thegreekdog wrote:
"Using the rhetoric today" - Throughout the history of the United States a basis for the country, and part of the basis for democracies (at least in my opinion) was that people were entitled to keep what they earn or use it in a way that they wished to use it. So, being able to do what you want with your own money (or the fruits of your own labor) is not a concept that is new to "today." The alternative is that the powerful get to take your money and use it for their own ends without actually having to generate the wealth themselves (think, for example, feudalism).
Except, is that comparison truly valid? That is, the comparison of generating wealth oneself
versus fuedalism?
We in the US tend to concentrate on the bad aspects of feudalism and the good aspects of our current system. However, while in some cases the rights of "peasants" were essentially nil, some might say either akin to or perhaps even worse than some forms of slavery, others argue it was a reasonably stable system with well-defined obligations and rules to all concerned.
Some of the harshness of the time had purely to do with the times. That is, working on a farm by hand was plainly far more backbreaking than even the worst of factory jobs (or, well maybe akin to the WORST factory jobs) and the bad food/ health bit was something folks in all levels of society pretty much had to deal with. Even the general education level was much, much worse.
BUT.. underfuedalism, the peasants got protected (truly needed in many cases, don't forget) --both from other nobels and from other things ranging from wild animals to even some kinds of natural and semi-natural disasters (floods, fires -- people might be given refuge and food, etc to tide them over).
Today, we pay taxes that are by comparison much less and we get much more in the way of services in return ( though that seems more a factor of our times than the system). And, at present employers have pretty limited say in what individuals do in a direct sense. The problem is that is quickly changing and, more importantly, if the rhetoric is followed, then employers will be able to place pretty serious limits indeed on their employees and wealthy individuals will be allowed to place many limits on society.
thegreekdog wrote:
In terms of this being the basis of right wing argument, I don't think it's limited to right wing or left wing.
Reasonable. The whole right-left continuum is a pretty worthless idea in today's political climate. (not matter that we both use the terms frequently in specific contexts). So, let's skip the labels and just get to the jiist.
thegreekdog wrote: No one wants to give their own money to causes they do not wish to support. That seems pretty simple to me.
Simple, yes, but is it reasonable? And, if so, how far? Just because someone WANTS to do something does not make it OK.
thegreekdog wrote: For example, a union boss may not give his money to a Republican candidate for president. A corporate executive may decide not to give his money to a Democrat candidate for president. At an even more basic level, I may choose to buy a car manufactured in Japan instead of a car manufactured in the United States. If my purchase of a Japanese car means that someone in the United States suffers, should I be required to purchase an American car? An argument I suspect someone else will use (a different right-leaning poster than me) is that the left wing consistently talks about giving up others peoples' money for their causes (instead of using their own). It's been pointed out numerous times to Warren Buffett and Barack Obama that they could pay taxes in excess of what they owe, yet they choose not to. Why? That's not my argument, but it's an argument.
Yes, those are all important points (though I believe Warren Buffet did make a show of donating money to the government a while back??? -- trivia, anyway, not critical to this debate.) However, where are the limits.
To taket he first, you have argued repeatedly that this ought to be OK, that citizen's united does not give these individuals some extraordinary power over and above what individuals today have, etc.
I would distinguish the second, the private purchase, because it is something that impacts basically just you. You will use the car , not someone else. Beyond that, though.. say that the factory (not in Japan, of course) were being run through slave labor. In that case, I would say you should be prevented from making that choice becuase your decision will wind up supporting slavery, which we recognize as a fundamental evil. I believe you would agree there. Similarly, I would say (and think you would agree) that if the conditions in that factory were truly hazardous, then you had responsibility to not buy that product and a rule saying those products will not even be sold in the US might be warranted, regardless of whether you want to spend the money or not. The "line" is how much your individual action is allowed to actually cause harm to others. And beyond those 2 extremes, it starts to get pretty tricky. Where the line, then?
thegreekdog wrote: Finally, it appears that your concern is that people (to you just conservatives, apparently) don't want to give their money to causes they don't support and that's wrong in your mind.
No, its because that argument is being used to encroach upon other people. Its as though the "this is harmful" debate failed, so now they have swung to "its OUR money".
I don't think its cooincidental, at all, that this insurance debate with the Roman Catholic church sprung up now right when homosexual unions are very likely to become law soon, etc. (not trying to get into those actual debates here, there are enough threads on that, but sticking to the basic argument of "its my money" and why that is becoming so prominent now).
Back not so long ago, we saw a swing from folks being well, more than just encouraged to buy war bonds from their work to times when many considered the government the "big enemy" on the liberal side to now conservatives saying essentially the same thing. ( the government intruding too much in our lives). The rhetoric is pretty much the same, its just that in the past it was about information and now its about money as well as information.
thegreekdog wrote: I'm not even sure how to convince you that you're being completely ridiculous, except to give you a ridiculous example: I need condoms/alcohol/cigarettes/a big screen TV/a radio/a car; therefore, I expect you to send me a check for $5,000 (or whatever those things cost) as soon as possible. Thank you.
condoms... we do that, because it saves the rest of us money to have fewer people with AIDS, etc.
The rest are all either things that actually harm you/others and therefore subject to being curtailed even already or just individual things.
So, you put up some silly examples, which I agree are silly. How about where its not silly?
thegreekdog wrote: If you want to limit your discussion to what gets covered by insurance or certain government services, let's talk about that.
Nope, I intentionally wanted to get away from those specifics and into the basis for WHY those things and others
thegreekdog wrote: But to suggest "how I use money is my business" is like divine right is ridiculous.
Why?
Why is it different to say I was born here, so I get these rights from saying I have this money and so I get these rights?
thegreekdog wrote: Nevermind that I don't think you understand what "diving right" means.
Try me! If anything, perhaps you folks here don't.
Think of the children!
