tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post138910515375284877..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Religious belief and budget debatesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75981311025362188412012-06-08T13:36:46.756-04:002012-06-08T13:36:46.756-04:00Apparently Jim Wallis didn't get the memo:
ht...Apparently Jim Wallis didn't get the memo:<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-missing-religious-pri_b_1577935.htmlMichael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05739161023636655913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50466193408384075562012-05-30T15:15:53.876-04:002012-05-30T15:15:53.876-04:00One further comment on what you seem to see as &qu...One further comment on what you seem to see as "ethical grounds" for our culturally determined behaviors:<br />At bottom, our ethics are not fashioned as commandments to encapsulate the recommended forms of honesty. They are there in actuality to put some limits on chicanery, since promoting honesty and integrity for their own sake has never worked. Limiting dishonesty to a workable extent has always been the necessarily alternative strategy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65197340145714796142012-05-30T13:19:44.026-04:002012-05-30T13:19:44.026-04:00The wealthy would have you believe that their rich...The wealthy would have you believe that their riches were somehow God given and protected as His holy offerings. The fact is, however, that if the poor were able to decide en masse that riches would no longer be protected in their culture, they would vanish. The bartering of usable goods and skills would, for a time, prevail.<br />The rich, of course, know that all too well. It represents their worst fear and their best kept secret.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26140926485886852142012-05-30T12:51:14.963-04:002012-05-30T12:51:14.963-04:00I can only wish that progressives would use your l...I can only wish that progressives would use your language to express how they truley feel about society, taxes, property and wealth. The professed notion that the majority can ethically confiscate the "earings" of the rich (of course, in reality, it isn't the rich who wind up having their earnings confiscated through higher taxes, but rather the working middle-class and small business men, who, unlike the rich, cannot afford high-priced attorneys and accountants who are able to hide their true earnings from the taxman) would most certainly increase the ranks of classic- liberal adherents. A more nuanced, yet less truthful progressive might use terms such as "fair share," "contribution to society," or "balanced approach," before sticking the gun to one's head and demanding the money.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08592410561554923158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21592786606870143772012-05-28T23:03:51.274-04:002012-05-28T23:03:51.274-04:00On 'ethical' grounds, moral decisions depe...On 'ethical' grounds, moral decisions depend a lot on the situation. Which in turn will depend on the cultural standards for one's expected duties. And also on whether there's a majority rule at hand. For the rich to keep their earnings free of taxes, the majority then would have to agree to let them. Or be persuaded to agree in any case.<br /> And if all prospered according to the estimated value of their efforts, as promised, then ethics would seem to have prevailed.<br />Except of course we had just tried that, and it didn't work. So now we're told it's because we didn't try hard enough. But if we'll give the old system another shot at success, everyone will now try harder, and the sun will shine on all accordingly.<br />Which would be an ethical approach as well if it weren't for the lying.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35098228710325440292012-05-28T21:43:35.394-04:002012-05-28T21:43:35.394-04:00Hell, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
1. Rya...Hell, this is only the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />1. Ryan ignores the "Judeo" figleaf of Judeo-Christian ideas.<br />2. This "Jesus" contradicts himself (Good Samaritan vs. I came for the children of Israel only, on ingroup vs. outgroup, for example)<br />3. This "Jesus" may even have never existed (throwing a little bomb out there for everybody).Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48719832816538617852012-05-28T21:42:44.538-04:002012-05-28T21:42:44.538-04:00I'd love to hear the ethical argument of forci...I'd love to hear the ethical argument of forcing people to help others. Just exactly how does that work? I've always believed in helping my fellow man. I volunteer once-a-month at a shelter, donate to several charitable organizations that assisted me when I was growing up and have provided more than the recommended pro bono legal hours each year. I struggle, however, with the notion, from am ethical viewpoint, that a group of people can physically take property from a group of people and straight-out give it to a another group. I'd like to hear how a progressive justifies this transfer payment/welfare state system, not on political or policy grounds, but on purely ethical grounds.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08592410561554923158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29094866374162058092012-05-27T19:41:34.601-04:002012-05-27T19:41:34.601-04:00Ryan and his ilk are essentially rightist ideologu...Ryan and his ilk are essentially rightist ideologues. He and they believe people are in poverty because, yes, they lack work, BUT also will remain in poverty as long as they can get assistance in lieu of work. <br />He believes in fact that it's immoral to take assistance when you might otherwise be raising yourselves by your bootstraps. He also believes there will be losers in the game, but by some odd paradox, the losers will be such by their own choice.<br />This is an incredibly simplistic view of the American worker's world, but for the Ryans, these forms of half truths sustain them in their political fervor. Just as their fundamentalist religious doctrines preach to them - that their God helps those most who help themselves.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-906297120257885802012-05-27T10:09:42.604-04:002012-05-27T10:09:42.604-04:00Ryan responded that, on the contrary, his plan wou...<i>Ryan responded that, on the contrary, his plan would create the necessary economic growth to lift people out of poverty, as well as manage the government’s crippling debt...</i><br /><br />I don't believe that the Ryan budget proposal would achieve either of these effects, but that feels more like a factual disagreement than a moral judgment.<br /><br />On the other hand, the thought that Ryan is perhaps being disingenuous in his claims and the thought that following his proposal would harm the nation's well-being (at least as I conceive of it), those do indeed spark moral judgments.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59541775851076460442012-05-27T01:48:40.334-04:002012-05-27T01:48:40.334-04:00Mark,
Republicans espouse ideas based on Objectiv...Mark,<br /><br />Republicans espouse ideas based on Objectivist political theories about as frequently as Democrats, which is to say hardly at all. <br /><br />Moreover, I see no reason to label limited government ideals as being based "paranoia" or "Randian ideology". In my assessment, Republicans do not want a limited government <i>per se</i> but rather they want a government to limit itself to actualizing certain overly <i>religious</i> and, in general, social conservative ideals, like regulating private sexual relationships, maintaining ethical communal standards, etc. The average republican has far more in common with Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley than with Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mieses, or David Kelley.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39403623747861793022012-05-26T12:40:50.060-04:002012-05-26T12:40:50.060-04:00Hi Michael,
Excellent post. I find that it reflec...Hi Michael,<br /><br />Excellent post. I find that it reflects a lot of my thoughts about how our government works and the current state of Congress. <br /><br />Do you also think that Republicans' tendency to view government as something often alien and harmful contributes to their crusade to weaken it as much as possible? I agree that government must have its limits, but I think it's more than a little crazy to strip away programs people need on account of paranoia and Randian ideology.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05507955600043947836noreply@blogger.com