Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have been hearing a lot from the sheep lately that we have some sort of obligation to society as a whole.
Well do we really?
I am forced to pay taxes far over the actual value of government services I receive isn't that enough?
What else am I obligated to do for "society"?
Am I responsible for the safety of other peoples' children?
Am I responsible for the bills and livelihood of other people?
Just what does this obligation entail?
Shouldn't it be enough that I live my life without impeding anyone else from doing the same?
It's in the Constitution.
You live in a country you had no hand in starting..and have no "obligation" to continue living in if you find the conditions that reprehensible.
You can find a land bereft of civilization, and start over.
Or..if you are feeling the need for bloody revolution, you can do that too. Be warned, however, that the latter has dire consequences, even for those who are successful.
Where in the consitution does it say people who make money have to support people who don't, can't, or won't?
That's fine.I wish you would learn to use the quote function.
I like the way I do it.
And you have no idea how I gt along with my neighbors.
Never said I did.
In fact I'll probably be spending hours plowing out my neighbors and friends this weekend because we're supposed to be getting 2 feet of snow.
That's nice, but not a duty or an obligation unless you have a contract with them.
But do I have an obligation to plow out everyone in town?
If and only if you have a contract with everyone in town, or the local government.
Do I have an obligation to protect your kids from harm if you won't?
Nope.
And I live my life by the mind your own business philosophy so I do not ever try to impede another as long as what they do has no effect on me.
I simply disagree. You see there is such a thing as Normative Ethics which is essentially is a way to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle:
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Matthew 7:12]
If I do not want my neighbor to steal from me, then it is wrong for me to steal from her. If I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people.
That is no different than they way I treat people. I want them to leave me alone and respect my rights and my privacy and that is how I treat them.
But it's you progressives that want to butt in to every aspect of my life from what I eat to how many guns I have. So please follow your own advice and treat me the way I treat you and leave me be.
The way the Callous Conservatives look at life is antithetical to the Golden Rule. It is (as I've posted before) "I've got mine, screw the rest of you"; and most recently this set seems concerned with three things: Me, Myself and I. I'm not that way and that's not how I raised my kids.
I've never said "screw you" to anyone who has asked me for help. But I draw the line at people thinking they are entitled to my help and or the fruits of my labor simply because they live in the same country as I
That's fine.
I simply disagree. You see there is such a thing as Normative Ethics which is essentially is a way to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle:
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Matthew 7:12]
If I do not want my neighbor to steal from me, then it is wrong for me to steal from her. If I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people.
That is no different than they way I treat people. I want them to leave me alone and respect my rights and my privacy and that is how I treat them.
But it's you progressives that want to butt in to every aspect of my life from what I eat to how many guns I have. So please follow your own advice and treat me the way I treat you and leave me be.
The way the Callous Conservatives look at life is antithetical to the Golden Rule. It is (as I've posted before) "I've got mine, screw the rest of you"; and most recently this set seems concerned with three things: Me, Myself and I. I'm not that way and that's not how I raised my kids.
I've never said "screw you" to anyone who has asked me for help. But I draw the line at people thinking they are entitled to my help and or the fruits of my labor simply because they live in the same country as I
If you're not a Callous Conservatives the reference was not to you. And yet you lump all progressives into one entity and infer that I want to control you. I don't. At least in so far as what you do on private property with the owners permission; what you do on the commons is a different story.
If I see you driving recklessly on a public road, though I have no duty to do so, I will report you to the legal authority via 911, provide my name and contact info and if called to testify - should your actions cause property damage or personal injury - I will do so. That's what being a responsible citizen is, IMO; clearly you disagree.
Right...But those taxes described in article 1, Section 8, were for the purpose of providing the various de jure federal functions described elsewhere in the Constitution...Not as a mechanism to take resources from one group of individuals, and use them to feather the nests of politically favored groups and/or individuals.It's in the Constitution.
You live in a country you had no hand in starting..and have no "obligation" to continue living in if you find the conditions that reprehensible.
You can find a land bereft of civilization, and start over.
Or..if you are feeling the need for bloody revolution, you can do that too. Be warned, however, that the latter has dire consequences, even for those who are successful.
Where in the consitution does it say people who make money have to support people who don't, can't, or won't?
Article I, Section 8 -- The Congress shall have the power to .... levy taxes, duties and imposts .... etc etc from your pocket. and then again in Amendment 16, the Income Tax.
The Congress in all this infinite (or possibly, though not tangibly, finite) power has decided you don't really get to know what your money goes to. So, we can't answer the latter part of your question, suffice it to say that, it does.
The "social contract" is as much a fictitious straw man as "society".The social contract has socially constructed obligations to individuals and in exchange for that some agreed upon responsibilities to society.
I have been hearing a lot from the sheep lately that we have some sort of obligation to society as a whole.
Well do we really?
I am forced to pay taxes far over the actual value of government services I receive isn't that enough?
What else am I obligated to do for "society"?
Am I responsible for the safety of other peoples' children?
Am I responsible for the bills and livelihood of other people?
Just what does this obligation entail?
Shouldn't it be enough that I live my life without impeding anyone else from doing the same?
It's in the Constitution.
You live in a country you had no hand in starting..and have no "obligation" to continue living in if you find the conditions that reprehensible.
You can find a land bereft of civilization, and start over.
Or..if you are feeling the need for bloody revolution, you can do that too. Be warned, however, that the latter has dire consequences, even for those who are successful.
The "social contract" is as much a fictitious straw man as "society".The social contract has socially constructed obligations to individuals and in exchange for that some agreed upon responsibilities to society.
I have been hearing a lot from the sheep lately that we have some sort of obligation to society as a whole.
Well do we really?
I am forced to pay taxes far over the actual value of government services I receive isn't that enough?
What else am I obligated to do for "society"?
Am I responsible for the safety of other peoples' children?
Am I responsible for the bills and livelihood of other people?
Just what does this obligation entail?
Shouldn't it be enough that I live my life without impeding anyone else from doing the same?
I have been hearing a lot from the sheep lately that we have some sort of obligation to society as a whole.
Well do we really?
I am forced to pay taxes far over the actual value of government services I receive isn't that enough?
What else am I obligated to do for "society"?
Am I responsible for the safety of other peoples' children?
Am I responsible for the bills and livelihood of other people?
Just what does this obligation entail?
Shouldn't it be enough that I live my life without impeding anyone else from doing the same?
You receive much more as a member of society than you pay in. You are able to function much more effectively as a member of a group than you are as an individual. As an individual, you are little more than a hunter/gatherer trying to scrape out an existence
As a member of society you are expected to contribute
Irrelevant.The "social contract" is as much a fictitious straw man as "society".The social contract has socially constructed obligations to individuals and in exchange for that some agreed upon responsibilities to society.
Then so is laissez faire capitalism, communism and all the rest of the isms including Randianism.
I have been hearing a lot from the sheep lately that we have some sort of obligation to society as a whole.
Well do we really?
I am forced to pay taxes far over the actual value of government services I receive isn't that enough?
What else am I obligated to do for "society"?
Am I responsible for the safety of other peoples' children?
Am I responsible for the bills and livelihood of other people?
Just what does this obligation entail?
Shouldn't it be enough that I live my life without impeding anyone else from doing the same?
You receive much more as a member of society than you pay in. You are able to function much more effectively as a member of a group than you are as an individual. As an individual, you are little more than a hunter/gatherer trying to scrape out an existence
As a member of society you are expected to contribute
This is not about membership but about obligation. I don't have much of a choice whether or not to be a member of society.
I contribute far more than I receive.
I do not receive anywhere near the value in services that the government forces me to pay for those services.
What other obligation do I have other than to abide by the law?
Do I have to provide people with a job?
Do I have to feed other people?
Do I have to protect other people?
Do I have to agree to have my rights limited because other people think it will make them safer?
Tell me what is it that I am required to contribute that I don't already?
Says you.The best example of what you propose is a pioneer leaving a city and going out into the wilderness to scratch out an existence without any help. You hunt, fish, grow crops and hope to feed your family
Strange thing about those pioneers is they could not wait to become states. They needed the protection from Indians, they were limited to how much they could succeed. You need a way to sell your goods. Once railroads came in there was a way to send crops and beef to the population centers for profit.
Without a society you can achieve little more than subsistence farming. With a society, your economic capabilities are boundless
Says you.The best example of what you propose is a pioneer leaving a city and going out into the wilderness to scratch out an existence without any help. You hunt, fish, grow crops and hope to feed your family
Strange thing about those pioneers is they could not wait to become states. They needed the protection from Indians, they were limited to how much they could succeed. You need a way to sell your goods. Once railroads came in there was a way to send crops and beef to the population centers for profit.
Without a society you can achieve little more than subsistence farming. With a society, your economic capabilities are boundless
Problem being that there are nearly 7 billion people who quite probably have nearly 7 billion different descriptions as to what constitutes this "society" thingy.
I know, I know...Maybe they should just all buy islands too, huh?
The "social contract" is as much a fictitious straw man as "society".The social contract has socially constructed obligations to individuals and in exchange for that some agreed upon responsibilities to society.
Your premise is invalid (actually absurd), your conclusion is absurd and ridiculous.
Society is relative to social constructions and so the ideals of a society in and of itself have no real reality except what human beings place on it.
I am thinking that's what he meant by corporeal sense but I may be wrong.
Odd-dude is locked into Objectivism and has read only the books of Ayn Rand and his thesaurus, or so it seems.
Without posting an acadmemic defintion of society suffice it to say most of us understand the American Society is much different than the society in China or India and less so but still different than England. The meaning of a word is in its use, not to what it references or how it is defined in the dictionary.
Odd-dude uses a reference in his use of he word Society, "there is no body". And yet society exists.
Odd-dude should have a dinner party and invite his friends and relatives. He should serve roasted dog, post a picture of the dog he 'rescued' from the pound and let everyone know the dog was going to die the next day anyone. He will learn that society does speak rather quickly I would think.
I am contractor...I have a very keen understanding of what contracts entail and what they don't.The "social contract" is as much a fictitious straw man as "society".The social contract has socially constructed obligations to individuals and in exchange for that some agreed upon responsibilities to society.
Of course.
There is no such thing as anything unless a group agrees to it.
Once agreed to, some see it as set in stone while others don't.
Entirely irrelevant to the fact that your description of "society" is no more valid than anyone else's.Says you.The best example of what you propose is a pioneer leaving a city and going out into the wilderness to scratch out an existence without any help. You hunt, fish, grow crops and hope to feed your family
Strange thing about those pioneers is they could not wait to become states. They needed the protection from Indians, they were limited to how much they could succeed. You need a way to sell your goods. Once railroads came in there was a way to send crops and beef to the population centers for profit.
Without a society you can achieve little more than subsistence farming. With a society, your economic capabilities are boundless
Problem being that there are nearly 7 billion people who quite probably have nearly 7 billion different descriptions as to what constitutes this "society" thingy.
I know, I know...Maybe they should just all buy islands too, huh?
And yet, almost every one of those 7 billion forms some type of society. It is human nature and it just makes sense if you want to survive in the world
Each of those societies has some form of pooling of resources. Each has a mechanism for taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
It is only the Libertarians among us who seek to pull away from our instincts to form society, to enforce every man for himself and survival of the fittest.
That is why no societies embrace Libertarian ideals
You had your family to help. Kids back then didn't sit on their asses all day with a cell phone in their hands.You receive much more as a member of society than you pay in. You are able to function much more effectively as a member of a group than you are as an individual. As an individual, you are little more than a hunter/gatherer trying to scrape out an existence
As a member of society you are expected to contribute
This is not about membership but about obligation. I don't have much of a choice whether or not to be a member of society.
I contribute far more than I receive.
I do not receive anywhere near the value in services that the government forces me to pay for those services.
What other obligation do I have other than to abide by the law?
Do I have to provide people with a job?
Do I have to feed other people?
Do I have to protect other people?
Do I have to agree to have my rights limited because other people think it will make them safer?
Tell me what is it that I am required to contribute that I don't already?
The best example of what you propose is a pioneer leaving a city and going out into the wilderness to scratch out an existence without any help. You hunt, fish, grow crops and hope to feed your family
Strange thing about those pioneers is they could not wait to become states. They needed the protection from Indians, they were limited to how much they could succeed. You need a way to sell your goods. Once railroads came in there was a way to send crops and beef to the population centers for profit.
Without a society you can achieve little more than subsistence farming. With a society, your economic capabilities are boundless
You benefit MUCH more from a society than you put in. Quit whining about contributing to it
Entirely irrelevant to the fact that your description of "society" is no more valid than anyone else's.Says you.
Problem being that there are nearly 7 billion people who quite probably have nearly 7 billion different descriptions as to what constitutes this "society" thingy.
I know, I know...Maybe they should just all buy islands too, huh?
And yet, almost every one of those 7 billion forms some type of society. It is human nature and it just makes sense if you want to survive in the world
Each of those societies has some form of pooling of resources. Each has a mechanism for taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
It is only the Libertarians among us who seek to pull away from our instincts to form society, to enforce every man for himself and survival of the fittest.
That is why no societies embrace Libertarian ideals
And your ideas on who libertarians are and their particular codes of ethics couldn't be more off track if they had to be.
Entirely irrelevant to the fact that your description of "society" is no more valid than anyone else's.And yet, almost every one of those 7 billion forms some type of society. It is human nature and it just makes sense if you want to survive in the world
Each of those societies has some form of pooling of resources. Each has a mechanism for taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
It is only the Libertarians among us who seek to pull away from our instincts to form society, to enforce every man for himself and survival of the fittest.
That is why no societies embrace Libertarian ideals
And your ideas on who libertarians are and their particular codes of ethics couldn't be more off track if they had to be.
Libertarians define society as fits their needs. They want the parts that they benefit but want to discard the parts that benefits others. The virtue of selfishness is typical Ayn Rand and makes any society dysfunctional
