Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Republican (or Libertarian) party philosophy

Expand Messages
  • Jon Roland
    A public philosophy may not be persuasive. Cruel realty seldom is. I do not expect anyone to agree with me. I am only trying to warn the few that will listen
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 10, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      A public philosophy may not be persuasive. Cruel realty seldom is. I do
      not expect anyone to agree with me. I am only trying to warn the few
      that will listen to prepare for what is coming, so that we might salvage
      something from it. Within a few years most of the people on this list
      are probably going to be dead of starvation, disease, or violence. It
      didn't have to happen. It is possible to at least preserve the
      essentials of our civilization for a better day. But it is too late for
      most of us.

      The "asteroid" is coming, and it is our own overconsumption. We are way
      past saving the ship. It is now lifeboats and anything we can cling to
      that might float. But there are no rescue ships, and no nearby shore.

      I have seen the future and it all looks like Somalia, as far as the eye
      can see.

      And we will all go together when we go,
      Ev'ry Hottentot, and ev'ry Eskimo. ...
      With complete participation
      In that grand incineration. ...
      Yes we all will go together when we go.
      -- Tom Lehrer, lyrics to song
      <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs>


      On 01/10/2011 02:42 PM, John Denvir wrote:
      > Jon,
      >
      > Thanks so much for your reply. I must say that while many of the
      > comments on this list are excellent, in my opinion none match yours
      > for either erudition or passion.
      > I posed my question because I wondered whether anyone would be willing
      > to extend the logic of "you deserve what you earn-- and no more" to
      > its rather bleak logical conclusions. I see now that you at least are
      > willing to do that, and I must confess admiration for how you stick
      > to your principles. But, I must add that I would also argue that your
      > personal story illustrates that the core idea of "you are only what
      > you earn" is much too narrow an intellectual base for a persuasive
      > public philosophy.
      >
      > John
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:46:36 -0600
      > From: jon.roland@...
      > To: jfdenvir@...
      > CC: LAWCOURT-L@...
      > Subject: Re: Republican party philosophy
      >
      > The same thing that happens throughout history and in almost every
      > country in the long run. Besides being unconstitutional,
      > redistribution of wealth is unsustainable. Contrary to the beliefs of
      > many progressives, we have not repealed the laws of economics or ended
      > scarcity. Entitlements will end. The only question is whether they
      > will take the world economy down with them.
      >
      > So what will happen to the needy? Not as much as progressives seem to
      > think. Before there were government subsidies, people got by, just as
      > they do in most countries that don't have them. Members of the
      > community who could, looked after those in need, and almost no one
      > starved or froze in the dark. They might not have gotten expensive
      > medical care, but no one has a "right" to unlimited medical care
      > regardless of the cost. Perhaps when medical technology has advanced
      > to the point where any morbidity can be cured by a single low-cost
      > pill that can restore one to youthful good health, we can talk about
      > providing it to all. Until then, people need to enjoy youth and good
      > health while it lasts, and avoid unhealthy choices.
      >
      > We simply must stop spending so much on medical care and on pensions
      > that weren't earned by wise investing. Our scarce medical resources
      > need to be going to R&D, not expensive treatment, except insofar as
      > treatment is pursuant to R&D.
      >
      > Lest this seem like the words of a heartless person, I should point
      > out that I live on a small pension that doesn't cover rent, and am
      > only alive to post this message because of several expensive heart and
      > other operations that were paid for by the government. I accept
      > gratefully, but not with approval. For the sake of posterity, people
      > like me need to be left to die. Until this society wises up to that,
      > however, I will try to contribute what I can to justify my consumption
      > of resources. Some say I already do, but almost no one is paying for
      > what I do. The money is for violating the Constitution, not for
      > defending it.
      >
      > On 01/06/2011 05:28 PM, John Denvir wrote:
      >
      > My question ( and it is a question) is what happens under this view to people
      > that (for whatever reason) have failed to offer enough services to earn
      > themselves a dignified retirement. Do we provide them a state-financed
      > pension ( therefore sharing the wealth) or do nothing, thereby sending a moral
      > warnng to the next generation but also creating a good deal of suffering?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -- Jon
      >
      >

      --

      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Constitution Society http://constitution.org
      2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 Austin, TX 78757
      512/299-5001 jon.roland@...
      ----------------------------------------------------------



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.