DISQUS

Hmm this seems to be a function of .txt files as opposed to notepad. I use EditPad Pro, and it does the same thing. Interesting feature though!

Hmm this seems to be a function of .txt files as opposed to notepad. I use EditPad Pro, and it does the same thing. Interesting feature though!

Daniel, while I appreciate your sincerity and desire to help, I strongly disagree with you. First, I have done charitable work in an attempt to help underprivileged people. I live in Saint Louis, MO, where there are plenty of opportunities to help people in poverty. I've spent holidays working at downtown shelter for homeless women. I've worked on Habitat for Humanity projects in the city. When I went to church, our youth group did several charity projects to help as well. And do you know what I saw when I did these things? I saw capable people who had the ability to make something of themselves. In some cases, they were doing exactly that, hard as it was. It other cases, they were more content to live the status quo. I don't think these choices have anything to do with economic status, per se, they are simply choices that everybody faces to one degree or another. My rants aren't uninformed; on the contrary, it is precisely because I have seen these things first-hand that I have come to these conclusions.

And please don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating that we should ignore people who have needs or who have harder lives than we do. I will never support a system that tries to use coercive force to change that, however.

I highly recommend that you read Booker T. Washington's book "Up from Slavery" (if you haven't read it already). He was a mixed-race child of a slave woman who grew up in the south after slavery was abolished. If anyone was truly a victim of environment, circumstances, etc. it was him, but he didn't let any of that stop him from becoming one of the most influential black leaders of his time. He literally built the Tuskegee Institute with his own hands, and made his life-mission the education and progression of his people. His life was incredible, and he is one of my heroes.

Daniel, while I appreciate your sincerity and desire to help, I strongly disagree with you. First, I have done charitable work in an attempt to help underprivileged people. I live in Saint Louis, MO, where there are plenty of opportunities to help people in poverty. I've spent holidays working at downtown shelter for homeless women. I've worked on Habitat for Humanity projects in the city. When I went to church, our youth group did several charity projects to help as well. And do you know what I saw when I did these things? I saw capable people who had the ability to make something of themselves. In some cases, they were doing exactly that, hard as it was. It other cases, they were more content to live the status quo. I don't think these choices have anything to do with economic status, per se, they are simply choices that everybody faces to one degree or another. My rants aren't uninformed; on the contrary, it is precisely because I have seen these things first-hand that I have come to these conclusions.

And please don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating that we should ignore people who have needs or who have harder lives than we do. I will never support a system that tries to use coercive force to change that, however.

I highly recommend that you read Booker T. Washington's book "Up from Slavery" (if you haven't read it already). He was a mixed-race child of a slave woman who grew up in the south after slavery was abolished. If anyone was truly a victim of environment, circumstances, etc. it was him, but he didn't let any of that stop him from becoming one of the most influential black leaders of his time. He literally built the Tuskegee Institute with his own hands, and made his life-mission the education and progression of his people. His life was incredible, and he is one of my heroes.

I seriously can't believe how elitist this is. You divide the world into the "us and them" dichotomy -- the "us" who are educated, self-motivated, self-sufficient, smart, etc., and "them" who are ignorant, impoverished, unable, uneducated and under advantaged -- and then have the audacity to suggest that the former group has the moral authority to rule the lives of the later group by dictating the terms under which they will be allowed to live and function. The last time I checked, that was called slavery. And justifying slavery to save the abstraction of "society" throws us back to the middle ages or worse.

I seriously can't believe how elitist this is. You divide the world into the "us and them" dichotomy -- the "us" who are educated, self-motivated, self-sufficient, smart, etc., and "them" who are ignorant, impoverished, unable, uneducated and under advantaged -- and then have the audacity to suggest that the former group has the moral authority to rule the lives of the later group by dictating the terms under which they will be allowed to live and function. The last time I checked, that was called slavery. And justifying slavery to save the abstraction of "society" throws us back to the middle ages or worse.

Actually, either way the girl chooses, she's acting like a Libertarian, and here's why: no authority is compelling her to work and give her money away. If she scoops the poop and gives it to the homeless guy, she's making a non-coerced decision to do so. If she doesn't scoop the poop and believes the homeless guy should do it, she's also making a non-coerced decision.

If we really wanted to represent Democrats and Republicans, the little girl's mother would say, "Aw, look at all the homeless people. Betty, unless you go scoop poop and give your money away to the poor people, I will ground you in your room for the rest of your life. You want to be a compassionate little girl, don't you? Now you just run along and scoop that poop. What's that Betty? Why don't I give some of my money to the homeless people? Well Betty, I need all my money in order to be able to tell you and your brothers and sisters what to do. If I weren't here to direct you, we would have goddamn Lord of the Flies on our hands, now wouldn't we? If you weren't forced to go scoop that poop, you would be hard-hearted little monster that wouldn't be compassionate towards anybody, so I'm here to make sure that doesn't happen. For the good of society of course."

No one talks about the fact that if you choose not to pay taxes for charity programs that you think are a waste, you WILL spend a lot of time in jail. Both Republicans and Democrats subscribe to charity by coercion, which is despicable thievery.

Actually, either way the girl chooses, she's acting like a Libertarian, and here's why: no authority is compelling her to work and give her money away. If she scoops the poop and gives it to the homeless guy, she's making a non-coerced decision to do so. If she doesn't scoop the poop and believes the homeless guy should do it, she's also making a non-coerced decision.

If we really wanted to represent Democrats and Republicans, the little girl's mother would say, "Aw, look at all the homeless people. Betty, unless you go scoop poop and give your money away to the poor people, I will ground you in your room for the rest of your life. You want to be a compassionate little girl, don't you? Now you just run along and scoop that poop. What's that Betty? Why don't I give some of my money to the homeless people? Well Betty, I need all my money in order to be able to tell you and your brothers and sisters what to do. If I weren't here to direct you, we would have goddamn Lord of the Flies on our hands, now wouldn't we? If you weren't forced to go scoop that poop, you would be hard-hearted little monster that wouldn't be compassionate towards anybody, so I'm here to make sure that doesn't happen. For the good of society of course."

No one talks about the fact that if you choose not to pay taxes for charity programs that you think are a waste, you WILL spend a lot of time in jail. Both Republicans and Democrats subscribe to charity by coercion, which is despicable thievery.

Great post, thank you.

Great post, thank you.

If you want to know how silly gun laws are, consider this:

Let's just make a law that says criminals are not allowed to carry or own guns. That should solve all our problems, since criminals are the ones using guns to commit crimes.

:-)

Oh, wait...

Great post Daniel, I agree with Jon: you and your friend rock!

If you want to know how silly gun laws are, consider this:

Let's just make a law that says criminals are not allowed to carry or own guns. That should solve all our problems, since criminals are the ones using guns to commit crimes.

:-)

Oh, wait...

Great post Daniel, I agree with Jon: you and your friend rock!

Well duh, if you were still using Windows 95 and suddenly came across a Mac, you'd probably switch too ;-)

Well duh, if you were still using Windows 95 and suddenly came across a Mac, you'd probably switch too ;-)

Yes, we must do everything in our power to stop that evil, materialist, Imperialist state, America.

Oh wait, did you say China?

Nevermind then.

</sarcasm>

Yes, we must do everything in our power to stop that evil, materialist, Imperialist state, America.

Oh wait, did you say China?

Nevermind then.

</sarcasm>

I like the acronym, I think it's very appropriate. My wife and I love to read and have amassed a large collection of books -- although I must confess, most of my reading tends to be technical in nature.

I like the acronym, I think it's very appropriate. My wife and I love to read and have amassed a large collection of books -- although I must confess, most of my reading tends to be technical in nature.

Daniel, my point is that you're framing the debate incorrectly. You're assuming a political definition of "equality" and then casting disparate political thinkers against your definition.

The two philosophies that you've contrasted -- Socialism, and Ron Paul's views -- do not share a common definition for equality. That is why conservatives of Paul's ilk don't just "come out and state as much", because there's nothing to state. It's not a "sly acknowledgment that we are not all equal" because it never assumes the socialist utopian definition of equality.

It is the liberals (and a good deal of conservatives now) that pretend that circumstance, environment, ability, etc. can be equalized by some grand government scheme, but this is not the kind of equality that America was designed to promote and protect, and to pretend otherwise is to mislead people. It is the statist politicians who need to fess up and be honest, and quit pretending to hold onto the original political philosophy of this country.

Daniel, my point is that you're framing the debate incorrectly. You're assuming a political definition of "equality" and then casting disparate political thinkers against your definition.

The two philosophies that you've contrasted -- Socialism, and Ron Paul's views -- do not share a common definition for equality. That is why conservatives of Paul's ilk don't just "come out and state as much", because there's nothing to state. It's not a "sly acknowledgment that we are not all equal" because it never assumes the socialist utopian definition of equality.

It is the liberals (and a good deal of conservatives now) that pretend that circumstance, environment, ability, etc. can be equalized by some grand government scheme, but this is not the kind of equality that America was designed to promote and protect, and to pretend otherwise is to mislead people. It is the statist politicians who need to fess up and be honest, and quit pretending to hold onto the original political philosophy of this country.

Dude, you've missed the point. The Constitution is concerned with one thing: equality before the law. The historical context of American government is very, very specific. Our Founding Fathers were primarily concerned with creating a system that would protect the rights of life, liberty and property of all men, and not just a select few ruling elite. That, and that alone, should be the sole purpose of government. When the Founders wrote that all people are equal, this is the context in which they were speaking.

If you are really concerned about the poor, disadvantaged, disabled, or unfortunate, then get your friends together and do something about it. This is America, you are free to use your own money and time and resources to make that difference. But don't force your neighbors to do it at the barrel of a gun because it gives you the warm fuzzies.

That is all.

Dude, you've missed the point. The Constitution is concerned with one thing: equality before the law. The historical context of American government is very, very specific. Our Founding Fathers were primarily concerned with creating a system that would protect the rights of life, liberty and property of all men, and not just a select few ruling elite. That, and that alone, should be the sole purpose of government. When the Founders wrote that all people are equal, this is the context in which they were speaking.

If you are really concerned about the poor, disadvantaged, disabled, or unfortunate, then get your friends together and do something about it. This is America, you are free to use your own money and time and resources to make that difference. But don't force your neighbors to do it at the barrel of a gun because it gives you the warm fuzzies.

That is all.

He wants to clog up the Intertubes. What a douche.

He wants to clog up the Intertubes. What a douche.

Daniel that's an awesome endeavor! I would recommend "The Making of America" by W. Cleon Skousen -- it's a clause-by-clause exposition of the Constitution with in-depth quotes from the founding fathers. I would also recommend "The Founders' Constitution", a 6-volume set you can get on Amazon (for pretty cheap actually) that contains a ton of good source material.