Jim Morin for August 28, 2014

The party for the instituting of the Somali government in the US. They’re confident they’ll be cronies of the corporate warlords.

Totalitarianism is the last stop on Morin’s bus.

Hummmm. Call me old fashioned but It seems that “Free for all” is better than “Free for some” and much better than “Free for none”. But then again it all depends who the “some” are, right? Wink, wink.

“I have no idea how I’d even breathe without a robust government presence in every facet of my life”.-Democrats

Y’know, we tried running this country under a Libertarian government once. It was called The Articles of Confederation.Didn’t work thenWon’t work now

For anyone who thinks the Republican Party wants to, ‘get government out of the lives of ordinary people’, I have three words.1. Terry2. Schiavo’s3. LawWake up people, the R’s want to get the government off the Koch Brothers’ back….not YOUR back

@opednance – You and I disagree again. I think I have a very good idea of what Liberals and Progressives want. I read the news periodicals, I listen to political pundits. I think I am quite well qualified to respond to a progressive posting (Not a posting by a progressive because I don’t know what Beau’s leanings are). I’m willing to entertain that not all progressives want the same thing because people are diverse but a common theme seems to be – “We want to use the government’s power of taxation to lessen the unfairness we perceive in a capitalistic system”.

The fact that I got a rise out of you so quickly suggests that I struck pretty close to the mark.

I’m willing to bet that you don’t even object to the theme I posted here. What you didn’t like in my previous post was what that attitude really represents. That you have no objection to the government taking money from somebody who earns it and distributing it to somebody else – Not to purchase a needed good or service but to simply make the receiver more comfortable i.e. better fed, better housed, better educated, etc.

If a producer wants to give charitably to a cause that he or she deems worthy and deserving – I applaud that. I encourage people to give of their time and talents to good causes. I certainly do myself.

But when a majority votes to confiscate earnings from one group to give to another – That is enslavement. The majority wants the fruits of that individuals labors without proper compensation. And I distinguish that from the government taking money in taxes to fund necessary government activities.

Instead of trying to silence those with whom you don’t agree – Why don’t you try engaging in discourse.

You and I probably won’t ever agree on many issues but the conversation gives both of us the opportunity to put our ideas into the public forum where others can choose for themselves which ideas have more merit.

yes jester we should let an estranged hubby have his wife die so he can collect $$$$$$$$

martens: yours is the most rational and enlightened post I have seen on GC. There are some who probably will not read it in it’s entirety, much less understand it..Although not law, I recall a scriptual reference: “To who much is given, much is expected” I try to avoid bringing religion into these discussions, but I do believe in God. Eventually, we all have to be ready to answer for our actions, or inactions. Today, our guiding precept seems to be “Greed is Good”, and Washington D.C. not only condones it, but, since 1981, has been invited in on the game. The most jealously guarded freedom in the U.S. is for business to make it’s money, unfettered by morals or law. Lincoln believed that any man or woman should be allowed to rise as far as talent will take him. I don’t think he ever envisioned those talents being used to rig the system, “flash-trading”, or corruption in Supreme Court decisions...“….that increases for the more advantaged in the society are accompanied by increases for the less advantaged.” Many in this country, and here on GC, would decry this as “socialism” Fairness, and charity count for little in this country today.The upper-economic class is firmly holding the wheel, with foot on the accelerator. Whether Libertarian or Republican the “I’ve got mine; too bad about you” view prevails. I apologize for being so pessimistic, but I do not see any change for the better in what is left in my lifetime. I hope, somehow, my nieces & nephews will fare better..Again, thanks for your post.

@Beau – OK, First of All Thomas Hobbes would not have considered an assembly of men a Sovereign. He advocated for a strong and unitary Monarchy (Dictator is some translations).He died almost 100 years before our Revolutionary War.

But I understand the Sentiment you are trying to convey.

Libertarians, the majority anyway, Seldom want freedom from all laws and regulations (though there are a few on the fringe who think that’s what they want). But don’t dismiss the desire for fewer laws and regulations as silly or idealistic.

As one who sympathizes with the cause – I see the push to reduce the size, scope and reach of the Federal government as noble. I don’t want to do away with the Federal government but I do think it steps on Freedoms that it should never have been allowed to encroach:

Anti-drug laws are the first that come to mind.Forced Charity laws come second – Welfare, AFDC, Housing, etc.Helmet and Safety Belt lawsLaws that dictate how states should educateLaws the interfere in hiring practices

The list goes on.

Do we need a Federal Government – AbsolutelyDo we need it involved in every facet of our life – NO!!!!

Congrats to all posters on this thread. Very interesting reading.

My take on this (refined over time) is that almost no one wants what they want in its purest form.

I view myself as a progressive; a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I have myself been in a position where I had to decide where to put my last dollar until Tuesday. And I made that dollar last. I know what it’s like to hit bottom, and I have no problem helping out others who have had unfortunate circumstances pull out their proverbial rug from under them. I don’t want to support them for the rest of their lives, nor do I intend to support their children, etc.

So, although I buy into the concept of welfare, aid for dependent children, food stamps, etc., I see it as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Pure liberalism as I understand it would mean that everyone who needs help should get it for as long as they need it. So I don’t fit in purity. Mephistopheles has said the same, to a degree; although he believes in principle, libertarianism carried to an extreme is somewhere he/she chooses not to go.

Most conservatives are not pure of ideology, either. As many say: they don’t hate immigrants, they hate the illegality of some of them. But when they find out that someone they know and have come to respect is undocumented, they may feel differently.

I had a good friend who was conservative in the extreme, and lived a life that was a paradox as a result. He worked hard all his life for a boss who made literally millions off his work, while paying him subsistence wages. Because of the work his boss got for them, and because he loved the challenge and the ability to learn, he worked hard all his life almost for free. And then he developed liver cancer, and became disabled. He was told that if he continued to work, he would die. He went on disability, food stamps, Medicaid; he became totally dependent on the government until the day the cancer took him from us. Yet to his last day, he was against the leeches that sponged off the government.

Shades of grey; recognize them if you want, but almost no one is an ideological purist. This is why, as an adult society, we need to compromise. We must recognize what we all have in common. For instance, I think if we are willing to stop shouting slogans, we can all agree that there are some people who just should not have access to weapons. We may not agree how to identify them, or what to do to restrict their access without restricting that of others, but we can at least agree to that. We need to start with recognizing what we agree on to create a foundation for a reasonable society.

It is unfortunate that many of us do not realize that “the other guy” is not as “out there” as we assume when we assume “the other guy” believes exclusively in pure ideology. All it does is give us something we can use as “the enemy” which is the antithesis of finding common ground.

So we are an adolescent society; I hope we survive to adulthood.

A rising tide may lift all boats. But that also assumes that everyone has a boat.