Before I start I am going to use the term “the Left” rather than liberal, progressive or Democrat. The Left is anti-capitalist and frankly anti-American values. But unfortunately they are swallowing up the Democratic party and liberals and now push the economic and social agenda in this country. You will have to tell me where you differ from the Left’s philosophies as there many Americans that have been taught to hate conservatives but have no idea how damaging support of the modern Democratic party is.
Originally Posted by INDY500
You hate my signature? Odd coming from someone named PhilsFan whose team has in its own logo the, wait for it... Liberty Bell (note the name).
In fact, how many buildings in Philadelphia have the name Liberty in them compared to Equality? You get the point. Now I'm more than happy to respond because your "hate" arises, I think, because we understand and strive for a different definition of equality.
Philly:
My Lord, this is silly.
Actually it’s not silly. The point is there is a reason that in America we treasure liberty, through our words and monuments, more than any other virtue; including equality.
Originally Posted by INDY500
Equality--as understood when the Liberty bell was still being rung--was that of a natural (or God given) right to live freely under self-government, to acquire and keep property (including wages) gained through one's own labor and enterprise and to be treated without prejudice before the law.
Philly:
By "to acquire and keep property (including wages)," are you trying to imply that taxes should not exist at all? Because other than that, I can't possibly see where you are not seeing eye-to-eye with the left so far. These are, to me, universally agreed upon thoughts, albeit with a few (or a vast minority ) exceptions.
Conservatives have little problem paying taxes for the constitutionally prescribed duties of the federal government. Where in the Constitution is the government given the power to tax from one party to give to another party merely for the purpose of “fairness” however? Is the purpose of a tax code to raise revenue for the function of government in the most efficient manner or for equality? Well, I would argue that the Left favors fairness over efficiency and here is but one example from the 2008 Presidential debates:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie,
what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Originally Posted by INDY500
These are high ideals but we are mere men so grave injustices and base prejudices have, are and will always exist. The promise of the Constitution, the blindfolded Lady Justice and of natural law demands redress in these cases but when taken too far you have the equality of the Left.
The equality of the Left is not that of equality of opportunity but of equality of economic and social outcomes. The Left envisions an egalitarian society with an ever growing government leveling the playing field through "social justice" and redistribution schemes, i.e., authoritarian collectivism. This form of equality, over time, creates a culture of uniformity and dependence and crushes individual initiative, self-reliance, risk-taking and independence that can only thrive when men live free.
Philly
No, it's simply not. The idea that we on the left are putting forth is much closer to moderation than you want to paint it: it's the idea that life is unequal, and that we should govern with at least an understanding of that in mind. If we govern with the idea that if you pull yourself up by your bootstraps you're going to succeed and that if you're poor you didn't, we're going to ignore plenty of major problems in this country.
I don't want rich people to be taxed so heavily that we're all in essentially the same income bracket. No one on the left is suggesting such an idea. So, again, what the hell are you talking about?
They do suggest just that but unfortunately there aren’t enough rich people to tax to shrink the income gap without, as Margaret Thatcher noted, prosperity being lowered for everyone. But when your goal is equality not prosperity that makes little difference.
But here is Al Sharpton who ran for president as a Democrat and has his own show on MSNBC.
.
Video: Al Sharpton: We Won’t Have True Social Justice Until Everything Is ‘Equal In Everybody’s House’ | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
Al Sharpton: We Won’t Have True Social Justice Until Everything Is ‘Equal In Everybody’s House’
The Left has taken the “equality of opportunity” and turned it into the “rights” of entitlement and unearned security. The right to a living wage, the right to healthcare, etc.
Here is another very recent example from a college student in a question asked of Rand Paul.
Howard Student To Rand Paul: "I Want A Government That Is Going To Help Me" | RealClearPolitics
"Good afternoon, Senator. My name is Keenan Glover, I’m an administration of justice major from Rochester, New York. A freshman, as well. You say you want to provide a government that leaves us alone. Quite frankly, I don’t want that. I want a government that is going to help me. I want a government that is going to help me fund my college education.
By the government he means other taxpayers so let’s be clear about that first. Now Philly, what is the great American Experiment? What is the promise of America? That our government would provide equal and maximum opportunity for me to prosper and, through my labor and talents, take care of myself, my family and my community or that government would provide a certain level of security and freedom from want by taking the wages of others?
Actually let’s let the student answer that.
Do you, Senator Rand Paul, have a solution to come up with new American values so that the citizens of this nation have a worth of more than dead presidents and Ben Franklin?”
New American values. Just know that when you support the Left you support “new American values.”
Originally Posted by INDY500
Extreme example, North Korea. Now that's a country where equality reigns.
Philly:
This is fucking stupid.
Stupid? Remember, this whole debate is on liberty vs. equality. This is a perfect example that...
equality without liberty is tyranny.
Slaves in America had neither liberty or equality but what had to be secured first for the other to occur?
That is why we have a Liberty Bell and a Statue of Liberty. Equality is a natural right and a promise of our country but it cannot be our animating principle. Equality is the animating principle to the Left however. Socialism, Marxism, Communism; all promise equality while the modern Left in America pushes social justice and fairness. You don’t hear Barack Obama talk about prosperity or individual liberty or responsibility your hear him talk about "fairness," "collective redemption" and “shared prosperity.”
Originally Posted by INDY500
I should also note one way in which liberty or freedom is defined differently. The freedom of the founders was the "freedom from harassment." This is enumerated in the negative rights of the first ten amendments. The Left from FDR to present pushes "freedom from want" through the Welfare State. This was first enumerated in FDR's Second Bill of Rights if you doubt me.
Philly:
Doesn't the fact that I have never even heard of FDR's Second Bill of Rights tell you that maybe, just maybe, that's not the current policy on the left in this day and age?
Does Barack Obama count?
Obama, FDR and the Second Bill of Rights - Bloomberg
As the actions of his first term made clear, and as his second inaugural address declared, President Barack Obama is committed to a distinctive vision of American government. It emphasizes the importance of free enterprise, and firmly rejects “equality of result,” but it is simultaneously committed to ensuring both fair opportunity and decent security for all.
In these respects, Obama is updating Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights. To be sure, his second term has barely started, and his precise place in history remains to be established. Yet we can’t appreciate the arc of American politics, or the nation’s current situation and prospects, without understanding the Second Bill.
-Cass R. Sunstein, the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Well, to begin with Cass is not being truthful in the opening. The president hardly “emphasizes the importance of free enterprise.” He emphasizes “you didn’t build that”and ”spread the wealth around,” Nor does he “reject equality of result” because all he talks about is “pay their fair share” and “shared prosperity.”
This is FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights by the way (with a partial list of modern government programs and bureaucracies that support them). All of these the Left seeks to expand regardless of cost, effectiveness or that they are bankrupting the country.
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
(Labor Dept)
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
(minimum wage laws, living wage argument, food stamps)
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
(farm subsidies, Ag Dept)
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
The right of every family to a decent home.
(Sec 8, Community reinvestment Act, Sub-prime loans, Fanny and Freddie mortgage securities)
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
(Medicaid, Obamacare, HHS)
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
(Social security, Medicare, unemployment compensation)
The right to a good education.
(student loan guaranties, Dept of Education, and $$$$$)
Originally Posted by INDY500
In short, you can't be for; big government, a progressive tax-code, affirmative action, minimum and equal wage laws, quotas, positive rights, etc without realizing they come at a cost... that of liberty.
Philly:
And are you really arguing against minimum wage
http://www.u2interference.com/forum...-now-senate-house-must-compromise-172423.html
One several nice discussions we had on the topic.
There isn’t one economic argument for the minimum wage. How is whacking off the lower rungs of the economic ladder or making labor more expensive economically prudent?
Milton Friedman in under a minutes explains:
Milton Friedman on why the minimum wage kills jobs! - YouTube
Philly, please remember that I am talking about Leftism, If something I said doesn't apply to your views I'd love to hear that. But by the same standard, please don't throw things back at me that I didn't say. I didn't say there is no role for a government safety net. No need to pay taxes. I didn't say that government intervention is never needed to end systemic inequality. I didn't say that inequality doesn't exist.
) exceptions.
