Individualism

Just, a little thing I've been molding in my head



Regardless of how a person feels towards Ayn Rand. They have to admit the logic in that statement. If you recognize individuality at all, then logically you would have to admit the existence of an individual's rights. By acknowledging those rights you would have to consider that an individual has the right to own property. Does an individual's right to property they have earned, trump any claims to that society might have to the same property (example: Money)?

So, let me ask you this; Do you exist for yourself as an individual or do you exist as a member of a group or collective?

Every election season we hear about "the poor", "the less fortunate", repeated demands that "the rich" pay their "fair share". A lot is said about income redistribution such as welfare programs and the like. This completely ignores that the act of earning a living is a uniquely individual pursuit.

Every person is a unique individual, you are not a tool of the state. You are not to be used as cannon fodder to elevate the position of a politician. Like you, I am unique, not a stamped-out variation of some collective template. I don't exist to serve the government, it exists to protect my rights.

Thoughts?

While it is true that you do exist as an individual and there isn't someone who is exactly like you, during elections, people with common viewpoints on politics are put together as a "group". As long as you share common viewpoints on something, I'm sure you are part of that "group".

There isn't a politician for each individual's viewpoints. Grouping people with similar views is a necessary part of out current political system.

You missed the point I was talking. This is about how politicians (especially liberal ones) see us not as individuals but, members of groups. As members of these collectives we are supposed to sacrifice our liberties and freedoms for some vague notion of the "greater good"



People like Clinton see somebody acting in their own self interest as being the opposite of what is best for society. Another example is on November 6, 2003 Chris Wolfe wrote a letter to USA today about an story in that paper about University Administrators keeping conservative student groups off campus. He defended them with:

"Whether an organization or person is conservative has nothing to do with decisions to prohibit certain groups or ideas from the public forum. Instead, school administrators are forbidding an environment where hate, individualism and repression are encouraged."

These sorts of people equate individualism with hate and repression. Through their logic only groups are worthy of recognition or attention. The individual is just an instrument of evil, hate, repression.

A third quote is from Senator Ted Kennedy after the patriots won the super bowl.



If I had to associate this with any current event. It is the trend towards socialism in America along with the general "everybody should have the same stuff" mentality that is growing here in America.

This is a good topic. I look forward to some interesting discussion.




Consider: the Universe, fate, God, whatever force on believes determines events beyond human control, does not treat everyone equally. I inherently possess the ability to walk, someone born with no legs does not. Regardless of the conclusion one reaches, this idea is important in determining what the concepts of "fairness" and "equality" should mean.

Coming back to your idea, I think that most people in the US at least(I won't speak for other cultures), whether Randian or socialistic believe in the concepts of equal rights and equal opportunity for individuals. They have simply arrived at different answers to the question: What does giving equal rights and equal opportunity to individuals actually entail?

Does it mean that society/the government should give everyone nothing and let them go at it so that those who, by the workings of chance, begin with greater resources or ability are able to leverage them to the fullest and have a significant edge over others?

Does it mean that society/the government should make everyone as equal as possible in both resources and abilities/skills via wealth redistribution, mandatory and uniform state education, employment quotas that provide jobs for those of lesser ability, etc?

Most people, and I include myself in this category, feel that the correct answer is somewhere in between those two extremes.

I think a similar situation exists with government control. No one wants to live in Zamyatin's "One State" or Huxley's "Brave New World," but at the same time, no one wants to live in a completely anarchic world where there is no protection from extreme violence. Consider: from the beginning of human history families, clans, tribal systems, and feudal systems all arose organically to address the problem of anarchic violence.

Even today, pretty much everyone can agree that Person A's right not to be killed trumps Person B's right to murder Person A, even though that limits Person B's individual rights.



This is a somewhat different perspective, but statisticians sometimes say that statistics often don't measure what is important so much as what is easy to measure. In a representative government, a representative can't possibly be aware of the demands of every person he represents. Demographics present a convenient way to form a somewhat reflective picture that is simplistic enough so as to be comprehensible. If this is insufficient, then direct democracy is a possible recourse, although it has it's own problems in terms of being practical.



If this doesn't happen at all, then there is no society. This is the idea behind social contract theory. People enter into a contract with a government they empower, but also with one another to create and maintain a society that provides certain benefits(ex. police) to everyone at certain costs(ex. taxes) to everyone. The democratic elements of government present a way to change society from within, but if anyone can have the right to break their end of the contract with society/the government in the name of individual rights because that person believes things should be different, then the social contract society can't function. If I oppose the Iraq war, I can vote for politicians who will also oppose it. I have the right to demonstrate and criticize the government. However, I do not have the right to stop paying my taxes because the government's actions in Iraq do not represent my individual beliefs.

Once again, the question is more "how much is the right amount" than whether this should happen at all.



Both, it is practically impossible to exist in only one of those fashions. No matter how individualistic one is, the fact is that one does not exist in a vacuum and the decisions of others have an impact on one's life. The constitutes the effect of a collective. On the flip side, no matter how socialistic or totalitarian a state might be in it's attempt to make everyone part of a uniform herd, it seems impossible(at least without futuristic technology) to completely quash individual thought.

Were all individuals but we must exist as a group so that we can make sure that everyones needs are met. Would a world where no one see's eye to eye better than a world where everyone agrees, if everyone agreed then there would be no war. I hate to use star trek quotes but "The needs of the many out way the needs of the few"


Yes you are!


I'll give you this one.


No the government exists to serve the best interests of the people not the person. Let me give you an example 10 people in a room now the government can feed 9 people but one has to starve, or it can put its efforts to help the one person making sure his rights are protected. What one do you think is more important? The government has way too much to worry about to waste time protecting one persons rights.

I believe people are not born with rights, but they have to earn them. Not everyone in the world is given the rights they deserve, but there are plenty of people who have them and don't deserve them.

I put this quote here because it's awesome. Also, it explains that we are all individuals that have to be by ourselves in some way. We can never truly understand or help one another.

That said, civilization works because we're not all completely by ourselves. Each person has to think about things himself, but he can read books and talk to people that will help him.

Dealing with money and property, because our civilization has the economy it does, nothing is really earned by only one individual. People get money from somewhere. They may have been born into it; they may have saved up the allowances they were given and the money they found on the street; and even if they did odd jobs around the neighborhood for cash, they relied upon the neighbors having the jobs for them to do. If the rich let all the poor die of hunger (or shot them into space), then who would buy from the rich? Other rich people? That wouldn't work for very long.

One has to wonder if property can really even be owned. I can give some money to some people and say that I own a patch of land, but what if the government fell apart and a different country took over? My "ownership" of the land would be gone, because the new country wouldn't recognize it. What if I have a million one dollar bills, and then a new government takes over? All those pieces of paper are worthless. Being barbaric about it, what if I own a house, and someone comes along, kills me, and takes the house? Do I still own the house?

What if I own a house but not the land that the house is on? Can the owner of the land tell me to move my house? Can he kick me out of my house and force me into a hotel because he says that I cannot live on his land?

Anyways, this topic is supposed to be about the government. I should get to that.



That's idealistic. The government's first purpose is to protect its citizens. That doesn't mean protecting all their rights - just their right to live. And the government expects some citizens (thankfully, not all) to serve the government so that the citizens' lives can be protected. In a way, every citizen born has the potential to "exist to serve the government." Because if every single person decides to be completely individualistic and only do things that are in his/her best interest, then the country falls apart. There are no soldiers to protect the borders (regardless of what people may say, protecting your country and putting yourself in the line of fire is not acting solely in your best interest); there are no people to work for the IRS taking money from people; nobody pays taxes, so the country is unable to better itself; and the economy gets completely screwed up because big companies are paying employees pennies per hour because its the business's right to pay as much or as little as it wants.

We all have to live by ourselves in our minds, but we cannot live by ourselves in the world. (Well, a guy can potentially live in the woods and eat only what he catches with his wooden weapons, but he cannot add to this conversation because he doesn't have the internet. And because he cannot add to the conversation, and because we cannot give anything to him, it's pointless to talk about him.) I think societies have existed for thousands of years because we are alone in our minds; we strive to be together on the outside to compensate for not being together on the inside. Regardless of the reason, people live together. There's no escaping that. And weighing which of the two is more important, the individual or the society, it's impossible to decide unless we're talking about extremes, because they are both very important. Should a person give up his individuality so the society can be a little better? Probably not. Should a society bend over backwards to make people a little more free? Probably not. But a person should be willing to give up some things for the sake of society; likewise, the society should be able to bend a little to accommodate people. People should be willing to pay taxes, and society should be willing to not stone people that are 90% metal due to piercings. (Not great examples, but you get the point.)

You are misunderstanding when I mention being members of groups. I'm not advocating Anarchic individualism when I speak of existing as an individual. I'm simply stating that a person should have the choice to serve their own interests or the interests of society instead of mandating that all people must serve the great collective for society like a hive-mind. Soldiers do this all the time. They make their sacrifices not because they were ordered to by society or the government but, because they made the choice themselves because they want too. While there are incentives to enlist in the army such as education, increase hiring potential the ultimate choice is in the hand of the individual.

Side Note: The current system of taxes is equivalent to theft. The basic definition of theft is taking something without permission of the owner. Voluntary taxes (such as FairTax)are the only tax forms that I do not equate to theft. Which if you disagree with a government policy you can essentially stop paying taxes.



Government exist to protect its citizens, not to hand them everything they want. While it is sad for that one person to starve, nothing states that the other 9 people can't share what they have as part of their own decision (i.e. not by force). A government gets it's power from the people and as part of that contract the government itself can NOT do anything it's citizens can't. Which includes murder, theft,etc.



You don't believe in the existence of Natural rights which is in total opposition to my viewpoint. A quote by Abraham Lincoln speaks about freedom the same way I feel about rights.





Just like Whitelion, your close but, you missed the point entirely. I'll try to rephrase the concept I'm trying to bring up.

When you go to work you may have other reasons to work such as feeding your family but, it's your choice to work or sacrifice for others. I'm advocating self interest that produces a positive by-product for society. A person should be given a choice on subjects such as community service. I can choose to clean up a local park or I can choose to stay at home and watch anime. When I refer to being a member of a collective I mean, you exist for the government, you belong to the government, you are property of said government. Your life, productions, everything you could ever do or achieve belong to the government or society. This was similar to the way Spartan society was arranged. When you were born you belonged to the state. You gave everything to the state and the state provided only what you needed to survive in return. So let me as you this personally shaggy.

"If a government doesn't have to protect all the rights of its citizens then what makes the right to life any different?" If some rights are arbitrary because they are inconvenient to the government or society then what is to stop people from saying that your right to life itself is not inconvenient for society. Lets take prisoners for example, they cost taxpayers a large amount of a money every year. What if that finical drain becomes too much for the state to handle and somebody proposes to just execute all the prisoners and those found guilty of crimes that would send them to prison. Your right to life is suddenly a problem to them. So they can choose to discard it for the "greater good" of society

I agree with the individualism.... Sometimes people don`t realize that we live in the end for ourselves.... So I don`t care about their self satisfaction act by giving their money to the poor... but don`t drag me with them.... I have my own ideal.... why force me to group with them... that`s just....

individualism is awesome.. we DO live as ouselves, we are all unique, why should we be grouped together with ppl the governtmennt sees fit?

Ha ha ha oh I’m sorry but the other 9 share I’m sorry it's just so funny you think they would share. I have a very negative look at people and I know for a fact that most people are greedy selfish asses that only do things for themselves. So it fall’s on the government to help the 9 and leave the 1 to the cannon fodder. While it’s true that people can do anything that the government says they won’t. The point I’m grudgingly trying to get to is that people won’t do things so the government has to. I said it before but the many need to come first its more important for everyone to be happy (or at least appear to be happy) than making sure one guy is happy.



Hmmmm it’s not that I don’t think people deserve rights but who picks the rights we deserve you me some old dude we call the president? Rights should be earned from being a good person! Do criminals deserve those rights gangbangers and what not? Would it not be better if you had to earn those rights from doing good things? Maybe I’m just crazy but most people won’t just do good things out of the kindness of their heart, so we have to persuade them.

Every charity, humanitarian group and a significant portion of the world population disagrees with your outlook. Sure, you and I agree that people left to their own devices are greedy bastards that will do anything for an edge. The problem with your idea is that making somebody be charitable at gunpoint isn't exactly "charity". I could use a gun to make you donate half your income to a homeless person. Is that being charitable or simply extortion? The reason why I know people will donate money is because I personally donate money occasionally when I can spare it. Usually, I donate to shriners, humane shelters, homeless shelters, fire and police departments,etc. So I know from personal experience that people donate. Plus, whenever you are on an off ramp you see those guys on the corner with the cardboard sign? You see people donate to them all the time even though they are likely slackers who would rather beg for money than work but, that doesn't stop people from donating to somebody they see as being "in need".



Counterpoint: Who decides what constitutes as a "good person"? Who decides who gets what rights for their behavior? The simple way to answer this is to just allow everyone to have their rights without the strings. While some people don't exercise their rights in a positive fashion (such as gang bangers and their guns) punishing everybody for the faults of a few isn't exactly fair. To answer you questions, we settled the "who decides" part by our constitution. Whatever is on that piece of parchment is an inalienable right. Plus, it's open ended so things can be added and subtracted. A debate floating around conservative circles is to call a continental congress to amend the constitution (to remove income tax and replace it with another system).

Now, if you want to get into the validation of those rights. Some people think their rights come from their God (not just Christians). Some people believe we are endowed with our rights at the time we form the contract with the government. Which in a round-a-bout way, we give ourselves our rights since the government governs the people who in turn govern the government. At least, that's how the founding fathers intended it.

Hello everyone,
First of all something regarding the statement. A minority is already something social, as in a group of people that aren't making up most of the masses.
The individual isn't a minority but to put it into a network theory, you'd be like a small knot in a larger array that has connections, cross connections do different social standings (dimensions, layers whatever you want to call it) etc and in the end you are yourself, yet also part of something larger.
Of course that is my very own definition of minority, so to put it into linguistical terms: It is my non lexical concept.
However I exist for myself as an active member of a social network to produce new knowledge and spread knowledge to others and to learn and evolve myself. I know it is something that you might find in any given didactics book from Wolfgang Klafki, but it makes sense.

Speaking as one who also donates money when I can, maybe I didn’t express my opinion correctly I know there are good people in the world that do good things just they are such a minority and because most do it to look good (celebrities) it just doesn’t really effect the selfish masses. On the issue of charity at gun point well isn’t it better that no charity at all. Do people really need all that shit? I know half the shit I have I don’t need, and it just gets me that I keep buying more useless stuff. I would also like to point out that I never said at gun point. At first it may seem like that but then the gun will eventually leave the equation because people will do it out of habit and then everyone’s happy. Individuals will not reach out a helping had only the group will so shouldn’t the group take priority over individual needs?





I’ll say what’s good is hard to define and a large consensus would have to be formulated several times about every year to decide it I really don’t know I’m not very “up” on the issue of what’s good and bad.
But on the issue of the constitution I’ll just say one thing. “All men are created equal except for the backs who are obviously are not people” I say this because those men had slaves if you didn’t know. When you say “all men are created equal” I like to think of it in this way all men are created equal just different kinds of equal.

In other words, the politicians are supposed to tell us what is "good" and "bad". That sounds like Totalitarianism with hints of Oligarchy and Statism. I remember some pretty nasty examples of Totalitarianism where the government had such vast powers to control the details of your life. The citizens for the short end of the stick on that deal.




You do realize that the founding fathers wanted the slaves to be free but, the southern colonies didn't because it would have ruined their plantations. An attack on a British base by an overzealous militia caused England to send more troops to enforce more control which in turn caused the colonies to scramble to get their shit together. Forcing the debate to free the slaves to be postponed. Men such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington did indeed have slaves but, they wanted them to be free since they realized the hypocrisy in fighting for freedom while denying other men their own freedom. I suggest reading up on the Constitution which shows the groundwork for abolishing slavery in Article 1 section 9 "Limits on Congress". While it didn't ban it in 1808 it did set the groundwork. I also suggest reading up on the acts of 1807, 1818, 1819 and 1820. This website should prove useful



I hope everybody learns something about the founding fathers from this. (@Whitelion this is what happens when you become one of those "constitution worshipers" Bet you didn't think I was hardcore did ya ole buddy?)

Back to the topic at hand. This thread was created to discuss opposition to collectivism as it stifles individuality and diversity. Not only this but, it puts us dangerously close to Nationalism or even Facism. It puts a minority in power in order to "guide" the greater collective. Collectivism



The fundamental shift towards collectivism by current politicians promises "equality" to everyone. That equality comes with stipulations that I believe supporters aren't fully aware of.



The "altruists" Rand refers to are not those who practice simple benevolence or charity, but rather those who believe in August Comte's ethical doctrine of altruism which holds that there is "a moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good."[/quote]

People may hate Ayn Rand but, she doesn't make a valid point. I challenge anybody here to find a dictator or tyrant that didn't claim to be working for the "common good" or for the "little guy".

Yes but Totalitarianism of the people! (if you didn’t get it that was a joke). Hmmm that sounds like totalitarianism to you? I would say it’s more of a communist view. See I lost faith in democracy about two elections (U.S elections) ago and since then have been trying to find a real political system. I thought you’d draw the conclusion that I have very communist views. See communism thinks of the group and what’s good for them not what’s good for Joe. I want a society where the individual doesn’t matter. In that society there would be no killing no crime at all because being a whole stealing from one person would be like stealing from yourself.



But they did have slaves! So it’s ok to have slaves as long as there not part of some kind of trade sweet. Ok that was a little blunt the point I’m getting at is people always throw up stuff like it would have destroyed the economy so something and suddly it’s ok. If they had really believed that all men were created equal then they would have freed the slaves right there. Obviously it wasn’t important enough for them to sacrifice for it so it really wasn’t that important to them. I’m not too hardcore on the constitution but when people say here’s the line and cross it then what was the point? Oh and on a sidenote an interesting read.

On the topic at had as Fiery says. The collective is more important than the individual there’s just no way around it. Ten people are more important than one is, if you have to sacrifice the right’s of one person to help two then theres no debte you have to help the two. Maybe if you could change people into caring kind people who always help otherssss Oh ha ha ha I just couldn't say that without laughing.

True communism can never be achieved. It always turns into a dictatorship which then turns further into a totalitarian state. Government ownership of all property, manufacturing, productions, people. The prospect that I'll spend the rest of my life essentially as a slave doesn't appeal to me. I don't bow to a god so I sure as hell won't bow to a politician who claims to have my best interest when he doesn't even know me.




They made a sacrifice to achieve independence from England. The groundwork was set and they even set a date for the slaves to be freed. They started out with the taxing of the trade as a start since any more restrictions and the constitution wouldn't have been ratified. Arguing with the southern colonies wouldn't have produced anything positive and would only serve to doom the revolution before it even started. So rather than argue with a wall they tried to do something constructive.



Your argument is that one man is not equal to another. Just because you are "helping" two people you are still treating the original person as if he isn't equal to either of the two you are helping. That doesn't show equality. By continuing that logic Blacks, Asians, native Americans, gays,etc,etc could be treated as lesser beings since their numbers being lower than Hispanics or Whites, straights,etc in America make their sacrifices more convenient. You simply turn society into cannibalism. The larger groups "eating" the smaller ones simply because their numbers are smaller. Thus being a principal of social Darwinism

As my first quote said



Nothing is smaller than one. Thus making a single person a minority. By saying that a minority doesn't matter when faced with "the greater good" you can't say you protect any minority at all. Every man is equal to the next. Any one man is equal to any two men and so forth. Otherwise, you only promote equality of the members of the largest group.

???????? Ok I’m confused my argument is that everyone is equal. Maybe you consider black and gay different from whites and straights but I don’t were all human and so were all equally shared in our assholeness. What I’m saying is that two human’s needs are more important than ones are.

How are two people equal when one has to sacrifice for the benefit of another? An example of this would be Warren Buffet having to give up half of his income in order to provide for another person. Buffet in this example wouldn't be treated as equal to the other person.

Another reason against a collectivist state run by the government is that government is less efficient and less productive than the private sector. You can look at any centrally planned economy and instantly realize that those countries are poorer by nature. Sure, everybody is equal but, they are poor and live have a lower standard of living.

An example of the government being less efficient then the private sector is in education. Government schools are basically warehouses that stifle any form of independent thought, enforce a homogenized dress code while simultaneously being unable to provide a good education due to the lack of teachers. Children are cramped 30+ to a classroom and are taught only the basics in order to function in the workforce leaving the true education to colleges. Private schools on the other hand provide such a good education that the N.E.A. and the A.F.T teachers unions have used lobbyists in Washington to ban private schools (and even home schooling) as they show exactly how pathetic government schools really are. Class sizes are smaller with more attention paid to each individual student.

An argument against collectivism is that it encourages it reduces incentives to be productive. If everything is distributed amongst everybody then the desire to work disappears as everything will be taken care of regardless if you actually contribute to society.

This wouldn't work at all. Simply put, due to externalities, there's no way to ultimately make people who don't pay their taxes suffer the full consequences of their decision. If they do not wish to pay their taxes, then they should get nothing from the government: no police, no military protection, no emergency response, etc. They have opted out of their part of the social contract, supporting the government, so the government no longer has a responsibility to protect them. But this can never be achieved. Fires have to be put out so they don't spread. Neighborhoods can't be effectively policed selectively. It's impossible to fight a defensive war and not defend the set of individuals that didn't pay their taxes. No matter how you slice it, there is no effective way to distribute these protective benefits on an individual level. Thus, social contract theory doesn't work on an individual level. Societies have to enter the contract as a whole. The governmental system contains methods of changing government policy so that dissidents have some way to oppose policies they don't like, but people can't stop paying their taxes when they disagree with the government.



Isn't the basis of social contract theory that both these things happen? The government protects my right to not be killed in exchange for me obeying the laws preventing me from killing others. I pay taxes to get police and fire services.

I am not a slave to the government, but nor does the government have a duty to protect my rights while I do nothing to contribute to the government. It goes both ways.



What about someone like Paris Hilton, an heiress who has done nothing in life yet was given everything? The universe doesn't treat people equally, which gives us a difficult choice: should we fairly preserve unfairness, or should we unfairly promote fairness? It's a tough question, and both options leave something to be desired.



I agree, there are a number of generous people. However, I also think its true that we live in a society where we are shielded from the consequences of our choices with respect to charity. People with money form their own enclaves in gated communities where they don't have to deal with homeless people. The poor are herded into project housing. And then we have our stories of generosity and improbable success. Plenty of people, when they see a homeless guy on the street don't think twice about donating to humanitarian aid. After all, Bill Gates or whoever just donated a gazillion dollars of his own free will. Surely that will take care of it. It's the "someone else will do it" mentality. And even if the guy freezes to death on the streets, we never find out about it. We don't have to feel bad about it. As Gin said, a lot of people really do donate money to charity just to look good.

As you know, since I have discussed it before. I do favor some forms of what would be considered "welfare" but I prefer that instead of giving people money because they are poor, we assist them financially in attaining reasonable opportunity to succeed. I support things like having reasonable public school systems(needs a lot of work) or a program where we would give someone in financial need tuition and a stipend to study at community college or vocation school, assuming they maintain a reasonable level of success as opposed to just flunking everything. That way, instead of just being a drain on resources, they are hopefully able to use the assistance to better themselves to a position where they won't need it.

Personally, I don't see this as being the government's bitch. I don't want to live in a town where unemployed homeless wander the streets because they grew up in a horrible environment and got no education. I think effective forms of welfare could give me a return on my investment.



Haha. I don't think you are quite the kind of person I meant. I admire the constitution immensely. I believe it to be the greatest political document ever created. What I was referring to, and what I disagree with, is the idea that because the constitution says something it must be immutably true. The world changes, the constitution has to be a living document. It's not something we should go around amending with abandon, but there have been and will be times when we need to change things, and we can't refuse to change them out of some reverence for the constitution as infallible.

The system (FairTax) is designed that anybody who doesn't pay taxes lives at the poverty level. I don't know about you but, I'd find it really hard to go to work without paying for gas, lunch, living without basic amenities like extra food (snacks,Soda), laundry detergent, toilet paper, etc. It would be extremely difficult to not buy something, somewhere. Whats the point of having money if all you can do is sit on it and still live in poverty?



The constitution is the law. Governments are bound by the laws of the people just like the people are bound by the laws of the government. I have nothing against police and fire services as these are seen as protecting the citizens (the governments job) the same goes for the military. Part of the problem is I have more rights than just my right to live (which isn't actually in the constitution as it was granted to us by the Nations Universal Declaration of human rights) and people seem to neglect these rights. A person can choose to not protect their rights if they want but, if somebody doesn't want to discard their rights then they shouldn't be forced too.




You have a point but, the individual interests with positive by-products for society seems like the better option overall. Individuals keep their freedom and society benefits as a whole. While I dislike Paris Hilton, her family did earn that income on their own and taking it by force or fraud is just as illegal as me taking the money from your wallet by the same methods. The government is restricted by the same laws as the people as the people ARE the government.


We're both in agreement that current methods of welfare don't offer incentives to improve ones standing in life. I consider your idea the purest form of "investing in America" as you can get which is something I support. Idealistically, I would prefer the private sector to supply this but, I don't have a problem with the government offering incentives to be productive members of society. Sometimes the best thing you can offer somebody is an opportunity.



I knew what you meant but, I felt the need to crack a joke. We've all gotten too serious about everything. I usually show resistance to amending the constitution because everybody believes all their privileges are in fact rights such as the right to vote (in federal elections), right to drive, etc. As long as this mentality prevails I'm hesitant about changing the document.

On a side note, we need to find a die-hard republican. At least then our little jocular group (the order of the triad) would be more balanced. F.Y.I. I still call dibs on the necromancer spot.