Compassion: A 1K Word Essay

January 9th, 2008 | by Craig |

we

  1. 17 Responses to “Compassion: A 1K Word Essay”

  2. By Dave Budge on Jan 9, 2008 | Reply

    Huh? Sumner’s Law of Compassion.

  3. By dogette on Jan 11, 2008 | Reply

    HA! I’m a big believer in tough love, as in, “Tough. Love, Dogette.”

  4. By Big swede on Jan 11, 2008 | Reply

    Never would have happened in a “Gun Free Zone”.

  5. By Mark T on Jan 16, 2008 | Reply

    I’ve heard this before - every right winger’s dream - no taxes, no use of government to cure social ills. I think Dickens wrote about it. Oh for the good old days - eh?

  6. By Craig on Jan 16, 2008 | Reply

    Just like every left-winger’s dream is to have good old Uncle Sugar take care of everything from birth to death.

    I think Orwell wrote about it.

  7. By Sean on Jan 16, 2008 | Reply

    sucK it, Trebek!

  8. By Craig on Jan 16, 2008 | Reply

    Thread over. Connery wins!

  9. By Mark T on Jan 16, 2008 | Reply

    I’ve read Orwell, every word I could get my hands on. I use him to attack youse guys often. I know Orwell, a committed socialist. Trust me. He wasn’t one of you.

  10. By Craig on Jan 16, 2008 | Reply

    What? Are you friggin’ Lloyd Bentsen or something here?

    Might want to re-read Animal Farm.

    Just sayin’.

  11. By Mark T on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply

    Here’s what I’m saying: Orwell was a committed socialist all of his life. Irrefutable. Animal Farm was mostly a shot at Joe Stalin, who had, together with the fascists, sold out the labor unions and anarchists in Spain. He once thought communism represented something it did not, and was disillusioned.

    So too should you be. Socialism is not Communism light. It’s an animal all to itself, and Orwell knew this.

  12. By Craig on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply

    Yes, I’m not disputing any of this.

    It doesn’t make the allegory any less true for socialism, in my reading of the text (among others).

  13. By Mark T on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply

    Any system without checks and balances will lead to tyranny. Including capitalism, which can be attached as easily to dictators and presidents alike.

  14. By Craig on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply

    You don’t expect me to argue with that, do you?

    Advocating limited government is not the same as advocating anarchy.

  15. By Mark T on Jan 17, 2008 | Reply

    Then we agree. I’m in favor of limited government too. It’s just a matter of drawing a line. And you put that line far beyond where I do.

  16. By Dave Budge on Jan 18, 2008 | Reply

    First Mark, in “pure capitalism” (and I use the term expressly) there is no way for dictators and presidents to attach themselves to the capital through the state. If the state’s power is used to accumulate capital it is not longer pure capitalism. As abstract as that is, by definition you’re wrong.

    This argument has gotten off the tracks. The question should be, I think, is the primacy of the individual above the state? And we know you’re opinion on that.

  17. By Mark T on Jan 18, 2008 | Reply

    In a purely capitalistic society, we would be subjects of private power and no less slaves. The only power ordinary people have over the barons of private wealth is their government, so you’ve got it exactly backwards - in liberal to socialist democracies, we have more freedom.

    You act as if an individual who gives up some of his sovereignty for the greater good loses his freedom. It’s a tradeoff - knowing what would happen without government, we choose to have some government and limits on private power.

    Not that it’s working.

  18. By Dave Budge on Jan 18, 2008 | Reply

    Mark, you have it backwards, not me. In pure capitalism, by definition and I implore you to give me a reasonable historical example.

    Secondly, the trade off between freedom and security is what you liberals have been clamoring about for the past 7 years, but you never look at that much in the context of economic freedom v economic security but foist it off only in terms foreign policy. It’s a gross inconsistency on the left which cannot be reconciled.

    Last, you have never made the moral case for reducing someone else’s economic freedom for another’s economic security and, until you do I’ll be forced to ignore you from now on.

Post a Comment