Relative Slavery

acropolis said:

I'm going to preface this by saying that I also grew up relatively poor. Sometimes there wasn't enough food, sometimes I didn't get the medicine I needed. I sometimes had to buy food for the month with my paper route money. It wasn't the worst life, and my parents love me very much, but I knew the fear of uncertainty, of knowing that I can't get sick or we'll lose everything and it'll be my fault. I have seen my father almost lose it because he knows he can't properly protect his children. It is totally emasculating to be in that position, which is part of why I support government aid. Just because your dad get's hurt doesn't mean you, as a defenseless child, should have to go hungry or lack medical attention. I do not respect the man who puts his pride before the well-being of his kids, nor do I respect the man who puts his greed before that of other people's children.

It doesn't surprise me that you and your family would be generous, since poor people are more empathetic towards others, as has been shown by this study. The flip-side of those results is that the wealthy are less likely to empathize, and therefore less likely to give money to those who need it. No, it isn't fair that anyone should lose any money ever, but life already isn't fair. The best we can do is try to minimize suffering the best we can and try to make life as fair and equal for children at the very least.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your personal life story regarding your childhood. It sounds as though you share many of the stress and uncertainty of life that I underwent as a child. While my family always tended to live on the edge, I was always greatly loved by my parents. That is a true blessing in itself. God Bless!

brindisi said:

Your youthful foolishness, and arrogance, is a modern day echo of Elihu. Not something to be proud of.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not I actually used to be a hardcore libertarian. I'm familiar with the work of Von Mises, Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Thomas Sowell, among many others that I researched. I used to have a subscription to Reason magazine which I paid for myself with my paper route money.

I'm also familiar with the history of Soviet Communism. I know what a totalitarian system does, which is why I'm not a communist, nor am I strictly speaking a socialist.

What I'm trying to say is that I did not disregard libertarianism without carefully examining it. There is a reason I'm sticking to the immorality of the system and not, say, the industrial efficiency, since free markets tend to be very good at producing massive amounts of cheap products. I've come to believe, however, that the most important thing in life is not how many products a nation produces, nor how much or hard a man works, but how well that person supports those around him or her in whatever way they can.

Received said:

So you're going to criticize acropolis for reflecting the attitude that bricklayer initially showed him (contempt for people his age) and not criticize bricklayer for the same attitude? Goodness gracious.

Everything's a war with you hyper-rightwingers.

Click to expand...

Hyper-rightwingers? Is that a promotion from ultra-rightwing?

Acropolis seems to refer to scripture a lot. It's would be good for him to see and understand the aspects of human nature that are not new to the world. To the contrary, the imperfectionss of human nature have to be understood anew by every generation. Elihu was very condemning of the older Job, at the same time he, in his youth, completely misunderstood
man's relationship with God. But that didn't stop him from making judgements.

acropolis said:

Believe it or not I actually used to be a hardcore libertarian. I'm familiar with the work of Von Mises, Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Thomas Sowell, among many others that I researched. I used to have a subscription to Reason magazine which I paid for myself with my paper route money.

I'm also familiar with the history of Soviet Communism. I know what a totalitarian system does, which is why I'm not a communist, nor am I strictly speaking a socialist.

What I'm trying to say is that I did not disregard libertarianism without carefully examining it. There is a reason I'm sticking to the immorality of the system and not, say, the industrial efficiency, since free markets tend to be very good at producing massive amounts of cheap products. I've come to believe, however, that the most important thing in life is not how many products a nation produces, nor how much or hard a man works, but how well that person supports those around him or her in whatever way they can.

Click to expand...

I agree, but not with government redistributive policies.

brindisi said:

I agree, but not with government redistributive policies.

Click to expand...

That is an arbitrary distinction.

acropolis said:

That is an arbitrary distinction.

Click to expand...

Most distinctions are. I stand by my position: personal, not collective, responsibility.

brindisi said:

Most distinctions are. I stand by my position: personal, not collective, responsibility.

Click to expand...

Mine are not. I can't imagine caring about anything for which I couldn't justify or give a reason.

XTE said:

Bet you couldn't get a good source on this to save your life.

Click to expand...

Your right, the source comes from a book that I read several years ago and is buried away somewhere among other things I have forgotten about. If I have the time, I will try to dig out my source or try to find a new source. So for the time being, yes I am unfortunately with out a source for this post.

Also, consider a charity is only required by law to give 10% of what it takes in the name of Charity. So, dollars spent on charity do not reflect accurately the dollars spent on poverty.

Click to expand...

Very true but that is why it is important to research charities before giving your money. I would never give to a charity that only gives 10% of what it collects towards its identified mission.

"Charity" is a huge profit-taking business in the US.

Lest we forget also: CHARITY is a tax-deductible contribution. So when money is given to a charity, a subsequent amount is subtracted from Federal Revenue Streams. I can see where some Libertarians might enjoy efficiency. I mean, WHO DOESN'T? OH OK, those that make money off of inefficiencies do not. But clearly it is a shared argument from the masses. I appreciate your stance by the way and like that you can allow yourself to be vocal about it even amongst so many Libertarians here that speak differently than you.

Charity is a funny thing in the US. It plays off of our desire to help one another. Certainly there are people here that want the freedom to choose Charities, which they have through the tax-deduction I mentioned above. Some act like it is convenient to forget this a lot. However, choosing needs doesn't serve them all. What you would have are Charities having to spend money advertising themselves so that people even know they exist in order to send contributions to. You end up with after that: Competing Charities. This results in further losses between the contributions and the needy at the end.

Sometimes, especially in this case, a straight pipe to the needy saves money and is the most efficient means of dispersal. Government should be used in this case. I do not want profits stolen off of the top, I do not want them having to spend money advertising for recognition, and I do not want them out-spending each other in a competitive fashion. Leave that to businesses...

Click to expand...

My experience with various volunteer organization has not shown them to be big money making enterprises. Most organizations have very small permanent staff if any and typically depend greatly on the help of other volunteers. They typically do not spend very much money on advertising. Most of those I am acquainted with in my local jurisdiction are overburdened to meet the needs of their community with a rather shoe string budget.

If people gave more money to charities I doubt their would be much of a fight for those dollars by these volunteer organizations. Most charitable organizations tend to not be very savvy when it comes to advertising and really are just focused on fulling their mission.

bricklayer said:

Freedom provides the most for the most, but it also produces the widest gap between those with the most and those with the least.

Click to expand...

How do you figure this is the case? It is inherent in this dynamic that there are more have nots than haves, so how does it provide the most for the most?

XTE said:

Believers believe whatever they want to...

Click to expand...

Indeed there is an ever larger growing number of Christians who shape the Bible to their beliefs rather than shaping their beliefs to the Bible. Jesus explicitly states that a rich man will have trouble entering the Kingdom of Heaven, yet we hear so much about how God rewards people with riches and he wants us to be rich, just as an example.

Its quite sad and really troubling the disdain many on the right have for people who struggle and who are poor. I can't help but think that many who the right loathes would be the people at Jesus's dinner table.

Hypocrites.

Chris81 said:

My experience with various volunteer organization has not shown them to be big money making enterprises. Most organizations have very small permanent staff if any and typically depend greatly on the help of other volunteers. They typically do not spend very much money on advertising. Most of those I am acquainted with in my local jurisdiction are overburdened to meet the needs of their community with a rather shoe string budget.

If people gave more money to charities I doubt their would be much of a fight for those dollars by these volunteer organizations. Most charitable organizations tend to not be very savvy when it comes to advertising and really are just focused on fulling their mission.

Click to expand...

I have dealt with local charities that do as much, and they are genuine. I really enjoy shaking hands with the person running it. Not to know them, but to know that anyone can shake that hand.

It is scary to think that Charities are graded on what percentage they dole out past expenses, but considering that those expenses could be anything. I prefer to know, rather than speculate, but many on this site prefer to speculate over knowing, so I expect they allow speculation on what these "expenses" might be. It makes me sick that another criteria on which these Charities are graded is in how little the CEO is paid. It's an epidemic, you start a charity, you put FREEDOM in the title, and every freedom loving buffoon(that thinks FREEDOM could actually be a stand alone argument) starts sending you money. These people do not even hide it! Here is Sean Hannity's promoted Freedom Alliance Charity, who supposedly pays out to wounded soldiers returning from current wars and funds the education of kids whose fathers died in those wars:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/freedomalliancetaxes2006.pdf

It raised well over 10,000,000 in 2006(that's 4 years ago) and only paid out in charity 397,900. Under 4%. Now, I know for a fact that a charity is legally obligated to spend at least 10%, so I'm at a loss to think how this "charity" still operates. I thinking though that the consultant work can be counted towards that small goal of 10%. If you look on the Form 990, you'll see that consultants were paid almost twice what actual victims of the war were. That would bring us over 10%. But there it is, it's actual 990! It shouldn't lie, and it is open information per non-profit status...

Some "charities" are set up to lobby on behalf of things. You can donate to Freedom Works(there is that word again) and it lobbies on behalf of "FREEDOM." It really lobbies on behalf of Corporations, but that word is worshiped by a certain percentage of the population and there is money to be made and influence to peddle in, and from that demo.

It is now more just a legal way to funnel money. Your wage is considered an expense, so pull it up. I mean, can't these people see that almost anything with FREEDOM in the title is a crock anymore? There is not one term thrown about today that leaves me more skeptical than the term: FREEDOM. Such a cash cow, and used to enslave minds around a zero-sum argument. FREEDOM literally means nothing without a qualifier, but look at how many people ONLY SAY THE WORD and thinks it means something on it's own. It doesn't. What am I suppose to think about the intelligence that thinks it is OK to just yell this word on it's own?

I pity them to a point. Certainly they have the best of intentions, they just cannot see reason in the end. I do put a lot of that on a lack of born-in ability. I hate saying that, but such is the case. Not all of us can be Brain Surgeons, and it is a scaled argument, ergo: not all of us can figure out we are being scammed through use of the word FREEDOM. It is so incessant too...

Now, what does this say about Sean Hannity? I mean, that Form 990 was from 4 years ago! Is he going to pretend he doesn't know anything about it, even while he continues TO THIS DAY to position that "charity" in a good light? To promote it? YOU BETTER BELIEVE HE DOES! He gets paid to do it! It is in HIS interests to do so. It is not in ours...

How much money do you think I could raise starting a charity named CHRISTIANS FOR FREEDOM? Be honest! You know I'd make a killing.

I looked it up and found this:

Christians For Freedom - Patriotic Resistance

It's not a charity, but someone sure jumped on the name. Read the comments and see profiteering off of it at work though. Also notice the amount of conspiracy garbage there too.

But, in my search, I found a similar name for a charity:

Christian Freedom International

This is a charity that bought pictures from a website that convince lurkers to think Christians are continually persecuted around the world and in need of Bibles. You can donate here:

Help « Christian Freedom International

Of course, let us inspect this page a little further.

You can donate money, that's a given, but it says you can donate your time too, as a volunteer, WHICH IS GREAT!

Until you read the box:

Volunteers are the backbone of our ministry. Please learn more about how you can serve the Persecuted Church through your sacrificial time. Currently though, CFI is not in need of any volunteers. You can still submit an applications for review and need at a later time.

Can you imagine how many "volunteers" that give up their time CONTINUOUSLY, to the point they do not even need them anymore?! Amazing! The PERSECUTED CHURCH seems to have an abundance of volunteers, to the point it can confidently state WE DO NOT NEED THEM AT THIS TIME. Unfortunately, the cached version only dates back to November 20th of this year, but it still reads the exact same message. I would be interested in seeing what it has to say 6 months from now. I am under heavy suspicion that this site is here only to generate funds. I cannot think of two terms that elicit trust(Christian) and fervor(Freedom) more than those two...

I found all of this while typing this response. It means you don't have to go far into researching it to find a lack of information given to the person wanting to donate, so they make an uninformed decision.

It's really upsetting. I think Government could do WAAAAY more with those funds(and they do not work at a profit) than just about any of these "charities." Somehow, Insurance runs at an average 17% overhead and profit take, and government run Medicare runs at 9% overhead, but these "charities" are hard pressed to do 50%. That 50% is CONSIDERED "GOOD" SOMEHOW!

bricklayer said:

Freedom does not produce the most have nots,
it produces the most have lesses.
Fairness produces have nots.

The best way to help the have lesses is with private charity.
Charity is, by definition, private.
There is no public charity.
Taking in the name of giving is not giving, it's taking.
Taking in the name of giving destroys charity.

Too often, too many consider only the benefits brought about by the transfer of wealth.
Too often, too many do not factor in the harm done by taking it away in the first place.
Too often, too many do not factor in the inevitible collapse of our social welfare/pension/healthcare schemes.
Too often, too many choose the exculpatory over the empowering.

We are falling not flying.

Click to expand...

OH, who told this guy he is steeped in philosophy?!

Philosophy today is the study of language anymore. I would expect someone knee-deep in it would have a handle on language.

You fail miserably to provide an explanation as to why "fairness produces have-nots." I added the hyphen.

Why can you not explain yourself please? Also, you only repeated yourself when Umaro clearly wanted an explanation on the assertion you presented, stating, "freedom provides the most for the most, but it also produces the widest gap between those with the most and those with the least."

EXPLAIN! There has to be an equation there somewhere....

XTE said:

I have dealt with local charities that do as much, and they are genuine. I really enjoy shaking hands with the person running it. Not to know them, but to know that anyone can shake that hand.

Click to expand...

That has been my experience as well. Those that devote their time to run charities, usually a great personal expense to themselves, really exemplify the open heart of Jesus.

It is scary to think that Charities are graded on what percentage they dole out past expenses, but considering that those expenses could be anything. I prefer to know, rather than speculate, but many on this site prefer to speculate over knowing, so I expect they allow speculation on what these "expenses" might be. It makes me sick that another criteria on which these Charities are graded is in how little the CEO is paid. It's an epidemic, you start a charity, you put FREEDOM in the title, and every freedom loving buffoon(that thinks FREEDOM could actually be a stand alone argument) starts sending you money. These people do not even hide it! Here is Sean Hannity's promoted Freedom Alliance Charity, who supposedly pays out to wounded soldiers returning from current wars and funds the education of kids whose fathers died in those wars:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/freedomalliancetaxes2006.pdf

It raised well over 10,000,000 in 2006(that's 4 years ago) and only paid out in charity 397,900. Under 4%. Now, I know for a fact that a charity is legally obligated to spend at least 10%, so I'm at a loss to think how this "charity" still operates. I thinking though that the consultant work can be counted towards that small goal of 10%. If you look on the Form 990, you'll see that consultants were paid almost twice what actual victims of the war were. That would bring us over 10%. But there it is, it's actual 990! It shouldn't lie, and it is open information per non-profit status...

Click to expand...

Yes, Sean Hannity is completely rotten and I am not suprised he is part of a charity scam that involves the word freedom. Heck his two favorite words in the English language are 'America' and 'freedom' or better yet 'American freedom'. Sean Hannity is one of those elaborate caricatures of the right who merely rattles off whatever is popular in the conservatives circles at the time.

Some "charities" are set up to lobby on behalf of things. You can donate to Freedom Works(there is that word again) and it lobbies on behalf of "FREEDOM." It really lobbies on behalf of Corporations, but that word is worshiped by a certain percentage of the population and there is money to be made and influence to peddle in, and from that demo.

Click to expand...

Freedom Works is definitly not a charity at all. It is a conservative lobbying organization that currently aims to promote the Tea Party movement. To be fair there is both liberal and conservative lobbying organizations and most people on both sides of the political spectrum donate money to these groups to promote their political agenda.

It is now more just a legal way to funnel money. Your wage is considered an expense, so pull it up. I mean, can't these people see that almost anything with FREEDOM in the title is a crock anymore? There is not one term thrown about today that leaves me more skeptical than the term: FREEDOM. Such a cash cow, and used to enslave minds around a zero-sum argument. FREEDOM literally means nothing without a qualifier, but look at how many people ONLY SAY THE WORD and thinks it means something on it's own. It doesn't. What am I suppose to think about the intelligence that thinks it is OK to just yell this word on it's own?

I pity them to a point. Certainly they have the best of intentions, they just cannot see reason in the end. I do put a lot of that on a lack of born-in ability. I hate saying that, but such is the case. Not all of us can be Brain Surgeons, and it is a scaled argument, ergo: not all of us can figure out we are being scammed through use of the word FREEDOM. It is so incessant too...

Now, what does this say about Sean Hannity? I mean, that Form 990 was from 4 years ago! Is he going to pretend he doesn't know anything about it, even while he continues TO THIS DAY to position that "charity" in a good light? To promote it? YOU BETTER BELIEVE HE DOES! He gets paid to do it! It is in HIS interests to do so. It is not in ours...

Click to expand...

I typically stay away from any group that has the word freedom in its name. There is definitely a political connotation with the word freedom. I would imagine that most of these organizations that have the word freedom in their title are not really charities but rather political organizations.

Charities and political organizations have two totally different missions. A charity uses its money, resources, and volunteers towards serving the people of its defined mission. A political organization may do some charitable work but its primary purpose is to lobby the government to advance their political view.

I tend to not believe in giving money to political organizations because I think it is rather hopeless to assume that you can influence the government to act responsibly. Rather I believe that we should work outside of the political system to get things done for our community.

How much money do you think I could raise starting a charity named CHRISTIANS FOR FREEDOM? Be honest! You know I'd make a killing.

I looked it up and found this:

Christians For Freedom - Patriotic Resistance

It's not a charity, but someone sure jumped on the name. Read the comments and see profiteering off of it at work though. Also notice the amount of conspiracy garbage there too.

But, in my search, I found a similar name for a charity:

Christian Freedom International

This is a charity that bought pictures from a website that convince lurkers to think Christians are continually persecuted around the world and in need of Bibles. You can donate here:

Help « Christian Freedom International

Of course, let us inspect this page a little further.

You can donate money, that's a given, but it says you can donate your time too, as a volunteer, WHICH IS GREAT!

Until you read the box:

Volunteers are the backbone of our ministry. Please learn more about how you can serve the Persecuted Church through your sacrificial time. Currently though, CFI is not in need of any volunteers. You can still submit an applications for review and need at a later time.

Can you imagine how many "volunteers" that give up their time CONTINUOUSLY, to the point they do not even need them anymore?! Amazing! The PERSECUTED CHURCH seems to have an abundance of volunteers, to the point it can confidently state WE DO NOT NEED THEM AT THIS TIME. Unfortunately, the cached version only dates back to November 20th of this year, but it still reads the exact same message. I would be interested in seeing what it has to say 6 months from now. I am under heavy suspicion that this site is here only to generate funds. I cannot think of two terms that elicit trust(Christian) and fervor(Freedom) more than those two...

Click to expand...

Yeah I remember my grandmother went on a trip to China with some other elderly church ladies to smuggle bibles to some underground churches that had been in communication with the church she is a member of. Bibles are needed in many countries around the world but I do not know if I approve of smuggling in bibles. It is rather dangerous, and even though my grandmother did not get in trouble with the authorities in China I rather she had not gone on that mission to smuggle in bibles. I would agree that any organization that claims to be in the business of smuggling bibles which has no need of volunteers has to be a fraud. The hardest part of smuggling in bibles, is finding the volunteers necessary to complete the mission.

I found all of this while typing this response. It means you don't have to go far into researching it to find a lack of information given to the person wanting to donate, so they make an uninformed decision.

It's really upsetting. I think Government could do WAAAAY more with those funds(and they do not work at a profit) than just about any of these "charities." Somehow, Insurance runs at an average 17% overhead and profit take, and government run Medicare runs at 9% overhead, but these "charities" are hard pressed to do 50%. That 50% is CONSIDERED "GOOD" SOMEHOW!

Click to expand...

The organizations that you have describes thus far in your post may only qualify as a charity in the narrowest sense. Most seem to be political organizations that have no real aim to help the poor. I do agree that charities only serve as a real alternative to government aid if people make informed decisions. I would definitely would be better if people would stop funding political organizations and instead funded real charities.

I would not like to see government aid just cut all of a sudden to those dependant on such aid that would be disastrous. Instead I would like to see a transition in which government agencies do less and people start taking ownership of their community and are willing to volunteer both their time and money towards the mission of the betterment of their society.

This is already starting to happen in communities all over this country as governments whether federal, state, or local are low on funding and thus have had to cut funding. This has actually caused many communities to band together to aid in whatever ways possible serve the needs that are no longer served by their government.

Last year I lived in a community where education funding was severely cut. Our church decided to partner with the school district to serve many of the needs that could no longer be funded by tax dollars. This involved performing routine maintenance and even some larger carpentry work, general gardening and maintaining the schools grounds, and building and installing playground facilities.

The problem I see is that many are not fully invested in their community and are lacking compassion to the many needs that exist in society. That is why we should all volunteer to serve some need in our community. The reality of the fact is that everyone can end up impoverished through a series of unfortunate events and we would want someone there to help us and thus we have an obligation to serve.

bricklayer said:

Freedom does not produce the most have nots,
it produces the most have lesses.
Fairness produces have nots.

Click to expand...

Again, how do you figure? We currently have some of the lowest tax rates ever in this country, and 1 in 7 Americans are living in poverty. The wealth gap is greater now that it ever has been, and it's only getting worse. The freedom we've been given in the forms of lower taxes and less regulations on business is creating a two class population.

Umaro said:

Again, how do you figure? We currently have some of the lowest tax rates ever in this country, and 1 in 7 Americans are living in poverty. The wealth gap is greater now that it ever has been, and it's only getting worse. The freedom we've been given in the forms of lower taxes and less regulations on business is creating a two class population.

Click to expand...

Capitalism encourages the haves to exploit the have nots. The right continues to try and push this phony myth that if the rich are even richer, everyone benefits. Reality and the facts disagree. The rich are richer than ever, yet here we are with the middle class shrinking and the lower class growing.

Unfortunately many in this country have bought into the trickle down theory, even though its demonstrably false. The end result is you have people like bricklayer continue to try and propagate their points, without any evidence to back it up.

I guess they figure if they say it enough, people will start to listen.

blueapplepaste said:

I guess they figure if they say it enough, people will start to listen.

Click to expand...

Add a whole constellation of rightwing talk radio, think tanks (which from a conservative stance murder the left in terms of number) and the most popular cable news station (Foxy, but oh so unsexy), and you're capable of quite a bit of propaganda and perpetuation of bad political memes.

bricklayer said:

I speculate that if everyone had a wish, no one would get anything,
because we would all cancel out eachother's wishes.
That's exactly what's happening.

I'll give this word to the envious and covetous relativists out there;
we can out wait you, you're hurting yourselves more than you're hurting us.

Click to expand...

I think you must be the most envious person in the world because of the way you project that onto other people.

I don't envy other people their designer clothes, their McMansions or whatever fancy car is in style this year - it's just stuff. But I do want the homeless housed, the hungry fed, the naked clothed and the ignorant educated. I think taxes and redistribution is the most sure, practical way of accomplishing that - even if it costs me money beyond what I might want to give to charity every year and the all important good works brownie points towards heaven.

If I were to wish for a dwarf disease-free peachtree that every year bore one dozen big, juicy peaches in my garden - it's not that I would wish that I had the only one or that other people wouldn't have any. Whose wish would cancel that out?

All of the obstacles we face, as a nation, are obstacles we have conjured up against ourselves. We have become "Les Nesman tape on the floor silly".

Click to expand...

What obstacles do you mean? Illiteracy, unemployment, homelessness, hurricanes, Alzheimer's? I think we set goals rather than obstacles.

Points for Les Nessman reference.