"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:WtU1c.46160$PR3.957908@attbi_s03...

By what logic is it their RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have someone
responsible
for some else without alievating the individuals responsibility for
themself.

Why? Everything is not at the extreme. I'm responsible for my wife. She is
responsible for me. We are both still responsible for ourselves. My social
responsibility to help, within the confines of my ability,

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." And you
wonder why we stereotype liberals as socialists? Get a clue, man!!

does not
allieviate anyone's responsibility for themselves.

Sure it does.
In fact, I'd argue it
increases their responsibility to make something out of the gifts they
have
received,

Unless you can enforce that it's a non-sequitur.

as I felt obligated to do with gifts I received in my lifetime.

Again, the DUTY is the part that is patently collectivist/socialist.



Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence the
extensive charitable contribution structure.

You're conflating altruism (duty) with benevolence (good hearted). Every
tyrant of recent history preached altruism.

There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word or
concept of duty.

You might look up Augusta Comte, the guy who coined the phrase. Altruism
_IS_ DUTY.

But assuming you are just misusing the word,

Most definitely I'm not.

I still don't
get your point. President Bush senior talked of "a thousand points of
light". Was he a tyrant. Sorry - you are losing me here.

Actually, he was. And his kids BS about Compassionate Conservatism" is a
sick joke. Once again so it sinks in; FORCED charity is neither charity, nor
compassionate.





Perhaps I lean toward more
redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to
live
in
a society where we ignore hardship.

You're version is charity at gun point...coercive. That's sick because
it's
a complete inversion.



I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300
employees
over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a
comfortable
retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year
when
I
found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well
worth
it
for the privilege of living in the USA.

You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

It's both a right and a priviledge. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's perhaps the perfect example of a contradiction.

Once again, you need to check the dictionary. There is nothing
contradictory
about these terms.

You better look up some words yourself: A right cannot be revoked, a
priviledge is GRANTED by the good graces of the state. Another aspect of
liberalism is _statism_. Again, you wonder where we get the stereotype?

And citizenship is perhaps the perfect example of their
mutual applicability. In a single sentence, it is my priviledge to have
the
rights of American citizenship.

Jeezmineez!! Where the hell do your dredge up this stuff? In 1850, Horace
Mann, in establishing the public school system in the US under the Prussian
model said that the purpose of public schools is to create good subjects --
evidently you are a prime example.




For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as
anti-business
and
anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.

Well, the evidence is sure strong enough.

What evidence? This is the stereotype I was referring to.

Geez...how much time and bandwdith do you have for examples?



You may look up George McGovern's quote about the failure of his
business
after retiring from the Senate -- something about "If I'd known then
what
I
know now, my voting records would have been much different."

George McGovern is a great example. He was a patriotic war hero and
clearly
a liberal. His realization that the governmental burdens on small
businesses
were too extensive came, unfortunately, too late in his life for his
voting
to help the problem. I disliked many government intrusions on my
business.

Now from that...jump off on a tangent to -

I'm sorry you can't make the conceptual leap from sentence to sentence.
Perhaps if you had spent more time in public school ;-)

Hmm...going from liberal to McGovern's war record..that teach CONTEXT in
public school?

And public schools (see notes about Horace Mann) decidedly DO NOT teach
conceptualization or abstraction. Again, you validate my points. Which is
why I attended private schools for 14 of my 18 years in schools.



This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican
rule.
Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in
streamlining
the
government/business relationship.

There should not BE a government/business relationship...anymore than
there
should be a religion/government relationship, or a education/government
relationship.

Well, that's an interesting fantasy land you're proposing, but I live in
the
United States.

Is that your right, or a privlidge?

For better or worse, there are constructs and institutions
that are hundreds of years old.

An idea isn't good because is OLD anymore than it's good because it's NEW.
Didn't they teach THAT in public schools?

Business and government are intertwined.

They're not supposed to be. When they are, it's called fascism or socialism.
(There's that stereotype again).


Education is part of the government's responsibility.

Only for indoctrination (See Horace Mann part again).

You can rail against
it all you'd like, but it is kind of like street person standing on the
soapbox in Times Square. While it may be interesting for a passing moment,
mostly it is ignored and, in the end, of little value.

Let's see:
False Dilemma http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm

Begging the quetion http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm

Argumentum ad populum (Popularity)
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm




You're doing a fine job of upholding the stereotype you deride,
particularly
with your equivocating.


I think I was pretty careful in this whole thread not to deride anyone,
other than a few of your particularly unenlightened comments.

Enlightenment to you means...what? You commit damn every fallacy available
and YOU claim to be "enlightened"? For one thing, modern liberalism is
highly steeped in "Post-Modernism" which utterly DENIES intellect, reason,
enlightenment...

Your every phrase is a tenant of Marxism, and you have to gall to bitch
about liberals being stereotyped as socialists?

Michael, in light of the above, I rest my case and conclude that the
stereotype not only fits, but, if anything, it's an understatement.