73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[dogtowner]

No Rob, as I said, there are 5% that are unemployable. This means they do not, for whatever reason, function in the system of economics we have. I say economics, not form of government, a distinction most do no comprehend. A person can not be a capitalist, or even a socialist or communist, and still be an American, our forefathers made no distiction. In fact, I doubt Jefferson would have liked the form of economy we have now, especially since he had great disdain for Washington and Hamilton. You turn you nose up at those who think and act differently than you as if they have no worth. Now there are 9 to 19% unemployed and only 5% are so willingly. The wealth of a nation cannot be divided evenly, but every effort should be made to access happiness to every individual, a legacy some overlook. Add all the issues the 99%ers ask, and this is the commonality

Charity can accommodate that 5% as it always has (at least since they ceased being left to die ala survival of the fittest).

Jefferson WOULD be appalled that Hamilton's camp won the day with Lincoln. But you are mistaken to blame the economy as it was simply government intrusion into the economy that caused the problem.

I do not understand what legacy you reference regarding the "access" (or "assess" ?) of happiness.

 

[BigRob]

No Rob, as I said, there are 5% that are unemployable. This means they do not, for whatever reason, function in the system of economics we have. I say economics, not form of government, a distinction most do no comprehend. A person can not be a capitalist, or even a socialist or communist, and still be an American, our forefathers made no distiction. In fact, I doubt Jefferson would have liked the form of economy we have now, especially since he had great disdain for Washington and Hamilton. You turn you nose up at those who think and act differently than you as if they have no worth. Now there are 9 to 19% unemployed and only 5% are so willingly. The wealth of a nation cannot be divided evenly, but every effort should be made to access happiness to every individual, a legacy some overlook. Add all the issues the 99%ers ask, and this is the commonality

People can act differently than me all they want, just don't expect me to subsidize it.

People are free to pursue whatever happiness they desire, but you seem to imply that government needs to ensure they are able to do this. That is absurd.

And Jefferson can think whatever he wants, you seem to imply he was the only founder, or at the least all the founders lined up behind his viewpoints. This is simply false.

 

[clarkatticus]

People can act differently than me all they want, just don't expect me to subsidize it.

People are free to pursue whatever happiness they desire, but you seem to imply that government needs to ensure they are able to do this. That is absurd.

And Jefferson can think whatever he wants, you seem to imply he was the only founder, or at the least all the founders lined up behind his viewpoints. This is simply false.

I don't expect you to subsidize anyone you don't want to. I ask only that all citizens fulfill the social contract that is being American. I think the government is not responsible for individual happiness, but is responsible for providing access to the rights and addressing the issues the voters put them there for. I personally think Jefferson, a Tea Party favorite and quoted constantly in this forum, was over rated and did not have the strength of his own convictions.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't expect you to subsidize anyone you don't want to. I ask only that all citizens fulfill the social contract that is being American.

Where can I find a copy of this contract. BTW, I don't remember signing it. Did you sign it? I am sure that if I signed it I would have brought my lawyer and read the small print where it says my and my neighbors property can be taken away and given to someone else. Why do I think that this contract is an imaginary creation?

I think the government is not responsible for individual happiness,

Yep.

but is responsible for providing access to the rights and addressing the issues the voters put them there for.

I bet exactly how that is worded makes a big difference. lets talk about the exact wording of the relevant parts of the constitution.

There are indeed many who want many others to subsidize what should not be subsidized and they are asking in the name of access to rights, well actually they usually ask directly in the name of rights. clearly they do not understand what a right is.

 

[GenSeneca]

...every effort should be made to access happiness to every individual...

What does that mean?

I ask only that all citizens fulfill the social contract that is being American.

1. You're not asking. You're demaning that every citizen bend to the collective will under the threat of government force and a loss of liberty.

2. I second the good Dr's queries and observations about a "social contract", one that I've never seen and never signed. I certainly would never sign any "contract" that gives another individual, much less the more nebulous concepts of government and/or society, so much as partial ownership of MY life.

 

[Openmind]

What does that mean?


1. You're not asking. You're demaning that every citizen bend to the collective will under the threat of government force and a loss of liberty.

2. I second the good Dr's queries and observations about a "social contract", one that I've never seen and never signed. I certainly would never sign any "contract" that gives another individual, much less the more nebulous concepts of government and/or society, so much as partial ownership of MY life.

That may be because a "social contract" far preceed any "manly contract."

A social contract is what people who choose to live in a community "pay" in exchange for living in that community.

As Americans, because we are so "exceptional," we have decided long ago that letting a person die because he is not provided care, food, or support against ennemies is WRONG. AS "civilized" society (I'm not even getting into the "as Christians!") we KNOW we have a "social contract" that may or may not be supervised by a government or an institution, but is basically a condition of LIVING in that society, of receiving the advantages that come with living in that society.

In America (and in ALL developped countries) parts of that "social contract" are subsidized with a sort of "tithe," but we call it "taxes!"

Obviously, those who have nothing to provide in terms of monetary contribution (the poor, many of the disabled, the sick) may contribute in other ways. . .One may look at those people who devote themselves to "serving" others (i.e., teachers, social workers, nurses, even trash collectors and county dump attendants) are foregoing higher salaries to do those chores. . . whether it is because they cannot access to higher education or more lucrative career, or. . .(and believe it or not, it does happen) because their vocation IS to serve people as "contributing withing their means, to society.

Those who choose or "are born" into wealth, and reep huge income and even greater wealth from their choice (or their birth rights), should also contribute to society. . .within their means!

Obviously, this is an opinion statement . . . and I'm pretty sure many of you will laugh at it. That's okay, it is something I truly believe, and I do not mind being laughed at for following MY social conscience. . .and fulfilling MY social contract.

 

[Dr.Who]

That may be because a "social contract" far preceed any "manly contract."

Your assertion that it preceded the "manly contract" does not make it any more real. Until we can see it it is still imaginary. Most importantly it is not binding.

A social contract is what people who choose to live in a community "pay" in exchange for living in that community.

Actually people who live in our country, whether they choose to or not, live under our laws and the laws spell out the rules for everyone to read.

We have no need to invent a social contract since we have a real one written in English.

As Americans, because we are so "exceptional," we have decided long ago that letting a person die because he is not provided care, food, or support against ennemies is WRONG.

There are lots of things that are wrong that are not illegal or mandated by law. Letting people die because they lack is wrong. But where is the constitutional law that says one person will pay for the needs of another?

AS "civilized" society (I'm not even getting into the "as Christians!") we KNOW we have a "social contract" that may or may not be supervised by a government or an institution, but is basically a condition of LIVING in that society, of receiving the advantages that come with living in that society.

You seem to "know" it and so I expect you to live by it in your private dealings. We would all expect that you would give freely. (yet someone those most inclined to point to a social contract are also those least inclined to give freely). But what about the people who do not know it? Since you admit that the gov may not "supervise" that social contract then who is to make them abide by it? Clearly no one can force another person to abide by a social contract - participation must be voluntary. Of course people could give freely for reasons other than a social contract too.

In America (and in ALL developped countries) parts of that "social contract" are subsidized with a sort of "tithe," but we call it "taxes!"

Taxes are authorized in the laws not in imaginary contracts. I can point to the laws that authorize taxes I cannot point to an imaginary contract. (P.S. tithe means 10%)

Obviously, those who have nothing to provide in terms of monetary contribution (the poor, many of the disabled, the sick) may contribute in other ways. . .One may look at those people who devote themselves to "serving" others (i.e., teachers, social workers, nurses, even trash collectors and county dump attendants) are foregoing higher salaries to do those chores. . . whether it is because they cannot access to higher education or more lucrative career, or. . .(and believe it or not, it does happen) because their vocation IS to serve people as "contributing withing their means, to society.

It is true that everyone can be a giver in one way or another. I hope and encourage all here to be givers. What I would not do is force them to give. If they do not have money then at the very least they have time - we could force them to give lots of time in the service of others. But that would not be right to coerce people like that.

Those who choose or "are born" into wealth, and reep huge income and even greater wealth from their choice (or their birth rights), should also contribute to society. . .within their means!

I would encourage these people too to be generous givers. we could force them to give lots of money in the service of others. But that would not be right to coerce people like that.

Obviously, this is an opinion statement . . . and I'm pretty sure many of you will laugh at it. That's okay, it is something I truly believe, and I do not mind being laughed at for following MY social conscience. . .and fulfilling MY social contract.

If you are fulfilling your part that is great. You lead by example.

That still does not give anyone the right to force anyone else to give of their time or money in the service of others.

 

[clarkatticus]

What does that mean?


1. You're not asking. You're demaning that every citizen bend to the collective will under the threat of government force and a loss of liberty.

2. I second the good Dr's queries and observations about a "social contract", one that I've never seen and never signed. I certainly would never sign any "contract" that gives another individual, much less the more nebulous concepts of government and/or society, so much as partial ownership of MY life.

This is what we are doing now, and in all elections, deciding what the social contract is. There will never be a total concensus. Nobody tell you to use the bathroom to relieve yourself, but social norms (and sanitation) require that you do. If you say these issues were not part of the original social contract envisioned by our forefathers, I would agree. I would also agree it has been over 230 years so a few changes are gonna happen. You pretend to not see any wording in the Constitution or any other document to support these ideas, but the documents themselves are examples of a people doing this very thing. You can live in the past, or you can move foreward but I have to warn you, the phones sucked in the previous century.

 

[Openmind]

Your assertion that it preceded the "manly contract" does not make it any more real. Until we can see it it is still imaginary. Most importantly it is not binding.


Actually people who live in our country, whether they choose to or not, live under our laws and the laws spell out the rules for everyone to read.

We have no need to invent a social contract since we have a real one written in English.


There are lots of things that are wrong that are not illegal or mandated by law. Letting people die because they lack is wrong. But where is the constitutional law that says one person will pay for the needs of another?



You seem to "know" it and so I expect you to live by it in your private dealings. We would all expect that you would give freely. (yet someone those most inclined to point to a social contract are also those least inclined to give freely). But what about the people who do not know it? Since you admit that the gov may not "supervise" that social contract then who is to make them abide by it? Clearly no one can force another person to abide by a social contract - participation must be voluntary. Of course people could give freely for reasons other than a social contract too.



Taxes are authorized in the laws not in imaginary contracts. I can point to the laws that authorize taxes I cannot point to an imaginary contract. (P.S. tithe means 10%)


It is true that everyone can be a giver in one way or another. I hope and encourage all here to be givers. What I would not do is force them to give. If they do not have money then at the very least they have time - we could force them to give lots of time in the service of others. But that would not be right to coerce people like that.


I would encourage these people too to be generous givers. we could force them to give lots of money in the service of others. But that would not be right to coerce people like that.


If you are fulfilling your part that is great. You lead by example.

That still does not give anyone the right to force anyone else to give of their time or money in the service of others.

You know Dr., your frame of reference is so far from mine that we will never see eye to eye. For you, it seems that "individuality," and "the Constitution" are sovereign in all case.

For me, social conscience and the good of the community should be sovereign.
And, by the way, I bet you believe in the "God," but I would use the same argument you did and say that your belief in "a Christian God" "does not make it any more real. Until we can see it it is still imaginary. Most importantly it is not binding.

What I believe is that if a God exists, HE/She/It gave us the foundation of the "human social contract."

And, if one believes in God, I would think that HIS/HER/ITS law preceeds and over rides the laws of men, even the Constitution of America!

You have your opinions, I have mine, and none of what YOU state has anymore (or. . .to be fair I will say, anyless) value than mine.

I am reasonably impressed and respectful of your ability to articulate and your EFFORTS to be fair and to not insult, but I am NOT impressed by your dogmatic opinions and point of views. . .no more, I'm certain, that you are with mine.

There is a sort of "assumed superiority" in all your posts that is nothing more than arrogance.

I do not know you, but I have a mental picture of you: a late middle age man, well educated, maybe a Minister or a Deacon, maybe a professor who has grown to believe in his own words as "the only reasonable option."

A self-righteous person who divide the rest of the world in two main categories: those who think like him and thus are "worthy," and those who don't, thus need to be either "converted" or "destroyed."

I do not plan on being "converted" to what I see as a selfish, self-righteous, but hypocritical philosophy of "I deserve all I get, and those who have less deserve less!"

So. . .maybe we should just stop these silly conversations. I have no intention of "converting" anyone to anything. But I will continue to state what MY philosophy of the world (and God) is.

I would be grateful if you should just ignore it. . . .

 

[dogtowner]

You know Dr., your frame of reference is so far from mine that we will never see eye to eye. For you, it seems that "individuality," and "the Constitution" are sovereign in all case.

For me, social conscience and the good of the community should be sovereign.
And, by the way, I bet you believe in the "God," but I would use the same argument you did and say that your belief in "a Christian God" "does not make it any more real. Until we can see it it is still imaginary. Most importantly it is not binding.

What I believe is that if a God exists, HE/She/It gave us the foundation of the "human social contract."

And, if one believes in God, I would think that HIS/HER/ITS law preceeds and over rides the laws of men, even the Constitution of America!

You have your opinions, I have mine, and none of what YOU state has anymore (or. . .to be fair I will say, anyless) value than mine.

I am reasonably impressed and respectful of your ability to articulate and your EFFORTS to be fair and to not insult, but I am NOT impressed by your dogmatic opinions and point of views. . .no more, I'm certain, that you are with mine.

There is a sort of "assumed superiority" in all your posts that is nothing more than arrogance.

I do not know you, but I have a mental picture of you: a late middle age man, well educated, maybe a Minister or a Deacon, maybe a professor who has grown to believe in his own words as "the only reasonable option."

A self-righteous person who divide the rest of the world in two main categories: those who think like him and thus are "worthy," and those who don't, thus need to be either "converted" or "destroyed."

I do not plan on being "converted" to what I see as a selfish, self-righteous, but hypocritical philosophy of "I deserve all I get, and those who have less deserve less!"

So. . .maybe we should just stop these silly conversations. I have no intention of "converting" anyone to anything. But I will continue to state what MY philosophy of the world (and God) is.

I would be grateful if you should just ignore it. . . .

Boy !

The societal model you desire is like that of an islamic state. Our Constitution does not allow for what you want.

Does Mr Open know about all this fantasizing you do ?

If you are not interested in these silly conversations is there any real point in posting ?

 

[Dr.Who]

This is what we are doing now, and in all elections, deciding what the social contract is. There will never be a total concensus. Nobody tell you to use the bathroom to relieve yourself, but social norms (and sanitation) require that you do. If you say these issues were not part of the original social contract envisioned by our forefathers, I would agree. I would also agree it has been over 230 years so a few changes are gonna happen. You pretend to not see any wording in the Constitution or any other document to support these ideas, but the documents themselves are examples of a people doing this very thing. You can live in the past, or you can move foreward but I have to warn you, the phones sucked in the previous century.

Are you trying to say that we elect leaders who make laws and that those laws are the social contract?

That would be false for two reasons. 1. the laws are the laws and the social contract that you imagine are not the same thing. 2. the laws of this land are opposite of the social contract that you have been describing.

 

[GenSeneca]

This is what we are doing now, and in all elections, deciding what the social contract is.

In every election, the ruling class dictates which section(s) of the populace will be looted at the hands of government and which section(s) of the populace will be the beneficiary of that looting. Our Declaration states that governments are instituted among men to protect our rights yet people like you support the actions of the ruling class.. So long as you're not being looted.

There will never be a total concensus.

Then what is the rule? Might makes right seems to be your rule, whoever has the bigger gang gets to call the shots and anyone in the minority has to bend over and take it, at least until the size of their gang gets large enough to overthrow whatever gang is in power.

Nobody tell you to use the bathroom to relieve yourself, but social norms (and sanitation) require that you do.

I forget the exact quote, and where it comes from, but I think it sums up your ultimate "goal" for the federal government: Everything that isn't illegal is mandatory.

If you say these issues were not part of the original social contract envisioned by our forefathers, I would agree.

What social contract? The founders created our Constitution with the "vision" of restricting the power of the federal government. People like you have destroyed that vision and, in the process, have caused what our founders had hoped to prevent.

I would also agree it has been over 230 years so a few changes are gonna happen. You pretend to not see any wording in the Constitution or any other document to support these ideas, but the documents themselves are examples of a people doing this very thing.

That's why our founders designed a system to make amendments to the constitution... A system people like you ignore.

You can live in the past, or you can move foreward but I have to warn you, the phones sucked in the previous century.

Individual Rights and Personal Freedom never go out of style.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are you trying to say that we elect leaders who make laws and that those laws are the social contract?

That would be false for two reasons. 1. the laws are the laws and the social contract that you imagine are not the same thing. 2. the laws of this land are opposite of the social contract that you have been describing.

Perhaps we should ask what restrictions, if any, are contained in the social contract. For example, if society were to decide that the federal government should be allowed to commit genocide, would the victims of that genocide be duty bound, by the social contract, to report for liquidation?

 

[GenSeneca]

What relationship does the illusive 'social contract' have to the "Buffet Rule" anyway?

 

[Dr.Who]

You know Dr., your frame of reference is so far from mine that we will never see eye to eye. For you, it seems that "individuality," and "the Constitution" are sovereign in all case.

I can change my mind so it is theoretically possible that some day I would think like you. I would even expect that in some ways I would grow to think more like you all the time - I already have a concept of "the commons" that is new and helped my to better understand an article I read today about the commons.

Do you still think you will never see eye to eye with me in any way?

In terms of how this country should be run the constitution is the highest law of the land so I am right to see it as the highest law of the land.

Individuality is important but I do see other things that are more important at times. The const does dictate that at times the will of an individual be overridden in favor of the lal of the land - and it spells out when that happens.

For me, social conscience and the good of the community should be sovereign.

You are free to think that they SHOULD be, but that simply is not the way it IS. If you want what IS to become what you think should be then you need to make amendments to the constitution.

And, by the way, I bet you believe in the "God," but I would use the same argument you did and say that your belief in "a Christian God" "does not make it any more real. Until we can see it it is still imaginary. Most importantly it is not binding.

What I believe is that if a God exists, HE/She/It gave us the foundation of the "human social contract."

Not good to discuss that here but I would love to discuss that in a thread on the right part of this board. Start one and I will follow.

And, if one believes in God, I would think that HIS/HER/ITS law preceeds and over rides the laws of men, even the Constitution of America!

As soon as God tells us to abandon the const we should. Until then we need to follow it.

You have your opinions, I have mine, and none of what YOU state has anymore (or. . .to be fair I will say, anyless) value than mine.

I do not have more value than you because all of us are humans and have value. But right ideas do indeed have more value than wrong ideas and many of your ideas are so clearly wrong that they do indeed have no value.

I am reasonably impressed and respectful of your ability to articulate and your EFFORTS to be fair and to not insult, but I am NOT impressed by your dogmatic opinions and point of views. . .no more, I'm certain, that you are with mine.

You too try not to insult and I respect that.

There is a sort of "assumed superiority" in all your posts that is nothing more than arrogance.

Maybe you know you are wrong and that is why you feel that. looking up the definition of arrogant I see that it means a person feels they have more self-worth than another. Do no confuse confidence in ideas with high self worth. I value myself as highly as one who is loved by God should but not as one who thinks he is better for being right or wrong.

I do not know you, but I have a mental picture of you: a late middle age man, well educated, maybe a Minister or a Deacon, maybe a professor who has grown to believe in his own words as "the only reasonable option."

48, several degrees, not a professional clergy in any way, "retired" shrink, i do not have the only reasonable words - but I do take the time to fact check much of what I post before posting and I am confident that in many exchanges with you I am right more than you are. And that is NOT because I am so very right...

A self-righteous person who divide the rest of the world in two main categories: those who think like him and thus are "worthy," and those who don't, thus need to be either "converted" or "destroyed."

Right here on this forum there are huge mixtures of people and ideas, clearly not just two categories. All have value one way or another. I seek a dialectic not a conversion.

I do not plan on being "converted" to what I see as a selfish, self-righteous, but hypocritical philosophy of "I deserve all I get, and those who have less deserve less!"

That is a cardboard caricature of the principles of free markets. Since you have such a poor understanding of it it is no wonder that you dislike it.

So. . .maybe we should just stop these silly conversations. I have no intention of "converting" anyone to anything. But I will continue to state what MY philosophy of the world (and God) is.

Why DO you state your philosophy at all?

I would be grateful if you should just ignore it. . . .

I understand English is not your first language, not that there is anything wrong with that. I must not be wise enough to figure out what you are saying there. It seems like you are asking that I ignore your posts. If so I am sorry but this is a public forum and I have every intention of making a mention of everything you say that is wrong and applauding much of what you say that is right. If you will not learn then others who watch may.