On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 10:13 -0400, Jim Wildman wrote:
> I would add that the founding fathers were not concerned with 'freedom',
> but rather with 'liberty'. They were much concerned about each
> person's responsibility to each other and to society.
And they _knew_ that the farther people are away from each other, the
_less_ they can hold each other accountable. Now granted, this was
before the concept of a government-based "public good," Marxism,
Socialism, Communism, etc...
But at least in capitalism -- no matter how "inefficient" or "wrong" it
seems -- there is ultimately the consumer. The consumer has far more
feedback than the voter. And even though the wealthy can bend or
influence the law, they are _not_ above it like politicians are -- the
ones who make the rules, not merely bend or influence them.
Which is why socialism/communism always fails on a larger scale. On a
small scale, socialism/communism works very, very well. People hold
each other directly accountable. But on a larger scale, ironically
enough, only money seems to.
> There is no question in my mind but that we have less liberty than we
> did a decade ago. Every month there is another area of our lives that
> is 'regulated' for 'the common good'. And it all flows from the idea of
> a 'government safety net', ie socialism. If the government (rather the
> taxes paid by the citizenry) is going to be the ultimate payor, then
> it/we should have the right to tell everyone how to live. It is only
> logical. Doesn't mean it's a good idea at all. Matter of fact, we can
> point to lots of illustrations of how it hasn't worked.
Oh boy, I 100% agree with you!
I have many ideas on this front.
> Unfortunately, most in our society are hooked on the government teat and
> no amount of logic will cause us to release our grip. Don't think so?
> Would you vote for a congress critter who loudly proclaimed that he had
> reduced federal/state subsidies to his constituency (ie, you)?
You want to see people stop and _think_ before they do something
irresponsible?
Start forcing single mothers or single fathers to live together when
they live off the government. One works while one stays at home.
That'll quickly solve a lot of the problem, or at least make people
realize what being irresponsible does!
Start enforcing the law and start withholding money from single people
(especially those without kids) living off the government, but "shacking
up" for double-income (with the larger one not reported). Start making
taking $1,000 or more from state/federal a felony and people will
quickly _think_ before they do so.
Furthermore, I'm all for taking sexual orientation *OUT* of the
equation. Two people can live together and extend benefits to another
person. Today, we have so few married couples and so many single
parents, we should _encourage_ people to help one another -- *NOT* the
government. Take sex out of the equation _entirely_!
God, I really don't see _either_ the Democrats or Republicans addressing
that. They just keep telling me why we have to give more to single
parents while the other tells me of the ideal of the two-parent family.
I would love to take out the _bigotry_ and _ignorance_ based half in
_both_ their views, and come to that "common sense" _solution_!
And that's the problem today ... politicians (let alone the media) are
_pushing_rhetoric_! They are _not_ offering solutions!
-- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:08:13 EDT