Freedom vs the Nanny State

[bamacre]

I don't see wrong in the vision. I don't see wrong in the desire to help others. It is the idea of trying to do this through the federal government that I see as wrong. Government has a strong history of doing a poor job of helping people. Government has always been a better tyrant than it has been a charity. Nonprofit and private organizations have always done a better job. Their competition is a less efficient yet more powerful government. Charity is always through donations, never through taxes.

Craig has in his sig...

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.- John Kenneth Galbraith

I find this absurd. First, but less relevant, because the "modern conservative" is no longer conservative.

There is no morality in forcefully taking money from some and giving it to others. None. Would it be moral of me to rob a bank even if I gave all the loot to a children's cancer clinic? Of course not. What if I stole from only the biggest accounts? Still no.

What is moral is giving of one's self. One's time, one's resources. Are we to believe that Americans are selfish, that Americans care not for others? That they need to be forced to care? This is absurd, and not true of the country in which we live. Even with high taxes, many Americans give even more, their time and their money, to others in need. One only needs to open their eyes to see the plethora of organizations, all across the country, that work only to help those who need it.

Those organizations will always do a better job than any government. Their motivations are more pure, their vision more clear, and their manner more moral. If only those who focus their time and money protesting their competition, government, would join them instead of fighting against them, perhaps we would live in a freer, more prosperous, nation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

You know the implications? Do you? You didn't list any. Who will post your delightfully acerbic post and who will raise your kids? You don't wear a helmet for yourself but because of your duty to us. There is only one unique you, the only one the universe will ever make.

I have no duty to you. Your claim that I do makes me your slave. Why do you support slavery?

Because I am a slave to Truth? Your duty is not imposed by me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't see wrong in the vision. I don't see wrong in the desire to help others. It is the idea of trying to do this through the federal government that I see as wrong. Government has a strong history of doing a poor job of helping people. Government has always been a better tyrant than it has been a charity. Nonprofit and private organizations have always done a better job. Their competition is a less efficient yet more powerful government. Charity is always through donations, never through taxes.

Craig has in his sig...

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.- John Kenneth Galbraith

I find this absurd. First, but less relevant, because the "modern conservative" is no longer conservative.

There is no morality in forcefully taking money from some and giving it to others. None. Would it be moral of me to rob a bank even if I gave all the loot to a children's cancer clinic? Of course not. What if I stole from only the biggest accounts? Still no.

What is moral is giving of one's self. One's time, one's resources. Are we to believe that Americans are selfish, that Americans care not for others? That they need to be forced to care? This is absurd, and not true of the country in which we live. Even with high taxes, many Americans give even more, their time and their money, to others in need. One only needs to open their eyes to see the plethora of organizations, all across the country, that work only to help those who need it.

Those organizations will always do a better job than any government. Their motivations are more pure, their vision more clear, and their manner more moral. If only those who focus their time and money protesting their competition, government, would join them instead of fighting against them, perhaps we would live in a freer, more prosperous, nation.

Was it moral to build the national highway system or spend your money to go to the moon and create the computer revolution? I don't see any charities doing such work. In the animal world we see groups of animals led by experienced members of their species. Why would we be any different? You seem to feel you can have all of the benefits of communal action with none of the obligations.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

You know the implications? Do you? You didn't list any. Who will post your delightfully acerbic post and who will raise your kids? You don't wear a helmet for yourself but because of your duty to us. There is only one unique you, the only one the universe will ever make.

I have no duty to you. Your claim that I do makes me your slave. Why do you support slavery?

Because I am a slave to Truth? Your duty is not imposed by me.

It is when that duty is only enforced through the power of government.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Was it moral to build the national highway system or spend your money to go to the moon and create the computer revolution? I don't see any charities doing such work.

Investment in infrastructure such as building a highway system or the backbone of the internet is totally different than what I referred to in my post, moonbeam. And you know it.

In the animal world we see groups of animals led by experienced members of their species. Why would we be any different?

There are a lot of reasons why we should be different. And I don't see why this statement is relevant to my post, either. I didn't call for Anarchy.

You seem to feel you can have all of the benefits of communal action with none of the obligations.

Totally not true. And I don't see where you got this conclusion from my post.

 

[Moonbeam]

b: Investment in infrastructure such as building a highway system or the backbone of the internet is totally different than what I referred to in my post, moonbeam. And you know it.

M: Well I don't know it so maybe you can explain it to me.

b: There are a lot of reasons why we should be different. And I don't see why this statement is relevant to my post, either. I didn't call for Anarchy.

M: Well give me a few reasons then. I don't see what my point has to do with anarchy and the reason I made is because if animals rely on the judgment of talented members of their society why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't every goose find its own way south? Why should some crippled old useless Neanderthal have flowers on his grave?

b: Totally not true. And I don't see where you got this conclusion from my post.

M: Well it depends on where you come down on the above. It's a straightforward conclusion from where I stand.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

You know the implications? Do you? You didn't list any. Who will post your delightfully acerbic post and who will raise your kids? You don't wear a helmet for yourself but because of your duty to us. There is only one unique you, the only one the universe will ever make.

I have no duty to you. Your claim that I do makes me your slave. Why do you support slavery?

Because I am a slave to Truth? Your duty is not imposed by me.

It is when that duty is only enforced through the power of government.

If you have a duty and YOU don't enforce it, who else but the government can? Your kids can't make you wear a helmet and they can't change Dads. If you want to ride without a helmet you should have kept your pecker in your pants. The threat of jail sometimes is the only substitute there is to real morality, no?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well I don't know it so maybe you can explain it to me.

Oh come on. You don't understand the difference between the federal government building highways and providing health care for retired people?



I haven't mistaken you for a fool, have you me?

Well give me a few reasons then. I don't see what my point has to do with anarchy and the reason I made is because if animals rely on the judgment of talented members of their society why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't every goose find its own way south? Why should some crippled old useless Neanderthal have flowers on his grave?

Well, I didn't note that we can't. The constitution certainly says that the people have a right to assemble and organize. Like I said, "I don't see wrong in the vision. I don't see wrong in the desire to help others. It is the idea of trying to do this through the federal government that I see as wrong." Am I condemning people helping others? Condemning leadership? No, I certainly am not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are trying to make my post something that it is not, rather than refuting exactly what I said.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The threat of jail sometimes is the only substitute there is to real morality, no?

Exactly?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Simply, the more laws we have the more restricted we are. If I want to drive down the road without a seatbelt, why can't I? Why the law? To protect me from myself? No, the answer is not to protect me from myself, its just another "conspire and collect" from the "protect and serve" guys. Its there to build revenue, another avenue for police to write you a ticket to collect more money, and to give another excuse to stop you and give the cops probable cause to find something bigger in the midst (drugs in the car, etc.)

Seatbelts also help keep insurance costs down.

If nobody wore seatbelts, car wrecks would result in a lot more injuries, serious injuries, and deaths. It would be very expensive, and auto insurance would therefore cost even more than it does today.

Why should I pay extra because you don't want to wear a seat belt?

 

[rpanic]

Would a government that takes over too many of its citizens responsibilities enables the irresponsible people to over breed that will eventually bring down the same government in the long run?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well I don't know it so maybe you can explain it to me.

Oh come on. You don't understand the difference between the federal government building highways and providing health care for retired people?



I haven't mistaken you for a fool, have you me?

Well give me a few reasons then. I don't see what my point has to do with anarchy and the reason I made is because if animals rely on the judgment of talented members of their society why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't every goose find its own way south? Why should some crippled old useless Neanderthal have flowers on his grave?

Well, I didn't note that we can't. The constitution certainly says that the people have a right to assemble and organize. Like I said, "I don't see wrong in the vision. I don't see wrong in the desire to help others. It is the idea of trying to do this through the federal government that I see as wrong." Am I condemning people helping others? Condemning leadership? No, I certainly am not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are trying to make my post something that it is not, rather than refuting exactly what I said.

crap, i lost my post and hate doing it again

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: rpanic
Would a government that takes over too many of its citizens responsibilities enables the irresponsible people to over breed that will eventually bring down the same government in the long run?

Maybe you didn't notice that because humans care for each other intelligently they have become the dominate lifeform on the planet.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

You know the implications? Do you? You didn't list any. Who will post your delightfully acerbic post and who will raise your kids? You don't wear a helmet for yourself but because of your duty to us. There is only one unique you, the only one the universe will ever make.

I have no duty to you. Your claim that I do makes me your slave. Why do you support slavery?

Because I am a slave to Truth? Your duty is not imposed by me.

It is when that duty is only enforced through the power of government.

If you have a duty and YOU don't enforce it, who else but the government can? Your kids can't make you wear a helmet and they can't change Dads. If you want to ride without a helmet you should have kept your pecker in your pants. The threat of jail sometimes is the only substitute there is to real morality, no?

You're right. We should just start throwing homosexuals in jail. It's the only way to enforce proper morality.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

You know the implications? Do you? You didn't list any. Who will post your delightfully acerbic post and who will raise your kids? You don't wear a helmet for yourself but because of your duty to us. There is only one unique you, the only one the universe will ever make.

I have no duty to you. Your claim that I do makes me your slave. Why do you support slavery?

Because I am a slave to Truth? Your duty is not imposed by me.

It is when that duty is only enforced through the power of government.

If you have a duty and YOU don't enforce it, who else but the government can? Your kids can't make you wear a helmet and they can't change Dads. If you want to ride without a helmet you should have kept your pecker in your pants. The threat of jail sometimes is the only substitute there is to real morality, no?

You're right. We should just start throwing homosexuals in jail. It's the only way to enforce proper morality.

What you call proper morality is the problem. It isn't real morality. Your job is to explain how, having kids, it is your right to drive a motorcycle without a helmet, how your life is yours to throw away when there are children in the world who love you and look to you for as a source of emotional joy.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

You know the implications? Do you? You didn't list any. Who will post your delightfully acerbic post and who will raise your kids? You don't wear a helmet for yourself but because of your duty to us. There is only one unique you, the only one the universe will ever make.

I have no duty to you. Your claim that I do makes me your slave. Why do you support slavery?

Because I am a slave to Truth? Your duty is not imposed by me.

It is when that duty is only enforced through the power of government.

If you have a duty and YOU don't enforce it, who else but the government can? Your kids can't make you wear a helmet and they can't change Dads. If you want to ride without a helmet you should have kept your pecker in your pants. The threat of jail sometimes is the only substitute there is to real morality, no?

You're right. We should just start throwing homosexuals in jail. It's the only way to enforce proper morality.

What you call proper morality is the problem. It isn't real morality. Your job is to explain how, having kids, it is your right to drive a motorcycle without a helmet, how your life is yours to throw away when there are children in the world who love you and look to you for as a source of emotional joy.

It's amusing how you feel you've been given the divine authority to define morality.

I feel I have more to offer my daughter as a vibrant human being than the shell of a person that you would have me be. Just because you enjoy being the living dead doesn't mean I do, so I choose not to bow to your twisted sense of morality.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

You know the implications? Do you? You didn't list any. Who will post your delightfully acerbic post and who will raise your kids? You don't wear a helmet for yourself but because of your duty to us. There is only one unique you, the only one the universe will ever make.

I have no duty to you. Your claim that I do makes me your slave. Why do you support slavery?

Because I am a slave to Truth? Your duty is not imposed by me.

It is when that duty is only enforced through the power of government.

If you have a duty and YOU don't enforce it, who else but the government can? Your kids can't make you wear a helmet and they can't change Dads. If you want to ride without a helmet you should have kept your pecker in your pants. The threat of jail sometimes is the only substitute there is to real morality, no?

You're right. We should just start throwing homosexuals in jail. It's the only way to enforce proper morality.

What you call proper morality is the problem. It isn't real morality. Your job is to explain how, having kids, it is your right to drive a motorcycle without a helmet, how your life is yours to throw away when there are children in the world who love you and look to you for as a source of emotional joy.

It's amusing how you feel you've been given the divine authority to define morality.

I feel I have more to offer my daughter as a vibrant human being than the shell of a person that you would have me be. Just because you enjoy being the living dead doesn't mean I do, so I choose not to bow to your twisted sense of morality.

Now now, Bobber, don't confuse me with your Mommy and have a petite tantrum. I'm not somebody you can bluff with such silly bravado. I have tons of experience riding motorcycles with and without a helmet so I have my own internal reality I can refer to to know you're bullshitting me. I never felt that I was dead when I rode with a helmet and neither have you. Nor am I delusional that riding without a helmet made me some sort of vibrant being. Keep it real, please. If you think your personal pleasure and hubris are more important than your parental duty to take care of yourself so be it. You can't put an old head on immature shoulders but one can find, as it happens, many a young pair with crushed heads.

And as to divine authority, I'm sure it amuses me even more than you.