FDR's four freedoms...

kudos for WM for challenging the commonly accepted meanings behind words....

LMAO. Yes, Waterhead is being an enlightened pinhead to challenge commonly accepted meanings behind words.

I agree with the first two "freedoms" and disagree with the second two. The structure of "from" in the prose, doesn't matter. When you are free from something, it is still freedom. Freedom from fear, is the freedom to be fearless. Freedom from want, is socialist utopia. Want and fear are great motivators in a capitalist society, and to free ourselves from them, would be a detriment to those principles.
 
I don't have a problem with the from, it is what he wants you to be free from that's the problem. Freedom from the initiation of force is a good thing. But FDR's "freedom froms" require positive rights and an obligation on someone else to provide. Freedom from or freedom of/to does not matter but freedom should not equal obligation. That's the newspeak part of it.
 
Dixie said:
kudos for WM for challenging the commonly accepted meanings behind words....

LMAO. Yes, Waterhead is being an enlightened pinhead to challenge commonly accepted meanings behind words.

I agree with the first two "freedoms" and disagree with the second two. The structure of "from" in the prose, doesn't matter. When you are free from something, it is still freedom. Freedom from fear, is the freedom to be fearless. Freedom from want, is socialist utopia. Want and fear are great motivators in a capitalist society, and to free ourselves from them, would be a detriment to those principles.
Click to expand...


You almost said something smart there until you totally fd it up with the last sentence.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Who is this "you" you're speaking of, that can save [your]self from some hypothetical something? If the govenrment steps in to save other people from something that I might save myself from, that is not necessarily overstepping anything. The government might be curtailing my freedom, yet increasing the freedom of most people. I accept this as a reasonable principle. In fact, I accept the principle as axiomatic.

Being a member of the "elite" is not a sin, so long as one doesn't demand that everyone else be held to the same standard. I am not, after all, a common man. The reasons why and particulars wherefor are immaterial at this juncture.

It is less burdensome on me to sacrifice some small portions of my liberty for the greater good than it would be for the proverbial least common denominator of citizens to live up to what i am capable of. Or you, Damocles. Or Prakosh -- who I know undestands this principle, probably better than I. Or most anyone else among the regulars here, almost all of whom are college educated and privileged.

Just as the Flat Tax is inherently regressive, a flat standard of competence and "self-reliance" (sic) is inherently elitist and unfair. People differ from one another in their abilities, preferences and weaknesses. This simple fact is the single most fundamental observation one can make about human society and political necessity.

Sociey should burden the exceptional more than it does the ordinary. The exceptional can afford it, to put it in market terms, and they -- we, quite honestly -- are likely to achieve despite the added impediment. The inverse does not hold. QED.
Click to expand...
It is everybody. Much like a royal "We".

"you" in that instance involves any person reading the post.
 
Running a society based on the lowest common denominator fundamentally takes freedoms from the larger portion of society. I do not believe that it should be the government's portion to fix every society problem, and in fact I believe that more often than not you give away fundamental freedoms for very little benefit. Cost benefit analysis is important even in such circumstances. Much as the "if it only can save one life" stricture is simply abomniable, it too can sound reasonable but wind up abominable when working through government to "save" another.
 
Freedom from want, is socialist utopia. Want and fear are great motivators in a capitalist society, and to free ourselves from them, would be a detriment to those principles.

Fear and Want are the prime motivations in your ideology?

How depressing....
 
Don't forget greed, that is a prime motivator in capitalism too.

I can understand non-religious capitalists such as Grind subscribing to this ideology, but how does an ideology based on fear, want and greed sit with you Christian ideology Dixie?
 
I didn't say want and fear were prime motivators. They are, indeed, motivating factors in capitalism. When there is no more want, capitalism doesn't exist, there is no purpose for it. Fear often creates want, or need, and is often the catalyst behind capitalism.

It's certainly an ambitious socialist goal, to stamp out fear and want, but it does nothing to promote capitalism, which is ultimately, freedom itself.
 
It's certainly an ambitious socialist goal, to stamp out fear and want, but it does nothing to promote capitalism, which is ultimately, freedom itself.

How do you make the case that capitalism is 'freedom itself'?

As Bertrand Russell said... “Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

Also, how does an ideology that uses motivations such as fear, want and greed sit with your belief in the teachings of Jesus, which appear to be mutually exclusive?
 
AnyOldIron said:
It's certainly an ambitious socialist goal, to stamp out fear and want, but it does nothing to promote capitalism, which is ultimately, freedom itself.

How do you make the case that capitalism is 'freedom itself'?

As Bertrand Russell said... “Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

Also, how does an ideology that uses motivations such as fear, want and greed sit with your belief in the teachings of Jesus, which appear to be mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...


Because capitalism allows individuals the mechanism to free themselves from the shackles of limitation and restraint. How "free" is a man who has no control over his own destiny? In a capitalist society, there is no limit to success, that is determined by the market.

You keep mentioning "greed" and it's important to note, while 'greed' might be a motivating factor in capitalism, it is not fundamental to capitalism, and greed alone, can't result in successful capitalism. So, to try and construct a straw man that says "Greed=Capitalism" is inherently false.
 
Also, how does an ideology that uses motivations such as fear, want and greed sit with your belief in the teachings of Jesus, which appear to be mutually exclusive?

Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's. Faith and Capitalism are two completely different things, therefore, they can sit together just fine.
 
Because capitalism allows individuals the mechanism to free themselves from the shackles of limitation and restraint. How "free" is a man who has no control over his own destiny? In a capitalist society, there is no limit to success, that is determined by the market.


Yes, as Russell said....

"The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate"

How does that equate for freedom for those except the fortunate?

Those with ownership of the modes of production might have control over their 'destiny' but those below certainly don't.

You keep mentioning "greed" and it's important to note, while 'greed' might be a motivating factor in capitalism, it is not fundamental to capitalism, and greed alone, can't result in successful capitalism. So, to try and construct a straw man that says "Greed=Capitalism" is inherently false.

The pursuit of wealth is vital to capitalism, the desire for more than you can possibly need is vital to capitalism, thus greed is vital to capitalism.
 
Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's. Faith and Capitalism are two completely different things, therefore, they can sit together just fine.

So Jesus would approve of the use of fear, want and greed?

'Render unto Caesar' doesn't account for his position on these...

Best not forget that 'it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than enter the kingdom of heaven...'
 
Those with ownership of the modes of production might have control over their 'destiny' but those below certainly don't.

Which is the inherent flaw of socialism, and why it always fails. In a capitalist society, everyone has the opportunity for success, and everyone controls their own destiny.
 
And... OH BY THE WAY...

It's rather foolish for an Atheist to be trying to make a religious point to a Christian, about the teachings of Jesus Christ. You should stick to things you know more about, rather than making a fool of yourself, misquoting and misinterpreting The Bible.
 
Which is the inherent flaw of socialism, and why it always fails. In a capitalist society, everyone has the opportunity for success, and everyone controls their own destiny.

Everyone controls their destiny and has opportunity for success if they have ownership of modes of production. If they don't they have no or little control over their destiny.

To describe the use of markets as people controlling their own destiny is also a fallacy. The variables that effect any interaction on the market demonstrate that any individual has little or no control over destiny.

Another variable that contributes to destiny and has opportunity for success is the lottery of birth, where those fortunate enough to be born into production ownership has more opportunities than others.

In truth, only Democratic Socialism gives all the opportunity to reach their potential, by affording all the opportunity to access education and healthcare.

Socialism doesn't affect the markets in all except the essential services that the markets have proven themselves fallible, so opportunity to financial success still occurs, the difference being that all have a chance to attain it if they wish.
 
It's rather foolish for an Atheist to be trying to make a religious point to a Christian, about the teachings of Jesus Christ. You should stick to things you know more about, rather than making a fool of yourself, misquoting and misinterpreting The Bible.

On the contrary, I was trying to understand the paradox between your belief in the teachings of Jesus and your belief in capitalism.

And trust me, I have not always been an atheist, and know the Christian religion very well.

You have used a poor method of defence, Dixie, throwing up chaff like this...

Answer the point, vis a vis the rich man and the camel......
 
Jesus' message had nothing to do with his approval, it was his love.

This is a statement that makes little sense, the usual religious obscurum per obscurius argument...

You have to gain Jesus' love, how do you do that by adhering to characteristics he spoke against?
 
The pursuit of wealth is vital to capitalism, the desire for more than you can possibly need is vital to capitalism, thus greed is vital to capitalism.

Amen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top