Wednesday, October 06, 2010

and THIS is why I don't like people

Have we all heard about THIS by now?

So, apparently Obion County, Tennessee, doesn't have it's own fire department. About 20 years ago, in lieu of getting one they made a deal with neighboring South Fulton to help them out... on a subscription basis: $75 annually gets you on a "list" of homes the South Fulton Fire Department is compelled to save. An "insurance premium" for a civil service, basically. Why not just pay into South Fulton's fund via a tax and make sure ALL of Obion County's homes were covered? Well, we're talking about the Heartland of America, remember, so you've probably answered your own question: A TAX!? What are you, a SOCIALIST!!?? ;)

So a week ago, a couple of houses in Obion County caught fire. The firefighters came out and promptly hosed-down the home that had "paid up." The one next door, where the fire had originated, was not paid up... and not only did they just let it burn - they didn't rescue the cat and three dogs who were trapped inside and burned to death.

Now... setting aside the fact that this kind of bullshit is EXACTLY why I gave up calling myself a "Libertarian" - I mean holy hell, people, I think even Galt's Gulch probably eventually got a fucking fire truck... though, for my "Conservative" readers, here's YOUR GUY defending the policy while his sidekick makes fun of the victim. Really. For fuck's sake... even the most rigidly anti-social-spending people will usually make the obvious exception for police and firefighting.

But setting aside all that, even IF you can "get behind" this whole a'la carte civil service thing... HOW exactly can anyone from the fire department upwards justify letting the animals die along with the house? Alright, he didn't pay to protect the HOUSE so they "had to" let that burn, okay, maybe... but the pets didn't have any "say" in whether or not the check got mailed!

What kind of human being is either staffing or running this fire department that doesn't help them anyway when the tools to do so are literally right at their disposal? Would they have also done nothing were the homeowner himself trapped inside? I almost don't want to know...

So the next time my tongue slips about vast stretches of "humanity" being basically worthless? THIS KIND OF CRAP is probably what I'm talking about.


Arty O said...

You're right Bob, it does make you lose hope for humanity.

I would like to point out that last year when my California home Santa Cruz county had a big fire, our neighboring county of Los Gaotos loaned us their trucks and personnel to help put out the blaze free of charge.

But I guess that is what you would expect from us godless, sodomite, granola munching Californians.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

sigh... can somebody tell me. What is it Americans finds so bad about Socialists?

I might as well come straight out and say it, I am a European active socialists.
Yeas, I am sometimes a part of campaigns for socialism and proud of it to.
Just yesterday I anticipated in a campaign against the cutting in our school money so people can have lower taxes. I want the taxes up and the social service improved. That's how I rule and damn proud of it thanks.

Mildra: The RPG Monk said...

$75 Fee or not, there is NO excuse to just let something die.... EVER.

Bob said...


Loathe as I am to "defend" the dumbest among my countrymen, it's kind of a history thing.

Most of Europe transitioned gradually from various degrees of "monarchy" into various degrees of "democratic-socialism" - with some of the Eastern Bloc making a brief but unpleasant "detour" into Soviet Communism along the way.

Americans - at least as long as we've had a national-identity - didn't have the same experience: We "opted out" of a monarchy to kick things off and have been a "make-it-up-as-you-go" Republic since.

As such, socialism of the "small-S" variety never really had much of a "run" here, at least not actually CALLING itself such, so the majority of folks here don't know to draw any distinction between that and outright Communism.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

honest. That is a thing I am pretty tired of, when I get into a political debate on internet forums and I just come out and say that I am a socialists. to many people tends to make that equal "communists." I have even been called a communist a bit to many times. worst is how degrading people makes it sound and it fells like they are suddenly detouring from the real debate we had going to pick on communists, which I am even not.
Are American schools not teaching the difference or something? how many American children are aware that most European country are socialistic countries and still work pretty much as US in the everyday life, that we have cars, free will and nice houses to, despite having a socialistic government. It just puzzles me. What are the every day common people thinking about us over there. And what are you teaching kids in school

Sarge said...

Unfortunately, "socialist" is a dirty word here in America for no good reason. ("The democratss are trying to socialize medicare!" is my favorite misuse).

Your other mistake is getting into political debates on internet forums.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...


haha, lol. yeah I quite agree, debating on internet forums is never ever a good idea, it just sort of happens. probably also because I am a opinionated person and sometimes I get pissed when ignorant people degrades stuff they simple aren't right about.

Calling people who takes abortions soul less, saying that Christianity is the answer to everything, and referring mental handicapped people to people who is entertained by a plastic coloured key chain sparks my temper quite a bit. fortunately I am able to take trash without crying about it.

Speaking of Social care, god I pissed a lot of people off with that as I spend a good week wishing a lot of Americans congratulation. And it amused me how many people who were not happy about it at all.

Of cause, in that issue I have no right to say what is right and what is wrong, that is up to opinion. I just personally find it to be a good thing.

MAHistorian said...


Although I do not agree with all of your statements, I absolutely agree with your sense of anger towards people who say mean and rude comments about mentally handicap people.

In addition, I agree with your position on providing social care, especially for those people, who are mentally and physically handicap, here, in the United, States and elsewhere, in the world.

Finally, I, personally, find that providing social care and yes, even providing "Socialist Medicare," for others, to be a good act.

beyrob said...

No matter how you slice it this fucking behavior is discusting. This is a republican wet dream though where everything is privitized! Oh you didn't pay your fee well sad day for you, guesss grandma dies in fire!

Joseph Valencia said...

You're being very disingenuous in your use of the word "Libertarian," Bob. The firefighting "service" you're railing against isn't a private business; it's one town selling the use of their tax-funded firefighters to another town. Since South Fulton isn't a business, you can probably bet that the people who should be held accountable for this debacle (the mayor et al) are going to get away scot free. It'd be interesting to hear what the citizens of South Fulton think about the actions (or should I say inaction?) of their city employees? Do they even know about this? Did they vote on it?

Bob said...

Most American schoolchildren will never hear the words "socialist" or "capitalist" in a history class unless it was part of a country's name. Otherwise, you hear that in an economics class, which not everyone takes.

Part of it is the fairly rapid pace at which our government "switches gears" - so we tend to think of economic-policy in fragmented eras and specific programs. Everyone remembers "The New Deal" and most are still pretty fond of it, along with Social Security, Medicare, etc; but they'd never consider them "socialist" concepts even if that's basically what they are - and since history generally wants us to remember those things fondly, it's not about the correct us on that point.

Bob said...


That's sort of my point, though: Absolute-Libertarianism (and/or Objectivism) would basically make EVERYTHING a private business - up to and including civil-services like this. My point is, this is sort of a "micro-model" of how that just wouldn't work out.

Joseph Valencia said...

This example doesn't work as a micro-model, though, because the firefighters in question are State employees.

Arman said...

At the risk of sounding like a cold hearted bastard, I'm not quite sure why anybody by the gentlemen who didn't pay the fee should be blamed. He consciously chose not to protect his home, and he suffered the consequence. The death of his pets is a tragedy...but not a crime.

And lets be frank here, if you knew that the fire department would save your house regardless of paying the fee....would you pay it?

So what's the solution? Continue the fee system, but extend universal fire protection with a fine. Simply put: If you're house is on fire and you didn't pay the fee, the Fire department will put it out, but you're going to be fined several thousand dollars. There. Everyone is happy.

Arman said...

At the risk of sounding like a cold hearted bastard, I'm not quite sure why anybody by the gentlemen who didn't pay the fee should be blamed. He consciously chose not to protect his home, and he suffered the consequence. The death of his pets is a tragedy...but not a crime.

And lets be frank here, if you knew that the fire department would save your house regardless of paying the fee....would you pay it?

So what's the solution? Continue the fee system, but extend universal fire protection with a fine. Simply put: If your house is on fire and you didn't pay the fee, the fire department will put it out, but you're going to be fined several thousand dollars. There. Everyone is happy.

Anonymous said...

There's one part of the story that illustrates the folly of subscription-based fire coverage, and it's not the pets: it's the fact that the fire spread to another house. That's why fire safety and fire-fighting are community concerns. The neighbor, who DID pay for government fire protection, suffered because the government refused to do something about the house next door. Even if they eventually send fire trucks, the smoke and water damage to nearby properties is enormous.

That said, even a "true" Libertarian freemarket fire-fighting service would be better than the arrangement this county had. At least a business would have the sense to take on a highly motivated customer whose house is currently burning (for the cost of sending firefighters, which is surely much more than $75).

Timothy said...

Weird, when I read this the first thing I thought wasn't "Free people paying for what they want". It was "This sounds like a protection racket."

For those who don't know, a "protection racket" is when a criminal gang approaches something like a business and says "pay us a monthly free or we burn your place down".

Keith said...


I think what bobbaman says pretty much sums up why it should be a civil service and it’s a bad idea to have this kind of “coverage”. It could potentially damage other houses/people/pets. How about we make a compromise, the fire department puts out every house that is on fire, but if they didn’t pay the fireman could go in and take anything the wanted and possibly rough up the place a little. I mean they do have axes.

CrunchyEmpanada said...

Oh Bob, you scamp.

Heaven forbid people want to be ideologically consistent of all things. Actually having a strong libertarian belief means you are compelled to accept this, unless you're in fact a whiny baby who can't handle having consistent viewpoints and opinions that actually cohere with each other. In that case you don't have any meaningful opinions, and all you're doing is spouting pleasing sentences that make you feel good.

Those "rigidly anti-social-spending people" who do make the exception for police and fire-fighting? They aren't to be taken seriously for the very reason that they're making an exception! There's nothing "obvious" about those two things. If somebody came up and said "I make the obvious exception for health-care and orphanages" it has the same amount of reasoning for the exception as police and fire-fighting. Namely, none. Police and Fire-fighting is just something that our culture has always had be a public service, so we don't want to part with that.

Second on my list of things I want to say, is that there's nothing obviously wrong with the "pay as you go, turn it all into a private business" sort of thing. It's different. It's not palatable to the average person. But it's not conceptually problematic, no more than say, small-village communism.

And it's easy to justify letting the animals die. Animals aren't people. To that affect, they're just fancy property that happens to be alive, and whom the owners have a high attachment to, and (with cats and dogs) our culture happens to put a lot of stock into as companion creatures. If this family had a large amount of cultured bacteria that they loved, I really doubt you'd give a shit that that bacteria burned to death.

Arman said...


Agreed. As I said, universal coverage with penalties for not paying the annual fee. You can go ahead and not pay, but you risk a substantially larger payment if your house catches on fire. Don't think we neccesarly have to resort to axes though ;p

To the gentlemen comparing this to a protection racket, I'd simply like to point out that that is an absurd comparison.

Joseph Valencia said...

I'm not going to defend what South Fulton is doing. It's clear that this whole thing is a debacle, and it's also the product of seedy bureaucrats looking to get some extra tax dollars for their district/whatever. The citizens of both these cities need to vote their scumbag leaders out of office.

Bobby said...

Dear god, that's terrible. Such a waste, and such a dumb way of going about it.

@ Arman- you are wrong because these aren't meant to be, nor are they, privatized companies. By paying taxes, we are already paying for that service. That the county was foolish and stupid enough to not get their own FD is something else altogether, but the fact that the firefigthers REFUSED to do their jobs is beyond comprehension.

Axle said...

Well crazy Mr. Beck is right that if they put out the fire, then other people would stop paying the fee, but that just means it's a bad fucking system. A firefighter that doesn't put a fire out for any reason is a bad firefighter.

Anonymous said...

Oh CrunchyEmpanada, you scamp.

Heaven forbid people want to be morally or ethically responsible in all things. Actually having a strong humanistic belief means you are compelled to bend the rules when they absolutely have to, unless you're a troll who can't handle interacting with other people and having opinions that actually survive in the real world. In that case, you don't have any meaningful opinions, and all you're doing is spouting flamebaiting sentences that make you feel good.

Bob said...


"Ideological Consistency" is basically incompatible with life in a random, chaotic world - which is the world we have. Every ideogically "pure" or "consistent" person I know has one thing in common: They're bad people.

There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain a code or live as close as humanly possible to a set of ideals... but holding to them even if the face of preventable harm to you or to some other innocent is, I'm sorry, to mean evidence of a kind of mental defect. There's "a code," and there's psychological self-mutilation.

And either way, the question of the political/economic system in question is the lesser of the two concerns, for me anyway. I'm more struck by the fact that - fee or no fee - the guys with the tools to save his pets from burning to death stood by and let it happen. They had axes, hoses, protective gear - fine, don't save the house, but the living things inside it? Either the firefighters themselves are inhumanly heartless, or (more likely) they know their superiors would have been. Neither option is preferable.

As for your apparent indifference to the animals in this particular equation, well... see above re: ideologically-"consistent" people - don't wanna be mean, but I call `em as I see `em...

tyra menendez said...

This kind of stuff is why pure Libertarianism is a romantic fairytale; it's an extreme, the opposite end being communism. Neither actually works, in real life, in part, because of simple human nature.

Arman said...


I'm assuming that instead of levying a tax they had a fee instead. If they had both a tax and fee...well then...that's just stupid.

Though I don't see any particular issue with a Private Fire Department in concept.

Anonymous said...

@Bob's comment to Crunchy: took the words right out of my mouth.

@Sofie: Socialism is looked at as Communism here, and full Communism is feared by a lot of Americans. I actually remember arguing for several hours with my mom that two were not one and the same. We got nowhere. The other argument I would have is that social services can be taken too far in some areas (rather than balanced with a good state or national budget) and people can get irritated at those expenses. It's like a family that has to pay dues for their neighborhood but doesn't see the improvements they want. They're going to get irritated. Couple that with anxiety and fear of change and you have a mess.

As for this whole firefighting mess, what a load of bull. I am proud to say I have Libertarian beliefs and agree with many of their ideas and this is just wrong. I can't even imagine a firefighter doing nothing as a home with pets inside burned to the ground.

dkh said...


If you've not heard of it, look up Manifest Destiny. It's basically the concept that God wanted us to march from one sea to the other. America as a whole hasn't really been on the losing end of things. We managed to survive a civil war and come out stronger, we took the attacks on Pearl Harbor and ground the Japanese military into the ground (or, well, sea). We're flabbergasted when something like the September 11 attacks happen because, well, we're America. That stuff happens in Spain or something, y'know, one of those little countries in Europe.

We don't look at ourselves as a nation. We look at ourselves as that big ass chunk of land on the map that broke free from England and united because man was meant to be free.

We like SUVs and thinking that if there weren't taxes and child labor laws this would be a utopia. In many aspects we're not terribly bright.

CrunchyEmpanada said...

I completely disagree that ideological consistency is incompatible with life. We also don't live in a random chaotic world. It may seem that way at times, but only because we either don't see to the reasons, or don't care to because the affects are more important to us than the whys. Either way, calling our world "random and chaotic" is an insult to the world.

Second, when you say "they're bad people" all you really mean is they make you feel bad. This is exactly that wishy-washy crap I was referring to. Doing the right thing, and doing what makes you feel good are sometimes going to be different. You don't have to like all the minute consequences of your beliefs, but if you stick by them you're a "better" person than the person who just sways here and there by the whims of whatever feels right at the time.

Obviously you only feel the way you do because you, at least in this case (lord knows if I pushed you you wouldn't be consistent in this view), think preventing harm to living things is more important than holding on to lofty ideals of hardcore libertarianism. Fine by me if you want to think that way, but you have no real reason to push these views as more correct than anything else.

I'm not even a libertarian Bob. I personally would have tried to to those animals because I like animals. But I'm not about to kid myself into thinking that it's out of some moral respect for life that over-rides other economic and political concerns. Because I wouldn't bother to save those hypothetical bacteria cultures you conveniently ignored.

CrunchyEmpanada said...

I messed up that last comment. I meant to say "...would have tried to save those animals..." not "tried to to those animals."

Bob said...


We're getting into esoterics here - the world, at least as far as humans are able to percieve it - is random and chaotic. Things happen without much rhyme or reason, and if they're bad things you either endure them and survive or don't and die. Random mutation and all that.

Now if your a religious or spiritual person to some degree, maybe YOU see a "higher purpose" that makes things non-random. That's fine, but I don't. So far as I can see, adopting a specific ideology means suffering myself or causing others to suffer based on some arbitrary set of "rules" - I don't do that. I survive.

CrunchyEmpanada said...

That first statement doesn't seem to be relevant to anything.

The second one is just wrong. Adopting an ideology is to help prevent as much suffering as possible. People don't become libertarians or communists because they think it'll cause suffering for themselves and/or others. They do it because they think it'll prevent it. And you say such rules are "arbitrary" but they aren't.

What's "arbitrary" is the feel good crap that comes from a lack of any set of rules.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...


I am so sorry if I come off as being down right rude.
But that have always amused me, I have often wondered how many American children knows that Jews are according the the bible gods selected people and Israel of all places, the holy selected country.
America is never mentioned or heard of, of cause that would be because they had no idea it existed back then, but still.

And.. it's not like Terror attacks is like an everyday occurrence in Europe.. I mean. "That's something that happens like in Spain and places." wait what? when?? I mean the last big thing we had was the separation of Germany and the fall of the great wall in Berlin and that's 20 years ago. We don't have terrorists attack any more in Europe than in the US, you need to stick your antlers out to the western countries, like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and so ford. Europe is not even close. somebody made it sound like at least one terrorist attack happens once a month.. it doesn't, we were just as shocked by the bomb in the London Subways as you were at the nine eleventh attack.

dkh said...


Peace. I was being sarcastic. My point was that Americans feel a sense of invulnerability. Manifest Destiny was a real concept, and we really do think of ourselves as beyond harm. Terrorist attacks in Europe are a single example. The massive Earthquakes or tidal waves that hit other nations? We have some disasters ourselves, but we have a great deal of trouble acknowledging them. It's a little dramatic to say it this way, but America was born in fire and it's had a lot of trouble figuring out how to cool off.

This article by Monica Crowley is a personal favorite. It's stupid and shows an exceptional lack of appreciation for history, but it makes me laugh every time. It demonstrates a lot of American thought.

dkh said...


I read a review years ago. If I recall correctly, it was for the PC game Disciples II and it was on, of all sites, Penny Arcade. As I recall, it said that chess is described as a game of strategy for no reason other than that the human mind can't conceive of all possible outcomes at once and, as such, has to rely on tactics and gambits within possibility. If the mind was capable of holding all possibilities in check, it would simply play a game of percentages: "what are the paths that give me the most options to win, and what are the odds that my opponent will play into this?"

I have to agree with Bob on the issue of ideological consistency and bad people, but perhaps my own take may shed some light on this. I don't think these people are bad because they truly stick to a philosophy, I think they're bad because they're not smart enough to be truly consistent - NONE of us are. It's impossible to fashion a truly just world and work towards it. The exceptional man will be stifled in a Communist utopia. The hard working blue collar shmoe will be ground into dust under the wheels of Taggart Transcontinental. And the practical will always be haunted by the crimes in Omelas.

The crime of the consistent is hubris.

Joseph Valencia said...

The notion that the world is "random and chaotic" is not only nihilistic and anti-knowledge, but it's also not entirely true. Actually, it's a perception of the universe that's common among those who desperately cling to a "higher purpose." Religion is a product of ignorance, and ignorant people perceive the world as incomprehensible, which is why they need fantasies such as the "afterlife." The whole point of atheism isn't to embrace a cruel and hopeless existence, but to embrace the realization that this existence can be understood and rendered less cruel.

PotRoast said...


That's the exact opposite of what I usually hear from people that believe there is a higher purpose. The world is not chaotic because God has made order. Understanding the universe at its heart means discovering the rules God created that govern it. Understanding Gods rules means being closer to God.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...



Brilliant article, it kind of made me laugh.
Well to be honest, I kind of have the sense that a lot more shit is going in in the US than Europe. and that is not meant as a bad thing against Americans, just that the country is more unfortunate and a bigger target for terrorists plus all the other things.
The biggest recent thing to happen is that my own country, Denmark, was releasing some "Muhammed" caricature drawings, and that pissed enough Muslims off to that they started threatening the news paper and the artist on his life, plus of cause the government people who supported the drawings with the reasoning that it's about the right of free speech.. and then the news paper was dim enough to keep reprinting them, I mean that is just provocation! and then there have been several more death threats but non carried out. And as guns isn't even legal in most European countries, that sort of cuts down the danger considerable too.. again I am not saying your idiots for not abandoning guns, cause I can see the issues of doing it in a country where they already are integrated. I am just saying that's how it is here.
And from our stand point.. everything is bigger in the US and smaller here, Everything!

Joseph Valencia said...


There are certainly those who project their God upon the natural universe, and I'm not targetting them. I'm talking about the anti-science types who can't function in a world that doesn't have an afterlife. I know people like that, and they're typically the ones to talk shit about atheism. (In their eyes, the alternative to religion is to embrace a terrible, meaningless secular existence.) People who talk about understanding the universe in terms of understanding God are generally open-minded and unknowingly trying to transcend their mystic beliefs, I think.

MAHistorian said...


Even though, I do somewhat agree, with you, about so-called religious people, who are anti-science, I do not agree that the vast majority, of religious people, who are open-minded, seek to transcend their mystic beliefs because many of them, including myself, believe that some form of external justice, exist, in the universe. As Dr. Martin Luther King said that the “arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” Therefore, I would suggest that this quote, from Dr. King showed his mystic belief, in justice, which I shared, too, and I hope that this belief is shared, by the majority of religious and non-religious people, including atheists, believe, in some form of external justice.

tyra menendez said...

What's the psychological term that describes when someone clings to a belief, more strongly, when shown evidence that contradicts that belief?

External justice? The universe does not work that way.

dkh said...


CrunchyEmpanada said...


"If the mind was capable of holding all possibilities in check, it would simply play a game of percentages: 'what are the paths that give me the most options to win, and what are the odds that my opponent will play into this?'"

In other words it remains a strategy game and one is just more likely to make good movements. Basically all games are, down to their fundamentals, games of probabilities and statistics. I really don't see any relevance.

People who try to be consistent will undoubtedly fail, but the point is they try. People who go around making exceptions aren't even trying. They are in affect not doing anything. They are people who have no real ideals. They just mash together the sorts of things that make them feel good, without concern for justifications or reasons. What other reason is there, really, for making the exception for "police and firemen" other than "having police and firemen makes me feel good because I've always had public police and firemen."

As to your claims of a just world in a Communist utopia or in Taggart Transcontinental, these ideologies have beliefs on what "Justice" actually is, and based on these beliefs it is not unjust for the exceptional man to be stifled, or the shmoe to be trampled on. Are the beliefs on justice correct? I don't know, but at least there's an attempt made to define justice and explain why it is the way it is, and an attempt to build a society around it. Without that, a person isn't really saying anything when they call something "unjust."

Joe said...

Y'know, I still don't understand how the US government can sink over 25% of public funds into the military and bailing out megacorporations, almost double that into social security and Medicare, and still pull out the torches and pitchforks anytime someone mentions the word "socialism".

Timothy said...

Hypothetical question.

Let's say you built a house and didn't pay the fee, but in this house you put a giant garden in the basement, not illegal plants, just ones that can burn very well, for a long long time. Then you light the fireplace, and leave....entirely. You arson your own house.

Does the fire department put it out, or do they let it burn, seeing how you set it up that in the end, unless they put it out, the fire WILL spread, and WILL level the whole neighborhood.

I mean people seriously, if you want to 100% eliminate a spreading problem you need to get rid of the source. That sink isn't going to empty fully if the tap is still running at max, even if the drain is open.

Arman said...

@ Joe

Who is pulling out the torches and pitchforks, again? The U.S Government, or did you mean the American people?

The Military is a legitimate function of government. The rest of the items on your list: not quite.

MAHistorian said...


First, I think Joe means that the American people or rather a certain number, of the American people, who are pulling out the torches and pitchforks against the perception that U.S. Government is promoting and engaging, “socialism.”

Second, I do agree with your statement that the military is a legitimate function of government, but I disagree, with your statement about Joe’s list of the federal government bailing out corporations and funding social welfare programs is not a legitimate function of government.

Third, in my view, funding social welfare programs is a legitimate function, of any government, on this planet because adding the poor, the disable, and elderly, is act, of social justice and is permitted, in the United States Constitution.

Forth, the Preamble, of the United States Constitution, and, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes … [and provides] for … [the] general Welfare of the United States,” promotes and gives constitutional sanction, to a General Welfare Cause, and gives legal and constitutional permission, for Congress, to pass federal legislation, to create, social welfare programs.

Fifth, base, on this evidence, why are social welfare programs are not quite a legitimate function of government?

Finally, I shall, address Tyra’s first question, to my previous post, and the answer that dkh gave, about the definition, for Tyra’s first question.

How am I rejecting, a disconfirmation, of my belief, in external justice? What is your evidence or proof Tyra that I am being a cognitive dissonance individual, about believing, in external justice?

Arman said...

First of all I would like to start by saying that as a conservative I feel that the use of the term "socialist" to describe the Democrat party is not useful in this current day and age, and I would prefer it to stop. Mostly this comes from the fact that the Dems are more for Big State leftism than full blown European Socialism (though many want to go closer in the direction). Frankly, most people don't know what a socialist is, and a disturbing amount of people have no problem with there's really no point in continuing to use the term.

(Though I will admit that more and more I'm finding that most Democrats have little in difference with socialists. Call it Marx-lite I guess.)

Now to the welfare thing. I can say with full confidence that the 10% of my earnings that I give to my church probably does more to help the poor in America than all the money the state rips from my paycheck every week, every month, every year.

Regarding the Preamble. I would like to point out that the Preamble grants no powers to the government at all. The Articles, do. The Preamble is just an intro paragraph....a "Why" to the Constitution's "How". In addition, when the framers used the words "General Welfare", they weren't talking about welfare checks. They were summing up everything mentioned prior: Justice, Tranquility, and Common Defense. These things promote the general welfare. You will find in the articles powers given to the government to promote justice, tranquility and defense. Nothing in the actual articles about welfare checks.

Hope that answers your question.