I dont see anywhere where I explicitly state

'i do nothing'

you version of nothing is different to mine i guess... just because I do nothing on my own, doesn't mean i dont do anything...

Thanks for taking the time though... hahahaha....

BAM!!!

I think you guys are bluring the lines between political action and community service. Community service has a direct affect on a particular community, but does not affect the system as a whole. Political action aims to fix the entire system. In that sense, it is much more ambitious, but also less certain in its impact on the everyday lives of people. Different spheres, for different types of people, but I resent any claim that those who are politically motivated without being community servants are whiners, hypocrites, or in some way lazy. Karma's mistake is that she believes liberal democrats are trying to conduct government sponsered charity, which is just as inaccurate as saying republicans are trying to create government sponsered evil.

--JFK04-

Oh, and RC, I forgot to thank you for #48. Thank you!

No problem. I remembered your article from sometime back, about 3 months ago, detailing many of the difficulties you've grown up with. You had as much "reason" (which is none) as anyone to expect entitlements, and sympathy, and you chose neither. You recognized that your life is your own, your problems are your own, and you dealt with them the best way you could with the help of family. You didn't put your burden on "society". You recognize the value of being responsible for your life, not to make others a means to your ends.

I think that I understood that you extend charity only to those who are also willing to help themselves, instead of wasting it on those who won't better themselves. If this is case, I sincerely agree that that is a worthy charitable cause that creates value for you and for them. When charity is chosen by the individual for the right reasons, it is admirable. When it is forced through the redistribution of wealth, it is evil. It's the government violating one person's right to property for another person's non-right of entitlement. The government should get out of the safety net business.

Tonight Leno posed these questions to his Las Vegas audience:

Are you worried about your future? (YEA!!)
Are you worried about the cost of health care? (YEA!!!)
Are you worried Social Security won't be there by the time you need it? (YEA!!!!)
Then why the hell are you blowing all you money in a casino? (laughter, unfortunately)

Even Leno calls 'em right every once in awhile.

VES

Karma's mistake is that she believes liberal democrats are trying to conduct government sponsored charity

If they aren't, then why are their platforms always involved around spending more money on social issues like welfare, healthcare, social security, medicare, etc.?

When charity is chosen by the individual for the right reasons, it is admirable. When it is forced through the redistribution of wealth, it is evil.

exactly!  I believe that people can be socially responsible and not need government intervention.  I think that the most progressive thing we could do is to stop having so much government involvement in our every day lives.  If we, as people, took care of our family, friends and neighbors, then we wouldn't need the government.  But, as it is currently going, liberalism is turning into socialism.  The liberals are pushing more social programs, like socialized medicine.  If more people donated (though Saint Ying will disagree) to free clinics, then there would already be a place for needy to get medical attention.  If, as individuals, we gave back to our communities, we wouldn't need the government as a safety net.  Just look at the difference habitat for humanity has done for the needy, and they aren't government sponsored.

I guess maybe we need a new term for people who are proactive on a local term causing change- let's call them "humanists" instead of liberals.  They are the people who make real changes in peoples lives *now*, not *if* they can get government to change something 4 years from now.

RC, you have been quite insightful!

If more people donated (though Saint Ying will disagree) to free clinics, then there would already be a place for needy to get medical attention. If, as individuals, we gave back to our communities, we wouldn't need the government as a safety net. Just look at the difference habitat for humanity has done for the needy, and they aren't government sponsored.

I agree whole heartedly Karma... are you of the belief that the richer should give as well? Essentially, the govenrments know that people dont care about anyone but themselves... hence the reason we are taxed... to put back into the community...

That being said... I really do like you more and more with each post Karma... I am guilty of having a pre-conceived notion of your attitude, and I am happy to be prooved wrong in this situation.

BAM!!!

are you of the belief that the richer should give as well?

Not really.  I don't think that anyone should be forced to give.  Of course, I also believe that everything that you do in life comes back to you.  Money can leave you as quickly as it found you.  If you help enough people who need help, if you need help, they will help you.  If we could get people just to do help those that they can, then we wouldn't even need to debate what the government can do for us.

As an example, though, people bash on Bill gates and all his money.  He contributes an amazing amount to charity.  People could say "he should!  That rich bastard!"  But, he already pays an enormous amount in taxes on his business, then gets taxed again on his income.  He doesn't *need* to donate, but he does because he actually cares about people.  He has donated more to give free immunizations to children than any one single contributor.  That makes a real difference in real lives *right now*.  That is the type of change that I see as helpful.  You can try and change government your entire life and not succeed.  Or, you could do something right now that will benefit a real person.

Essentially, the govenrments know that people dont care about anyone but themselves... hence the reason we are taxed... to put back into the community...

That is what I see as one of the differences between left and right. Left believes that most people (except themselves of course!) are basically evil (or that either only rich peple are evil or only evil people get rich), so they must be forced by government to pay for that, because otherwise they would leave people dying on the streets. Right thinks that people are basically good, and they would help by themselves.
Of course I don't know basic human nature well enough to know who is more wrong, but I would like to believe that most people are, at least 'not-evil'... But then, why should they help if they get the message: "The government should deal with it?".

Well said.  Generally speaking, it's left-wingers who describe the average person as "sheep". Only they themselves have acheived a higher level of understanding and enlightened. In short, left wingers are much more likely to be elitists.

Of course I don't know basic human nature well enough to know who is more wrong, but I would like to believe that most people are, at least 'not-evil'...

Well, I for one will assert that selfishness (which is basic human nature) is not evil. Selfishness is inherent with our instinct to stay alive. However, I generally use the phrase "rational self-interest" because of what the term "selfish" connotes to most people. Most people act according to their own self interest (some rationally, some not so rationally), even sometimes when they do it under the guise of altruism. There's just a difference in the value they seek. People that recognize that they are selfish beings can still be helpful to beings because they get value in other ways. We are all value seekers and traders, and value comes in many forms, money or otherwise.

Most religions (if not all) tells us to go against that nature, that to act in the interest of others is noble, to sacrifice your needs for the needs of others is a virtue. (that is why selfishness is viewed as evil I believe) If this is true, the ultimate "virtue" is to give one's life for another. That makes death an ultimate goal. Then, you get your promised your riches, your heaven, your virgins, etc. Sure, you betcha. The argument could be made that the altruist was still acting in their self interest, just not the interest of their "current life".

I'll give you a hint, my ultimate value is life, not death. This one here and now, not one promised to me by mystics. That said, there may still be things I would be willing to die for. But it won't be a sacrificial death, for the "common good".

VES

10 years ago I was driving a $500 Chevette. It's amazing how simply getting up and DO-ING something can improve your lot in life.

Brad's spirit of enterprise brings a warm glow to my heart. Good show old boy!

Well said. Generally speaking, it's left-wingers who describe the average person as "sheep". Only they themselves have acheived a higher level of understanding and enlightened. In short, left wingers are much more likely to be elitists.

I couldn't agree more...

for my money, the only thing worse than right winger - is a closed minded left winger

Muggaz sings *why cant we be friends, why cant we be friends *

BAM!!!