henry quirk wrote
it's you choosin' to to do this instead of that, choosin' to go here instead of there, for reasons you suss out for yourself; it's the opposite of other-directed, where someone else decides where you go and what you do
You have to put a little more thought into it than that. Once you've been through a childhood of conditioning, your possibilities are laid before accordingly. Consider: slavery ended in 1865. So did this mean the slaves were all free to go to Harvard? You've got to take this kind of thing seriously: we don't live In a culture; rather, we are the embodiment of our culture, and "where you go and what you do" as you say, is not simply determined by magically affirming "you're free". I saw 30 year old men at 11 am on a week day just hanging out on street corners. Do you think they were born with this in their DNA? Society MAKES us prior to any adult choices, and by then, it's too late.
that's their story, yeah...reality is: their remedial interventions trained generations to subsist and live on handouts...the left (and a sizable chunk of the right) would leash us, protect us, instead of just lettin' us be what comes natural: free
It is impossible to think "natural" in this context. It has no meaning. the language I speak, the institutions I am part of, the values I have, and so on are all assimilated at a very young age. The handouts liberals want are, a) a compromise to conservatives who want to give up NOTHING in the way of the education revolution that is needed, and b) a way to compensate for the vast differences in economic advantages. Look, go the route of libertarians and it is like saying, there you are in your impoverished world. Either you can scratch out a living or you can't. I, on the other hand, had parents that were professionals, provided and cared for me, modeled prosocial values, and so on. And as to to you those who have to struggle through their poverty, too bad: I've got mine and taught for you.
Reminds me of Jeb Bush at a rally in florida once who bellowed: these liberals want nothing but handouts! Bush, a man who has everything handed to him his whole life! The hypocrisy simply staggering. Now, you could actually affirm this, I know. Just piss on the poor, who cares. But then, well, you would not be a moral person in a rather definitive way.
I'm thinkin' a whole whack of those wage slaves might disagree with you...they might ask, who are you to assess what I do and why I do it? who are you, they might ask, to assess I'm not free, not in control of my own affairs?
you're bein' paternalistic
The question is not what they would think at all. They might also think a good way to get rich is to steal cars. The argument is arbitrary as to what should rule judgment on this matter. we are trying to reason out how things should go in terms of government policies regarding redressing social inequalities and ideas are only as good as they are arguable, defensible. WHO presents them is quite irrelevant.
what gave us ORANGE MAN is folks thinkin' they have a right (by virtue of their superior education, for example) to dictate to other folks what's best
And it is not about folks thinking one way or the other. It is about what can be sustained in a moral argument. Also, the orange man would probably side with you on this matter, as to conservatives in general surely you are aware that all he wanted to do was cut spending. He woudl have tried to eradicate social security, the EPA, the FDA, HUD and so on; indeed Trump, if he had his way, would be a libertarian, for his social/religious "principles" he only uses as leverage against the religious right for their vote. He HAS no ethics himself and would give one scintilla about social values.
the question is: how we arrive at such things
the consequentialist would would govern us into such things...the deontologicalist would reduce governance to a bare minimum, declarin' people are free to rise as they can and fall when they will...me, as a peculiar kind of deontologicalist (a natural rights libertarian minarchist) would have as, for example, constitution or charter...
Too vague. The question is what would you do with the billionaires? Do they "deserve" this> How so? the money they have comes from where, and how should it be distributed according to a system of taxation? Is Marx right when he says most of that money literally belongs to the workers and Gates and Murdoch (I spit at the mere mention of Murdoch) and the lot of them take this money and put it into their pockets? No one is defending communism here, but that is not the point. The point is, with this monumental, galactic, massive disparity of the distribution of wealth in the US (and elsewhere), what does a libertarian like your self say should be the rule regarding wealth and earning? Libertarians typically say, leave people alone to earn as they will. But this dismisses the idea that in permitting wealth to move int his way is already a system of distribution. Their is nothing free or natural about this, rather it is a decision put the wealth in the hands of the few. "Natural" has nothing to do with it.
*a man belongs to himself
*a man's life, liberty, and property are his
*a man's life, liberty, or property is only forfeit, in part or whole, if he knowingly, willingly, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property
such a charter would be the foundation of society & law
Just a vacuous cliche. You have to ground your political beliefs in moral argument. Remember: the laws we have are very often not meant to be morally defensible at all. They are mostly pragmatic. I argue, "well, I am a citizen of this country, and am therefore endowed with the rights granted to me accordingly. You, on the other hand, are a wretched and oppressed illegal immigrant: out you go! I have the right to stay, but this is given not based on anything I've done, but by accident of birth. How is it that an accident of birth translates into a right to a superior standard of living?
It doesn't,. really. As an accident, it is simply morally arbitrary. Of course, it would be highly impractical not to have laws about immigration. But it is the pragmatics that make the decision. SHouldn't pretend my rights are somehow grounded in morality. They're not.
And patriotism is divisive hogwash. Just thought I'd throw that in.
