Fairness while Making Political Decisions and not so much about Specific Government Programs that could be Viewed as a Form of Charity. Still just Clarifying.
I also did not Mention the Concept of Morality or Christianity. You were the First to Mention either of these Words. Outside of Religion, the Same Ideas that I Brought Up are Usually Referred to as Forms of Compassion and I do not Think that it is a Good Idea Ever to Set Compassion Aside while Making Decisions, Regardless of the Setting (Personal, Business or Politics).
I have now Read your Comment and Plan on Reading the Link Next. Before I do that, I just Want to say that my Initial Statement that I have Placed in Quotes Above was not Meant to be a Political Statement. As to what I said Later...
"the Definition of 'Indigent' is Controversial, Especially when it Comes to the Level of Ability or Disability that a Person has. When the Struggle is Emotional, rather than Physical, this Often Gets Judged, rather than Helped. It also has to do with the Balance between Responsibility and Mercy and Grace, the Second and Last of which, a lot of Republicans and Libertarians Lack."
This Statement was about Disability and I don't see anything Wrong with the Government Helping the Disabled. The Question is, of course, how broad should the definition of Disability be?
Yes, Silver Friend, it is Good to Judge Government Actions and Programs on Concrete Observable Results.
Hi Silver Fiddle,
Let's See if I can Deal with your Link Now. Utilitarianism is Basically a Belief that Morality is Relative and Also Based on Pleasure, Happiness, Health, Knowledge and Desire. In Other Words, if it Feels Good, do it. It is a Means to an End, not an End in itself.
Deontological Ethics has to do with Natural Moral law and Common Sense, as well as the Idea that Humans are Ends in themselves with Intrinsic Value, or as Christians Put it "Made in the Image of God".
That's what I got Out of the Linked Article. I'm a Little Confused, though, about the Way in which you are Applying it to Government. In Truth, this is a Very Complicated Issue and Discussing all the Sides to it could Take some Time.
I'm going to Allow BB to Respond to your Last Comment, though I did Find his CEO to Worker Pay Ratios Interesting.
Also BB-Idaho,
High Pay is Often Connected to Unions and Yes, I do Consider this a Problem and I also Think that Government Workers are Paid far too Much.
Lista: You should be confused when applying those concepts to government. That is my point. People want government to be moral, compassionate, etc, and that is where we make a mistake.
How do you help someone? Giving them a meager monthly check, or giving them the wherewithal to take care of themselves, so they need no such assistance?
She Smiles,
You Know that is Really a Convenient Response, yet your Point is not at all Proved by the Fact that when I Read an Article, I did not Understand Right Away what the Concepts Mean. Sometimes it is just Necessary to Read Things more than Once before we Fully Understand what is Said.
Government is the Result of Decisions Made by People. People are either Moral, Compassionate, etc., or they are Not. The Policies that Result in Government are a Reflection of the Character of those who Made the Policies. It's not that Complicated, Silver, and just because you Shared a Confusing Article that I did not Immediately Understand does not Discount anything that I have Said.
Also, it just so Happens that the Phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. All that is There is the Statement that the State is not to "Establish a Religion". To say that there can be no Connection between Government and a Very Basic Level of Kindness is Taking that Idea a Bit too Far.
I do Agree with your Last Paragraph, yet Even Teaching a Person how to Take Care of Themselves is a Form of Assistance and also Compassion, yet Enabling is not Really Compassion. Republicans have always Felt this Way. I am a Republican and am not Likely to Disagree with you whenever you Talk like a Reasonable Republican. Sometimes I Think you Get Confused about what is Libertarian and what is Simply Republican.
I'm Going to Read that Article again and Keep Doing so Until I Understand it.
Lista: I wasn't trying to disprove anything you said, and I never mentioned "Separation of Church and State".
My point is that all of these extra-constitutional programs that are now breaking us started by people shouting "DO SOMETHING!"
A government program may spring from compassion, but it ends up being a cruel instrument devoid of all compassion and producing results the opposite of what was intended.
You are Right. You did not Specifically Say, "Separation of Church and State", yet the Separation of Compassion from Politics is a Similar Idea.
I Sometimes have Additional Thoughts beyond what is said and these Thoughts are Based on Similar Thoughts that People could Try and Connect with what has been Said and Sometimes my Additional Thoughts are Based on what I Perceive to be the Implications of what has been said. My Mind Jumps Ahead at Times.
What I am Thinking Now is Another Example of this, for you have not Actually Said this, yet what I Got Out of your Last Paragraph is that the Action of Charity should not be Separated from the Attitude of Human Charity and Compassion. Law is Cold and Impersonal, Unlike a Gift that is Given from One Human Being to Another.
I do not Know Exactly Why my Mind Jumped there. I Guess it was because of the Statement that "it ends up being a cruel instrument, devoid of all compassion."
I Would Probably Change the Word "Cruel" to "Cold", though, because just as Law can not be Compassionate because it is by itself Inanimate and Void of Emotion or Motive, it also can not be Cruel for the Same Reason, but what it can be is Cold and Impersonal.
And now that I have Totally Rewritten your Words, if what I have said just now has any Resemblance to what you Actually Mean, then you have Made a Good Point.
@Lista: What I am Thinking Now is Another Example of this, for you have not Actually Said this, yet what I Got Out of your Last Paragraph is that the Action of Charity should not be Separated from the Attitude of Human Charity and Compassion. Law is Cold and Impersonal, Unlike a Gift that is Given from One Human Being to Another.
That's scary. It's like you read my mind.
The word charity comes from the Latin caritas, meaning love. Having the government turn you upside down and shake money out of your pockets has nothing to do with love.
There are people in this country who need help, and we should help them. The mistake is to think that if the government does not do it, it won't get done
Looks Like I Still have the Nak, even without the Non-Verbal Feed Back. God is Good. Thank You.
Sometimes when People Go into Denial, they cause me to Doubt my Perception and Intuition and Make me Feel as if I don't have the Ability to Correctly Interpret or Understand anything at All, but I just don't see how such is Possible. Thank You for Restoring my Faith in My Ability to Perceive what is Actually Being Said.
I'm not an Idiot, Silverfiddle. It's not that you have ever Said so, it's just that there are People who have Made me Feel that Way and Here I was Convinced that my Perception was Based on Non-Verbal Feed Back and that on the Internet, I'm just as Blind as anyone, but you Know what? Maybe not. Or another Possibility is that Maybe you and I are more on the Same Wave Length then it would at First Appear.
I just don't Like Libertarians, cause I've Met too many of them that are Unacceptably Extreme. You Probably do not Like the Fact that I Feel that Way, but you are just going to have to Forgive me.
Meanwhile, I've been Wanting to Refer you to Another of my Posts. You would Probably be Quite Interested in This Post and the Discussion that Followed Relating to Government vs. Private Charity.
Post a Comment