HCR: who “allows” you life?
I was intrigued by this comment, made in response to a WSJ Karl Rove article on the Republican plans to undo Obamacare. The comment is an excellent example of a certain type of leftist thought [I have corrected some spelling errors]:
People who think their salary or profits belong to them, that government taxes THEIR money, doubtless agree with you.
But that money is NOT YOURS. It is ours, on loan to you for good behavior.
Innovation and hard work not only should be rewarded, they are rewarded. Which is a good thing.
Fellow members of the same society that allows you life, deserve life also. Such as access to medical care.
Who is this “ours” the commenter refers to in the second paragraph? And who is “you?” Are they not the same people, and if so, who are the lenders and who the lendees?
But it is actually the last paragraph that interests me most, the one that attempts to argue in favor of a right to medical care (although the commenter refers to it as “access,” that is not what he means).
In the first sentence of that paragraph, the writer turns the Founders’ words at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence on their head. For the commenter, the truths that the Founders thought so “self-evident” are not evident at all.
Here’s the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
So the right to life is a natural one that is provided by the Creator, not one “allowed” by a society of fellow humans. It seems that, just as the commenter believes money is on loan from that community, so is life itself.
Back in September, Obama addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and quoted those words from the Declaration, leaving out the word “Creator.” It got a lot of attention. Much of the focus was on whether his act was a slip of the tongue or a very deliberate omission, and what either might say about the depth of his religious beliefs and/or the fact that mention of the deity has become non-PC in liberal circles. Here’s the excerpt:
I doubt it was a slip, although it might have been. Obama ordinarily chooses his words very carefully, and this is such a famous passage from the Declaration that it would be odd indeed if he weren’t familiar with it. But whether or not a person is a believer, atheist, or agnostic, if that word is left out of the quotation we lose a great deal. Once the power to “allow” life is vested in society—an aggregate of mere people—the way is paved for further encroachments on liberty for the good of all.
But that money is NOT YOURS. It is ours, on loan to you for good behavior.
Kinda like oxygen, eh, comrade?
Seriously, where to begin on this one?
Who does “ours” refer to?
And who defines “good behavior?”
For some unfathomable reason, leftists invariably assume that they’ll be in charge forever. (I know they’d like to be, but reality must intrude at some point).
It apparently never occurs to them that the arbiter of “good behavior” might just be President Palin, and that they might someday rue concentrating so much power in the government.
It still baffles me that anyone can think like that. It certainly explains a lot, but it’s just so… alien.
I doubt it was a slip, although it might have been.
he did it more than once..
and remember the progressives hve their start in taking the position antithetical to god, which is why from moses harmons lucifer bringer of light (later the american eugencist) and those beliefs have moved forward in pedigree to what todays leaders like saul alinsky who ALSO gives a hat tip to lucifer.
there is a reason for all this…
and hegelian dialectics clues you in…
if judeo christian god is the thesis, then atheism, paganism, islam, etc… are antithesis. (you crack a diamond with a diamond not your head).
But whether or not a person is a believer, atheist, or agnostic, if that word is left out of the quotation we lose a great deal. Once the power to “allow” life is vested in society–an aggregate of mere people–the way is paved for further encroachments on liberty for the good of all.
actually its more complicated than that, since the athiests who dont realize that they are satanists (that is even with a tiny knowlege of theology, one should realize that a denial of god and his reality and all that is EXACTLY the tenet of lucifer. and non worship is antithetical to worship.
we think that one has to choose sides to be on a side, but in this game, you choose sides by not choosing a side. so an athiest thinks that they have lawyered the rules of god, and that by not worshipping they are not practicing a religion. but it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a believer!
so what is the meaning of the differences if we dont want to make a cartoon pastiche of it?
God is thesis, the others are antithesis
Freedom is from the thesis of god, so antithesis is what? removal of freedom and creation of slavery.
truth is the thesis, then lack of truth is the antithesis
marraige between man and woman is the thesis, then homosexual marraige is the antithesis.
if god and that thesis loves everyone whether useful or not, whole or not, and everyone is special. the antithesis is no one is special
if the creator endows you with certain rights, the antithesis is that man endows you with certain rights.
if capitalism is freedom in economic form, then antithesis is command economy.
if family is also god and all that, then the destructino of family is the goodness.
if women are the seat of fertility, then feminism being antithetical is the seat of eugenic abortion.
if men and women are made for each other by god, then what is the antithesis?
if god says collusion and scheming is evil, then they say its a goodness
at some point i wonder when people are going to get and understand things like PRAXIS again.
here is one to grab you.
we think metaphyusical is not real and so has no effect, they think its real and fight us on that level unopposed. (how bad can a little bit be?)
[hey, that lukaks name again… did anyone read yet?]
you can also read hanna arendt on it in her human condition…
Paulo Freire defines praxis in Pedagogy of the Oppressed as “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it.”
a true socialist hegelian would be happy with a protest sign that says “i protest your reaction to my sign no matter what it is”
if construction is to build upon and conserve
then destruction is to oppose every construction with destruction, thesis with antithesis.
In social work theory, praxis is the reflexive relationship between theories and action. It describes a cyclical process of social work interactions developing new theories and refining old ones, as well as theories directing the delivery of social work interactions. from wiki
dialoging to consensus would say disconnect, move through shock and freeze or make concrete on the new level.
so even marxisms hegelian is actually 180 degrees to hegel as marx points out!
up is down
down is up
war is peace
peace is war
health care removal is unconstitutional
health care absense is unconstitutional
to unravel society, you reverse the process
so if order brought you to the enlightenment and the loss of oppressive power by aristocratic agents above all others….
then disorder will do what?
🙂
“The Fountainhead”, I’m not an Objectivist by any means, but it was written there long before this bloodsucker was likely born.
So, if they proffer the “right to medical care” whether that right originates with a creator, with the constitution in some etheral dimension, then does not a right to life come from that same source?
Now let’s watch them gyrate to fit abortion, the right to terminate and ignore that “right of life,” into such a philosophy.
sorry,
should read “. . .the constitution OR in some etheral dimension.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw
less than 40 years later hitler would buy Xyclon B from Farben… (go check out the lineage of people connected there with whose in power now… scary)
and on green environmentalism… something that hitler also liked… shaw had this to say
“I, as a Socialist, have had to preach, as much as anyone, the enormous power of the environment. We can change it; we must change it; there is absolutely no other sense in life than the task of changing it. What is the use of writing plays, what is the use of writing anything, if there is not a will which finally moulds chaos itself into a race of gods.”
now look at the pictures of obama with the HALO implying that he is illuminated by a higher power and so we should be illuminated by him.
once again, like an endless record…
if you follow the pedigree
1.
an ancestral line; line of descent; lineage; ancestry.
2.
a genealogical table, chart, list, or record, esp. of a purebred animal.
3.
distinguished, excellent, or pure ancestry.
4.
derivation, origin, or history: the pedigree of a word.
you will understand how we have what we have and why it evolved the way it did under a selective evolutionary pressure.
the fact that obama shouted out to the progressives, calls himself a progressive, and hillary tried to drop the progressive lable so many times during the debates MIGHT have been a clue…
maybe they believe what the progressives believ, and to know that, you have to read them, as they will not tell the world that they are delivering unto them the antithesis of their beliefs and desires.
When you declare God dead, something has to fill the vacuum.
Sadly, that seems to be Big Government.
“”Innovation and hard work not only should be rewarded, they are rewarded. Which is a good thing.””
No they aren’t. Under such a crony system of “good behavior”, you end up with the electrical maintenance guy at unionized green job making ten times more than the average chap not on the good ole boys list.
“Fellow members of the same society that allows you life, deserve life also.”
Yeah. “Allows” really stood out to me, at least in part because the fruits of my labors not being mine is an old, old notion. Like yawn. But . . .
This society ^allows^ me life??? Now that’s something new. Holy guacamole! Another insight into a leftie mindset [using that word loosely], such as it is.
To Artfldgr:
I can find nothing in my 60+ years of life experiences or observations to lead me to believe in a deity as is put forth by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any other religion with which I am familiar. That doesn’t mean I’m an atheist or an agnostic. It means I don’t know by what means the universe as we know it came to be. Neither do I know how it came to be that there is life on our planet or perhaps many other planets scattered throughout the universe.
However, I do recognize that the core values of western civilization are found in the tenants of our Judeo-Christian traditions. The dignity of the individual is the basis of our (western) way of life. Present day ‘liberals’ do not believe in the dignity of the individual. They are collectivists and from that position they believe society has rights, not individuals.
It still baffles me that anyone can think like that. It certainly explains a lot, but it’s just so… alien.
It is a profoundly un-American sentiment, and hard to see how people evincing it, if they should choose to try to impose their views, can co-exist peacefully with Americans.
“Fellow members of the same society that allows you life…”
So if this person thinks that society *allows* one life, I think it’s safe to assume that he/she believes that society also can judge the value of one’s life, and choose to end it when it is deemed not/no longer a value to society.
This is creepy, but it certainly explains the abortion doctor that was recently arrested as well as the so-called “end of life planning” and other health care-related scenarios in which certain treatment options may be withheld if you are not worthy of the expense (e.g., newborn with defects, elderly, obese, smokers, etc.).
I don’t even know where to begin with the part about your earnings not being your own. Do this person believe there is just one pot of money to be distributed? That there is no wealth creation, no innovation?
To me, it’s very clear that the attitude of many members of Congress is that the very purpose of each American’s individual existence — the real reason each of us exists — is to provide them with money to spend.
When you eliminate the Creator, you are left with………..Big Brother.
George Orwell, calling George Orwell, one of Big Brother’s disciples has spoken.
A clear glimpse into the mind of a collectivist. It’s not at all hard to understand how this leads to gulags, gas chambers, and killing fields.
Get a bunch of people like that together, point out “enemies of the people” to them, and watch them go to work.
Get a bunch of people like that together, point out “enemies of the people” to them, and watch them go to work.
Especially with one catalyst: their collectivist utopia doesn’t work out so well. It can’t be their policies – never happen – it must be … enemies of the people sabotaging their wonderful policies. Yes, that’s it! So if they just …uh… “deal” with these counter-revolutionary criminals and other antisocial types, then heaven on earth will ensue. These clowns are holding back the forward march of humanity! Simple (dare I say, “social?”) justice, really, to “deal” with them. (And in the process to provide an excuse for the failure of their policies.)
You can see how the thought process runs. That’s how it ends. The quoted commenter shows how it begins.
This feller’s a good argument for mandating a rural upbringing for everyone. Only someone who’s been enclosed in concrete, smog, asphalt and welfare offices could think like that.
Interesting tune Mr. Vernecken plays on his fascist banjo.
Holy cats! If there are really folks who think like that I need to go out and buy a couple more boxes of buckshot shells and some hollow points for my revolvers.
Ah, yes. The Marxist dialectic: “Thesis, Antithesis, Prosthesis.” Pretty well sums up the process as well as the result.
The “allow to live” comment reminded me of a fellow member of a discussion board for new moms. She was an uber liberal from Canada. Someone mentioned Wal-Mart and she said that she disagrees with Wal-Mart’s right to exist. I thought then that it was the most arrogant statement I’ve ever heard, to think that an entity had no right to exist because she didn’t like them. This is exponentially worse – that they pick and choose which human beings have the right to exist.
What these people are asking for and what they have a right to: poverty.
The comment presupposes many things – such as an adequate supply of people to provide health care.
There is no thought – or recognizable thought, it seems – in the comment to account for how to ensure the aforementioned supply of doctors, nurses, and the like.
In other words, “fellow members of society” will need to coerce, or otherwise compel through force “medical care” if those now or in the future who do supply care choose to do otherwise.
As always, these kind of statements reveal clearly, and unequivocally, the totalitarian, and ultimately murderous intent of the writer.
There can be no other interpretation.
Unless one considers the creation of medical care by nomination – which will be a vastly different and wholly inferior (immeasurably so) system than anything we have now.
Just sayin’
The weird thing about it that enemies of freedom, whose agenda is nothing else than organized aggression, always feel and assert that THEY are the victims of aggression from everybody who reject their schemes. And in some sense, they are right: competition is always an act of aggression toward systems that can survive only by coercion. By this non-violent “aggression” all progress of civilization is done.
At least the original commenter wasn’t trying to hide behind weasel words. Unfortunately for him, he’s wrong. Society doesn’t “allow” me to live; I have a right to exist, independent of any society. So do you. Money I earn through my own labor is not “loaned” to me; it is mine. Yours is yours as well. I will pay the taxes I legally owe, but I am under no obligation to pay one cent more. Nor are you. And as long as I do not infringe upon anyone else’s rights, no socialist tool like the commenter has any say in how I live my life. Nor I in his. So he can just FOAD, and I won’t interfere.
“I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.”
It’s not quite as blatant as the commenter’s remark — but underneath, it’s the very same message: money — and even the capacity to make money — does not belong to the individual who earned it, but to society, and society, not the individual, determines what is “enough” money. (No wait, I’ve got that wrong. It IS an individual who decides: the President.) However, society reluctantly allows people to continue to make money “if” they are providing something good. This is not because it’s their money or because it’s up to them to earn it and they found a way to do so. It’s because they are fulfilling a duty — a “core” duty, no less — not to themselves or even their families, but to everybody else.
This sort of statement is something that me and a friend have been working assiduously to detect as “authoritarian” in a long-term project we’re planning to complete.
I’ve posted on this before – as has neo – so just to recap: there’s a cottage industry in political science for so-called “authoritarian” studies, and they are taken with the utmost seriousness. All of the madness that we heard during the Loughner disaster is, in many ways, the trickled-down version of what the political scientists who study “RWA” (Right-Wing Authoritarianism) have been saying for decades – at least since Adorno et al.’s “Authoritarian Personality” and most of the work of Richard Hofstadter.
They’ve since moved on from the now unfashionable Freudianism of the earlier literature, and into genetics and evolutionary psychology – it seems that every week there’s a new study “proving” that the “authoritarian personality” is encoded, to a large extent, in one’s genes, and that that personality is by definition “right wing” or “conservative.”
Not the least of the problems with this ridiculous hypothesis is precisely that it fails to account for statements like the one neo quoted in her post. I have a friend who is left wing and works in the “authoritarian personality” field, taking its results as Holy Writ. Whenever he sends me a new “proof” that I’m a barbarian, I always write back one sentence:
“Once again, I will never take any study of authoritarianism seriously that cannot admit the possibility of, or account for, someone like Barack Obama being an authoritarian.”
He has never been able to give even a remotely adequate defense of the literature against that utterly fundamental objection. The answer is simply: “What are you an idiot? Of COURSE Obama is not an authoritarian! Or COURSE left-wingers cannot be authoritarian!”
Jacobins? “Conservatives.” Bolsheviks? “Conservatives.” Or rather, they are defined as “authoritarians,” and since “authoritarians” can ONLY be right wing, we are forced to conclude that the most left wing people in the world are really in the tradition of Aquinas, Burke, Hayek, and Buckley.
Anyway, the obvious thing to do, for a subversive political scientist such as myself, is to design surveys that tease out the authoritarianism in statements like the commenter’s. We’ve got some traction, but professors are not very enthused about it and so not very helpful.
In any event, it’s frightening that a foundation of our educational system is now the manichaean assumption that liberals are Good and conservatives are Bad. But that’s undoubtedly where we are. Hence why the commenter felt free to post such an astonishingly totalitarian opinion, without any awareness or even openness to the possibility of it being so.
The utopian mind at work.
Kolnai: Here’s an interesting parlor game you can play with your liberal friend. List all the major dictators of the 20th century starting with Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. What do they all have in common? They’re all socialists. Of course he won’t consider them “authoritarian.”
All authoritarians and dictators claim they arrived at their place out of neccessity. Free people of varying talents and living spontaneous lives is oppressive and authoritarian to those trained to view equality of life, not overall quality of life, as the benchmark of a successful society.
Strictly a problem of the liberal inverting what authoritarian even means. An inversion so bizzare that the slave/master dynamic can then be totally acceptable as it’s really about protecting the slave.
That’s a wonderful observation. The natural cycles of life and death are endemic to rural life and played out just about every day. So is a good work ethic important in rural life (or one starves). Then there’s the added bonus that people in a rural environment would come to see the utility of firearms as necessary tools not to be grabbed up by the gub’mint. Win-win-win.
In my next life I will be a noble fellow – I will provide care for free. After I put 12 years of debt on my family with the education costs….
Or I’ll be a cricket. And jump onto a liberal’s shoulder and steer him/her to understand that free markets and freedom is the way to prosperity.
When “Creator” goes out of the picture, He is replaced by “Community Organizer”. Silly me, I was accustomed to think that Creator is the ultimate community organizer.
He may be a loon, but he’s only stating explicitly what collectivists are saying implicitly, dressed up with goody-goody, kumbaya rhetoric.
> Artfldgr
Not to suggest I disagree with your thesis, here, but it does have one clear flaw in it —
To wit:
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
If you answer “Yes” to the above, then (hopefully) that’s the wrong answer, because it means you HAVE beaten your wife.
If you answer “No” to the above, then (hopefully) that’s the wrong answer, because it means you STILL are beating your wife.
The TRUE/CORRECT/RIGHT answer to the above, one hopes, is “nil’ or “N/A” — that is, “The statement/question has no meaning“.
If, as we hope, you do not and never have beaten your wife (ditto with another alternative, “I don’t have a wife”), then the statement/question has no meaning as phrased, since it has presumed inherently into it a faulty premise, to wit, that “you do or have beaten your wife” at some point.
This highlights the flaw in your overall argument, which is that it is based in dualism and dualist reasoning.
All too often, real world problems are trinary in nature — they respond properly to the “True/False/Nil” answer, not the “True/False” answer.
This is the nature of the problem behind Pascal’s Wager, for example. The dualist nature of Pascal’s argument requires the tacit acceptance of suppositions which may well be false.
Your analysis is, as well, inherently dualistic in nature, and thus almost certainly, since it’s dealing with the Real World, has a number of doubtful assertions or presumptions in it.
That doesn’t mean it can’t be rescued — but, if I were to take the opposing position, that’s the attack I would use, and, I believe you should re-analyze it from that viewpoint to arm yourself against those offensives, as, if you’re not prepared for them, you’ll get blown out of the water by a talented skeptic.
😉