Don’t disagree except perhaps I am more cynical about the overall responsibility of people for their own condition. Often one can make his/her own luck. But we could never prove that either way. And I agree on the necessity of government and the necessity to have enforcement power – the gun-, but I do believe the governemnt gives nothing – it takes away from one person and gives to another. That portion of the equation always troubles me (but if I were Pres, I would do it).

Dugger

Remember that while Government is ‘extorting’ you with one hand it is shielding you with the other one. Government does produce one invaluable service; protection. Without its protection if I have a bigger mod, or a better gun, all the goods and services you produce can be taken from you at the end of MY gun, which in turn can be taken from me by someone else’s gun. I’ll agree that government doesn’t always aid in that endeavor and often wastes its riches on fruitless endeavors, but it does serve and important service, even from an Objectivist’s viewpoint.

That said we are who we are, but those who are poor [for reasons other than laziness] are so through no fault of their own. Those are are industrious but unfortunate [anyone in Louisiana or Mississippi who couldn't afford insurance and just lost everything] do not deserve to die or suffer for reasons beyond their control. Those who have benefited are forced to aid those who have not benefited. Although this is forcing charity, I see it as justified force.

-nixon

I made my point on the basis of my (long) life experience, which I concede, proves nothing. Vice versa (the example of Bush proves zilch about the macro point). I think of going to college and seeing the med students working harder than anybody else and then interning and working horrible hours. Finally, one day they became ‘rich’, per Al Gore’s “winners of life’s lottery”. BS. They earned it.

robot,

Absolutely. Agree. We are all born with certain characteristics they may make it easier or harder to win in life. Or lead to varying levels of wealth. Likewise we lead our lives, consciously, in a way that greatly impacts the exploitation of those natural varying attributes. Still our society provides to all an education, a social safety net, and a free society in which to live and strive. It is no accident that, despite many other disadvantages, immigrants come here, work hard and succeed. Most of us, the huge majority of us – IMO, are what we are, rich or poor, smart or dumb, moral or immoral, due to our own decisions and actions. Not because of what the government does or doesn’t do for us. And importantly, the governemnt actually does nothing. It takes, at the point of gun in effect, from private citizens and gives to other private citizens. We have to have government and it is a good thing, but it is useful to always remember that point about government. I believe it is too easy for politicians to promise to give people things because they want or need it. But they are actually seizing those goods and services from producing, toiling citizens.

Dugger

It shouldn’t be surprising that I don’t disagree with you in most of what you said. I agree that most of those who are successful are so because they have worked and toiled and created their own opportunities. [Ignoring those with inherited "merit/value" for the moment.] My own parents worked hard from being -$10,000 when they first got married to being upper middle class today and it was because they both worked hard for what they have.

Part of my point was that they were given an education by the state [or by their parents, or relatives, or scholarship] at least through secondary education. True they certainly didn’t squander the opportunity the way so many others do, but the point is that they didn’t earn those initial opportunities. More importantly they were both able to excel through school because of hard work AND a natural intelligence that again they didn’t earn. They earned the knowledge, they earned the jobs, salaries, and promotions, but they didn’t earn the building blocks, the foundation, none of us do. We either win [or lose] the natural lottery and so in what sense do I get to call it fair that earned the latter opportunities fairly if I got an advantage at birth? Which leads to the question are we truly moral exempt from helping those who lose the natural lottery?

Pardon my $0.02.  given ample opportunities That may be the watershed difference between the left and right (don t know which you are). My life experience has been that 90% of  successful people 90% EARN what they have. They aren t given it. All of us, at times are given certain things. Some take advantage and work upward, others waste it. The successuful study harder at school, work extra hours, make smart life decisons, etc. There are failures due to bad luck and pure chance but he/she that puts forth an extra effort almost always gets an extra benefit – and vice versa.

Highly doubtful. And doesn’t explain our president. Hasn’t worked an honest day in his life. Had everything handed to him. Dodged meaningful military service, was a C student in college at Yale, was denied by the U. of Texas business school but somehow was accepted into the MBA program at Harvard, the most prestigious in the nation. His only jobs ever were given to him by his daddy and his daddy’s friends.

Now, President Clinton, that was a man who earned everything he got. He was a poor kid in rural Arkansas, his parents were divorced, he got through college and law school as a decent student. He’s done some things wrong in his life, but no one can take away his drive.

The first President Bush was the same way. Navy pilot in WWII, became wealthy of his own making, worked his way up through the government, serving stints as ambassador, eventually becoming a UN ambassador, vice president and president. That’s an honorable man, not a man who made his fortune off his daddy’s name.

Sure, there are people who are given fortune, and most of them work on their own to futher expand their wealth. George W. Bush is not one of them, and that’s why he doesn’t even represent the hard-working wealthy. He’s the president of the Paris Hiltons and Ivanka Trumps of this country.

No it’s not. How about in the 1920s and 1930s, when the KKK openly ran many states in the midwest and south? My state, Indiana, had a governor, lieutenant governor, and almost his entire administration as open members of the group. A majority of the state legislators at the time were members of the group.

How about Japanese internment during WWII. Please don’t tell me that that wasn’t a bad thing. What about slavery, McCarthyism, Reaganomics (greed), Jim Crow laws.

Don’t be blinded by the flag. America’s great, but it’s not perfect.

Pardon my $0.02. “given ample opportunities” That may be the watershed difference between the left and right (don’t know which you are). My life experience has been that 90% of ’successful’ people 90% EARN what they have. They aren’t given it. All of us, at times are given certain things. Some take advantage and work upward, others waste it. The successuful study harder at school, work extra hours, make smart life decisons, etc. There are failures due to bad luck and pure chance but he/she that puts forth an extra effort almost always gets an extra benefit – and vice versa.

Having said that, I have no problem with the government helping in New Orleans, Alabama and Missippi – a lot. But it should be recognized that that help is a product of the sweat and toil, primarily, of the achievers and doers – not the government.

Dugger

I agree with Frank_D to the point where one cannot force charity upon someone because then it isn’t charity, but Frank_D you seem to arguing for a flat income tax rather than the progressive graduated income tax. The idea of discrimination of the rich for being successful as being unjust is a strawman for two reasons.

1) The veil of ignorance: The idea in a free market system that those who are given ample opportunities [education, connections, experience] which are often bestowed upon people not because of their merit but rather their environment. [Their parents, their neighborhood, the wealth to move to someplace with more opportunity.] There is also the natural talent for success that has nothing to do with merit. One can be born brilliant without any effort. Because life becomes a system of random advantageous chance coupled with hard work, one’s successes should not be worth their effort alone. To make a reasonable system for those who ‘lose’ in such a game of chance a graduated income tax to pay for public programs and services is very reasonable. After all if you make an opulent amount of money what are the odds you would have that salary if you were half as smart or physically disfigured or born in the dangerous slums of a major city? The odds drastically decrease.

2) Personal Property Protection: Ignoring ‘fair’ arguments based on chance we can frame a similar argument based solely on fiscal means. If from a “free market” or objectivist ideal of government we determine that its sole purpose is to protect personal property rights [which you claim are being trampled on by a graduate income tax] and only personal property rights, the question become why should some with a low income and a small collection of wealth pay equally as someone with a large income and a large collection of wealth. If my net worth is the American average ~$80,000 and your net worth is $8,000,000 then to have us pay an equal tax is ridiculous. The loss of your 8 million in assets is significantly larger than my 80 thousand in assets. You rely on government protection to ensure your income and stand to lose more if that protection is nullified than I do, so why should you not have to pay more for that protection. If you own 80% of the system’s wealth and I only 20% it stands to reason that you should pay 80% of the cost to protect the wealth of the system.

While the objectivist [which is more or less what your suggesting] idea of an individualist society based on voluntary charity sounds great in theory the failing is the volunteer part. While a vast number of American’s have reacted generously to help those hit by Katrina there is no moral obligation to do so. The Salvation Army [a Christian organization] threated to pull out of NY if it legalized gay marriage. It is its right as a private organization to do so. If America [as a whole] decides that its services are necessary than America [as a whole] should pay to guarantee that such services are always provided to all American’s in need and not rely on a private organization which is not obligated to help anyone at anytime.

If aid groups decided to ignore New Orleans and not give aid and there was FEMA or National Guard there would be no way for those in need to demand aid, they would be left to rot. We should rely on the empathy of citizens because it can become apathy too quickly. Instead I’m more than comfortable having government be charged with the obligation of aiding all citizens in need.

It must be a very small handle

Labor is really the source of all wealth. That true Bunky? Guess what. Go plant an air seed. All the labor in the world and you get zilch. Try fueling your car with air. How bout a good air sandwich, hold the bread.

Semant,

fergeddaboutit. Reagan won the cold war. FDR WWII. Or, after you have rewritten the history books to eliminate any credit for FDR in WWII, we’ll talk about the winner of the cold war: Dutch Reagan. And the Soviet Union is alive and well?????!!!! What, on the planet Zontar? Did Brezhnev and Andropov get resuscitated and teleported ? You must be taking your Marxist history professors seriously!

Dugger , who polished up the handle of the big front door

http://tinyurl.com/cfkwb

Read any one you choose, but these are my favorites:

http://www.reason.com/links/links040505.shtml

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13777

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/herman200503220800.asp

I thought I answered you here: It is perfectly acceptable to asses and rely on the generosity of our wealthiest citizens. However, deciding for them how much of their earnings they should ( how much better can you eat? ) is where one runs afoul of a citizen s right  freedom of poperty .

To be more specific: Noblesse oblige is a personal feeling, not a government fiat. I don’t believe that people with great wealth have an objective responsibility to help the needy.
If I knew someone who was truly wealthy (I don’t), and they were not generous, I might nudge them in that direction.
But to “gang up” on the rich, and tax them excessively (I’m not saying that that is what’s happening now) is unfair.

George F. Kennan (the father of the containment policy–the policy the US used to win the Cold War) believed Reagan’s contributions were minimal to detrimental.

That’s because he was a vegetable too. lol

Your move.

No, my work is done here.