Marxism

Actually, it was still his definition in 1913. But sure, if you want to insist that you're nearly two centuries out of date, rather than one, feel free. And what politics has become is not what it was in 1828. Various things have happened in between ... the abolition of slavery comes to mind. And I believe that women get to vote nowadays.

You can say to yourself: "Hey, how likely is it that I'm the only person who lives in the real world, and everyone else is delusional? Could it possibly be that it's the other way round?"

Ok, I can accept that. Can you define what you mean by "direct welfare" and where this applies i.e. concrete examples.Also, we the people are in essense the government. We determine what kind of government we want to be governed by and who represents our interests. Therefore when you say that people "steal from the government" in essense we are stealing from ourselves are we not?As far as I knew we were still a constitutional democratic republic in which we choose our elected representatives. If you do not like how we are spending our money than by all means elect representatives that you think reflect your values and encourage others to do likewise.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

The simplest way to link to nwr's post 237 is to simply type [msg=-237], which yields Message 237. The minus sign keeps it from including the message title in the link. If you want the title too then just leave out the minus sign and you'll get this: Message 237.--Percy

I think Faith understands that the stealing she's talking about isn't against the law because at one point she did say that the laws being broken were moral, not legal.--Percy

I guess I have yet to hear her explain in detail what this "stealing" actually is. All I have heard are generalities i.e. "direct welfare", whatever that means.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

It would only be true for the context of EvC and similar venues that I'm the only one who lives in the real world/ thinks as I do. There are many places on the web and in the world that I can go where I'm just one of many who believe as I do. It does seem to be true, however, that what I'm calling this Wonderland world has been growing over the decades and didn't used to occupy so much of the mental climate in general as it does now.I really do feel immensely liberated since nwr's post that explained something about the chasm between our different philosophical assumptions.I haven't been sure if this is best described as the clash between modernism and postmodernism but I think it's a place to start. I'm not a postmodernist but I think the term may describe many of the rest of you here. I believe in absolutes, in absolute truth, and in absolute morality. People used to believe this way even if they weren't religious. Now it's all relative. That seems to be the case with most of you here.You may all prefer to go on insisting I need to see things your way or contemptuously dismissing me because I don't, because in your minds you're right and I'm wrong, and not only wrong, but outrageously indefensibly wrong. Of course the same is true of my view of your beliefs but there are more of you than there are of me here so you can win the battle on that ground alone.In any case for me it's very helpful to recognize this philosophical divide and if I stay here much longer I want to try to cut down on the abrasiveness if I can, to which I've contributed as much as any of you.

the majority of the free western world don't have as much problems with these things as we seem to in this country.....Maybe part of our population isn't living in the real world and are falling for a delusion created by the large corporations who own all media outlets? Just an idea....? We should explore all ideas

I simply meant by the term "direct" the direct putting of money in one pocket that came out of another, without anything being given back to the first person in exchange. If the money goes to pay for something then it's not being stolen.Rather than, say, social security or unemployment insurance into which we pay something so we are getting back at least theoretically something that we put in.That's why I used the word "direct" to distinguish between social programs that in some sense give back what is taken from us to put into them. I don't think they're the best policy either but they can be distinguished from DIRECT removal of money from one person to hand it over to another with no giving back whatever.The basic question is whether there is an overarching morality to which the government is subject just as any human being is. Why if we object to stealing by human beings don't we object to stealing by the government? Why do we allow government to make laws that give it permission to steal but tell us we can't call it stealing because they made a law saying it isn't?Stealing, again, meaning taking from one to give to another. Give. Not pay, give. Nothing is being given back so money that BELONGS to one citizen is being STOLEN by the government, not to pay for anything the government does for us, but simply STOLEN, to give to other people.I'm exhausted trying to explain this. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, I thought that you'd have to snivel out this nonsense eventually.No, the reason that people laugh at your insanity is not because they're posters on EvC, it's because they're sane.You can put this to the test. Ask the next ten people that you meet the following question: Let me know if anyone says yes.

Unfortunately "the people" becomes a fiction the government just co-opts to itself when it acts independently of the people. By simply claiming that definition of themselves they can do anything they like without consulting the people at all while saying they're acting by and for the people even if it means sending half of us to a concentration camp. We can't deal with these things with mere words. We have to deal with the realities. I'm not quite sure if this is what I'm saying or not. It may be. Welfare isn't against the law so according to the law and most everyone here it's not stealing, but it IS stealing by any natural definition of stealing. If that's what you meant I meant, OK.

Does postmodernism decree that you must always treat people who disagree with you uncivilly? It wouldn't matter what people said about this. People can be wrong. What matters is the absolute principle involved.The true answer depends on whether the law can commit the crime/sin of stealing.I say it can and does. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, indeed, I can understand how that would be exhausting.The reason that it is so exhausting, is that what you are trying to explain is a fabricated myth. And it is hard to explain such myths, because people keep asking for actual evidence and there isn't any.

I don't think they're acting independently.... I do believe they either act on people or act on the large amounts of money paid to them for campaignsPerhaps the ones who act for the people are the ones who depend on private individual campaigns? The ones who don't depend on corporate funding ? The second one has become far more common in the past few decades.Maybe the government isn't the problem but the people who are buying it are? I honestly would like your thoughts on this.Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Do you really believe that nwr? You really believe that what I'm saying I'm making up?