Utah's Republic

interesting how all the “smart” kids don’t get it. It’s fun to watch their gears turning…

It’s so cute when conservatives think they’ve made intelligent point. Unfortunately this doesn’t even succeed as propaganda. Keep trying though!

It’s so cute when liberals miss the intelligent point.

In all seriousness Oak, no one missed the point, they just disagreed with it. I’m well aware there are dumb liberals out there who would have a hard time intelligently expressing the basis of their beliefs, but that wasn’t in the video. Just a bunch of people pointing out (rightly) that the analogy is pretty terrible.

“If I do give GPA points to students that didn’t earn it, it just isn’t fair, I worked for what I have.”

Come on Harry, how is that not a clear indication that this liberal student isn’t making the exact point these people are trying to make? It’s spot on. If you earn something and work hard for it, you should get to keep it and not be forced to give it up to someone else that didn’t earn it. True, you can’t actually give GPA points to someone else like you can money, but the principle is the exact same. The laborer earns their own wages.

The problem with the analogy is that the redistribution of wealth has positive social effects and makes for a more just society. A redistribution of GPA would likely do the opposite. I would be a little more sympathetic with your line of reasoning if we lived in a perfect society where everyone enjoyed equality of opportunity. But we don’t.

The other problem with the analogy is that it stretches the sense in which many wealthy people ‘earn’ or ‘work for’ their money to the breaking point. Of course, we have special programs for people who struggle to get through college, such as the business major.

Someone once said, the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money. The fact that you would say that redistribution of wealth has positive social effects and makes for a more just society reveals that you believe in economic policies that do not work and cannot be sustained. You can’t go to your rich neighbor that you think has too much money and hold a gun out to his head to force him to give up some of that money, so you cannot delegate that duty to government since we are government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If you don’t have that ability, you can’t tell the force of government to do it either.

Yeah, that was Margaret Thatcher, whose one-liners were better than her governing. In any case, I think we can delegate that duty to the government, your hyperbole aside. I think redistributive policies ought to be considered the price of admission to our society. That doesn’t conflict with our desire that the government be of the people, by the people, and for the people – it helps ensure it. So Oak, do you disagree with my preferred political and economic policies or do you just not see my point?

Harry, if you’ve read anything on this site I would assume you know I disagree with your socialist positioning. There is no basis for it in the U.S. Constitution. The federal powers are limited and defined by the document and do not include redistribution of wealth. The states on the other hand could individually enact socialist redistribution policies if they wanted, but not the federal government. The states’ powers are essentially everything not specifically delegated to the feds. That said, socialism doesn’t work and it’s immoral. Your statement “I think redistributive policies ought to be considered the price of admission to our society” is your opinion and is not supported by either the law or morality. It is the application of governmental force to the individual’s conscience to force them to fund activities that they themselves may be in strong opposition to (ex. govt. funded abortions, etc…). Only the true common necessary functions of government should exist and other than that, people should be self-governing and encouraged to attend church, be moral, and give to the poor. Forced charity creates wards of the state and does the giver no good because they never gave, it was taken from them. It’s what Frederick Bastiat called “legal plunder” and creates an injustice in the mind of those forced into the situation. I would recommend his book “The Law” to you for a clear exposition on the immorality of socialism.

Hi Oak –

I understand that you disagree (how could I have missed it!?). My point was the original one: you’re confusing disagreement with incomprehension (maybe you’re so convinced your opinions are the right ones, you assume anyone who doesn’t share them must be uncomprehending). I didn’t see any of “dumb” liberals in the video though.

As for our politico-economic differences, they’re too wide to bridge. We could trade assertions all day about what is immoral, effective, legal etc., so I won’t respond to the bulk of your reply. Thanks for an interesting exchange.

Thanks for commenting Harry. Best wishes.

Positive social effects for who? The person who was stolen from through taxation who is trying to support there family? The small business that needs to hire another empoyee, but can’t afford it because they have to pay into social security for all of their employees (who will never recieve a dime of it), and give people unemployment when they weren’t doing their job right and needed to be fired? The people who pay $900 a month to provide health insurance, because we have to pick up the bill for those who won’t pay their bill and government won’t stay out of the health care system, causing rates to increase? The government has no business stepping in and forcing the American people to pay for things they may or may not be able to afford. If you want socialism, go try it out in another country for about 10 years, then if you like it stay there, if not, come back and help us fight to keep this country free.