"Common Good"? Hogwash.

[Bob Hubbard]

Believing the propaganda about "The Greater Good" and "Your Responsibility for taking Care of the Less Fortunate" is crazy. Buy into this, and enjoy a life of mediocrity, frustration and unrealized dreams. Take care of yourself first. Everything else will follow.
Living in poverty, mooching off of others, suffering, none of those serve God. God provides a universe full of bounty, love, wealth and abundance, if only people would open themselves to it. I don't believe that God wants any of us dependent on others, and that by not serving ourselves first, we fall into the original definition of Sin, or "Miss the Mark". Put another way, we weren't put here to sit on our butts and collect a welfare check that someone else worked to fund, but to work for our own rewards, and enjoy them fully.

"People who spend their existence worrying
solely about the needs of others and not themselves are not nobles,
benevolent, and spiritual. They are crazy. "- Randy Gage
The Purpose That Drives Your Life
Source: www.successmethods.org


Fire away.

 

[Sukerkin]

Oh my!

Enough said.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Expanding on that, if someone else is supporting you, and you are capable of making your own way on your own (I'm not referring to real needy people here) then no matter how much you pray, how deeply you believe, how many good works you do, if your living in government housing, collecting welfare, living on food stamps, having the government pay for your heat, water, electric, and so on, you are -not- "serving God". God (I'm using the term God here in the Christian sense) didn't put you on this planet for others to support, but to become so rich in so many ways that Bill Gates would look at you in awe and go "wow!". I'm tired of hearing from people how there are no jobs. There are plenty of jobs, they are just jobs you don't want to do, think are below you, or jobs you have no idea if you can do. I did 2 stints at Burger King, 3 stints at a supermarket, 3 stints at McDonalds, and sorted garbage for a recycler standing knee deep every day in other peoples rot. I've cut grass, shoveled snow, delivered papers, and washed cars, all while being "better than that". It paid the bills, kept a roof over my head, food on the table and the lights on so I could see it. There's a former CEO who's now slinging coffee at a Starbucks for a fraction of what he used to make. I know a greeter at a local Walmart who used to own his own business. Every home game there are a dozen people at least who scour the stadium parking lot of recyclables. I know dozens of people who were fired from their jobs due to the economy who have hung out their own shingles and are now running their own businesses. The universe is full of riches, full of abundance, full of prosperity. You do not "serve God" if you do not "serve yourself" first by opening yourself up to it, by welcome it, and most importantly by working for it.


(rant inspired by a friend who has a dozen excuses for not getting off their *** and even looking for work while crying all the time over how ****ed up their life is)

 

[MBuzzy]

But it is so convenient to say "God will provide" then sit back and wait for the world to fall at your feet.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

True. And those people who say that and sit on their asses and wait for "God" (or the 'Government' as it turns out) are leeches needing to be lanced like a boil on the *** of Humanity.

I don't bust my *** so someone else can get free cable at my expense. I think the best thing we could do is drop every and all welfare programs provided by the government. No more HEAP, no more Welfare, no more Food Stamps, no more Medicaid, Medicare, no more HUD, no more Belmont, and so on.

Bring back real WorkFare programs, pay people an honest days wages for an honest days work. Stop telling people "its ok to be on the dole". No it's not.

Guys with no arms or legs have figured out a way to paint with a brush stuck up their ****, you can figure out how to work through that "fatigue" you have.

Messed up spine doesn't mean "go get a job crabbing in Alaska", but there are things you can do. Go find them. Might take some effort, but you'll find them.

It's not my responsibility to look after anyone on this planet, except ME. I deserve to keep 100% of the fruits of my labors, not have chunks stolen through mandatory taxes and fees by a government intent on condoning laziness, sloth and graft.

Leave me all the profits of my efforts and let me decide who to help myself. It might surprise you.

People love to pile hate on Bill Gates. As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity.

Bill couldn't do that if he'd sat on his *** and "prayed a lot". Neither could Rockefeller, Buffett and others. "God" didn't give Gates his billions, he earned them by putting in 20 hr days, 8 day weeks, and being faster, smarter and hungrier than anyone else.

We might not get all that Gates, etc have, but we won't get any of it sitting naked on a bean bag chair eating gov. cheese outta a can waiting for our fudstamps.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Expanding on that, if someone else is supporting you, and you are capable of making your own way on your own (I'm not referring to real needy people here) then no matter how much you pray, how deeply you believe, how many good works you do, if your living in government housing, collecting welfare, living on food stamps, having the government pay for your heat, water, electric, and so on, you are -not- "serving God". God (I'm using the term God here in the Christian sense) didn't put you on this planet for others to support, but to become so rich in so many ways that Bill Gates would look at you in awe and go "wow!".

Hey Bob, I agree with your sentiment to a very large degree, so I am not going to argue against that. The thing I don't take as gospel (sorry for the pun) in your argument is the notion that

a) The Christian concept of God is valid.
b) Our individual existence has a specific God Given purpose.
c) We need to 'serve' God.

It is perfectly possible to have this same discussion without any mention to theology whatsoever, so I am curious why they are brought up at all.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This is based on a "discussion" I've been having offline with someone who insists that
a- God rewards you if you suffer and do without now
b- It's the governments "Job" to take care of people

I'm a pagan who doesn't subscribe to the idiotic idea that any being powerful enough to create this universe and fill it full of things would want me to suffer, and be without.

I'm also a Libertarian who doesn't subscribe to the notion that the Government should do anything other than guard the borders, deliver the mail and keep the roads safe so I can earn my way.

My friend disagrees and sees it as the "responsibility" of government to make sure that we all (read people who work for a living) contribute (read pay taxes) our fair share (read lots) so that they can sit at home, drink beer, watch tv and be taken care of. Tacked on to this leech dream is the "noble" reason of "God has called upon them to spread Gods message", and of course working a 9-5 or any type of job to do so "interferes in their being able to serve God completely and be at Gods call 24/7/365".

They were upset I called ******** on the ********, using many words that would trigger our filter here, and cause more than 1 of my staff to face palm and wonder how they were going to infract the Gawd-Emperor.

 

[celtic_crippler]

"Am I my brother's keeper?"

If so, how do I best serve my "brother"?

Can I take care of my "brother" if I can't take care of myself?

By taking care of myself, does that somehow contribute to the care of my "brother." I think it does...

It's an abstract, fundamental value...taken too literally I think. I don't take care of my "brother" by working my butt off to give them everything they need when they're perfectly capable of providing for themselves.


...reminds me of a joke...

Guy sitting on a roof top during a flood when a guy from the shoreline yells, "Hey man! You want me to throw you a rope?"

Guy on roof says, "Naw man, God will take care of me."

The waters rise and a boat comes by. Guy in boat yells, "Hey man! You want me to take you to shore?"

Guy on roof says, "Naw man, God will take care of me."

The water continues to rise and a helicopter flys over and the pilot yells, "Hey man! You want me to drop down a ladder?"

Guy on roof says, "Naw man, God will take care of me."

The water rises above the roof and the guy drowns.

Upon entering heaven he runs into God and asks, "I had faith in you that you would take care of me yet you let me drown...what gives?"

God shakes his head and replies, "What the heck do ya mean? I sent you a rope, a boat, and a helicopter for cryin' out loud!"

 

[Bob Hubbard]

:cheers:You got it.

 

[MBuzzy]

Hey, the way I see it, religion is awesome....it gives EVERYONE an excuse. I mean ask the right person and god put the classifieds in the newspaper. God made unemployment lines. God created job fairs. Heck, God is responsible for McDonalds....so if you don't take advantage of those, it is STILL your own fault!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The problem, as I see it, is that all of our fates are intertwined.

As a business, if there is no one to buy my goods or services, I cannot succeed. As a customer, if I have no money, I cannot buy goods or services. As an employer, if I have no employees, I cannot make goods or services.

While a society can tolerate a certain level of non-productive behavior, in the long run most must contribute if the society is to survive.

We do not exist in a vacuum, but voluntarily congregate in societies. The fact that we choose to be members of societies implies obligation to that society, and those obligations take certain forms.

I do not subscribe to the belief that I ought to give money to the poor in the form of social programs to which they are entitled by virtue of their being poor (or sick, or a member of a certain group, or whatever) because they deserve it.

However, that is not to say I'm always against it. My motives are more selfish. If my society fails, I cannot succeed. Therefore, I am willing to pay into societal programs that help those who would otherwise place a greater burden or danger on that society. For the same selfish reason, I am against paying into society programs that create a culture of dependency that will eventually erode and destroy my society.

So I am no longer as dead-set against welfare, social security, and other forms of government aid as I was when I was younger. However, that is not the same as saying I wish to see such programs expanded to create ever-larger groups of people who do not contribute back to society in material ways.

My desires are selfish, but I now see as I get older that selfishness is also seeing rationally that society must succeed for me to succeed. In this way, I have come to grips with Ayn Rand's book, "The Virtue of Selfishness."

 

[Omar B]

I being an objectivist was never a believer int he concept of a "common good." It's just an excuse used to prop up the lazy and mediocre under the guise of brother love, religious duty or for the state.

When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. - Ayn Rand, Capitilism The Unknown Ideal

Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or public—be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others—only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible. - Ayn Rand, Textbook Of Americanism (column).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I being an objectivist was never a believer int he concept of a "common good." It's just an excuse used to prop up the lazy and mediocre under the guise of brother love, religious duty or for the state.

We build prisons, and put people in them whom we believe represent a threat to society. This is done at the expense of the taxpayer, for the good of society. This is a form of welfare, as those incarcerated do not contribute to the good of society or to our own individual benefit, except in the fact that they are off the streets and not threatening us at the moment. Most would, I presume, agree that prisons are necessary.

Enlightened self-interest eventually sees that as society benefits, so do we as individuals. There is a limit to the good society can do us, and as such, there is a limit we should authorize society to take from us in our name.

I do not like my government giving money to others who will not work, and I'm not thrilled about giving money to those who cannot. However, I see a role for government in this, to the extent that it keeps society functioning at a particular level that does me the most good. I consider how it benefits me, and I see that as a level of Objectivism that is not often explored.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Role of National Government:
1 - Raise and Support an army to be used to defend the borders
2 - Raise and Support a police force to be used to defend our right to life, liberty and property.
3 - Provide for the means of peaceful settling of disputes through the establishment of a fair and just court.

Or, as Randy Gage out it "provide an army to defend the borders, a police force for security, and a court system to adjudicate disputes. Everything else would do better if run by the private sector."

 

[Omar B]

Actually, their being in prison is a huge benefit to society and individual freedom. they are there because of crimes against other men. If not in prison they would continue to do so, in that it's a small price to pay. Prisons, punishment and rehabilitation is about the individual freedoms of those willing to live and work according to the rules we must all live by, the freedoms of the victims infringed upon by those being punished.

As for welfare, I don't agree with it at all. It rewards laziness and failure, it creates a situation where people are happy with just getting by because they can just get by on the backs of those who actually produce. Morally, the promise of an impossible “right” to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don’t. “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Role of National Government:
1 - Raise and Support an army to be used to defend the borders
2 - Raise and Support a police force to be used to defend our right to life, liberty and property.
3 - Provide for the means of peaceful settling of disputes through the establishment of a fair and just court.

Or, as Randy Gage out it "provide an army to defend the borders, a police force for security, and a court system to adjudicate disputes. Everything else would do better if run by the private sector."

I agree that this is the basic role of the federal government. However, the federal government has enlarged and expanded its sphere of power and I do not think in realistic terms it is going to stop. So I deal with what is rather than what I wish it would be.

With regard to the private sector running things better, I do not agree. I used to, but I have changed my views. There are things that the private sector would not do at all without either a) government regulation or b) the government actually doing it. An example would be rural folks having phones. If the phone company had not been forced to string wire out into the country at a loss to themselves on a per-rural-customer basis, you'd have two choices if you lived out in the sticks - go without a phone, or pay gazillions to have a wire run just for you. That's one example, there are others.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Actually, their being in prison is a huge benefit to society and individual freedom. they are there because of crimes against other men. If not in prison they would continue to do so, in that it's a small price to pay. Prisons, punishment and rehabilitation is about the individual freedoms of those willing to live and work according to the rules we must all live by, the freedoms of the victims infringed upon by those being punished.

I think we're agreed then. To live in a society, we all agree to live by rules that ensure maximum benefit to all, including being safe from predation. All must pay for such services, including police, courts, and prisons. An example of a social good performed by taxes and a form of social service.

As for welfare, I don't agree with it at all. It rewards laziness and failure, it creates a situation where people are happy with just getting by because they can just get by on the backs of those who actually produce.

Agreed. However, I have eventually come to recognize that there is a point where one is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Rewarding laziness is bad. Having an economy collapse because people are not able to buy things is worse. There is a certain level of non-productivity that a society can tolerate and probably cannot avoid. I'd like the level to be lower, but I do not think it can be eliminated. I hate giving money to people who will not work, but I try to keep in mind the benefit to me.

Morally, the promise of an impossible “right” to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don’t. “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights.

Nobody wins in societies that do not function. If you are a producer, but no one can buy your goods, you fail. If you are a business but can hire no employees, you fail. People without incomes cannot purchase, and they fail.

Society must be kept functioning, and that is (as I see it) one of the roles of government. Social services feed into that by keeping those who otherwise cannot produce from being an even bigger drag on society and at least allowing them to participate at the level of consumer. I agree with you that it is reprehensible that those who can work and choose not to are also given protections. I do not see an easy way out of that which does not threaten society - which harms me.

I used to take Ayn Rand's words in a very personal way. Now I begin to see that one must consider all impact to one's own personal good before deciding what the best course of action might be. Not just direct, but also indirect. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I agree that this is the basic role of the federal government. However, the federal government has enlarged and expanded its sphere of power and I do not think in realistic terms it is going to stop.

Exactly...so why in the blue hell would anyone think it a good idea to give them more?

They already abuse what power they have, often at the expense of our rights and freedoms.

That's why I will fight tooth and nail to prevent them passing any more legislation that will contribute to their expanding sphere. If it contninues, in a few generations there will be nothing even remotely similar to the sovereign nation intended by the founders.

 

[Omar B]

So by your standard money must be taken out of my pocket to give other people so they can spend it? As if they would do any better with it than I would? The economy is not going to collapse because those people are not spending money, it collapses because the idea of a free market is being corrupted and used as a system to reward mediocrities while chastising those who produce. Would you like to see what happens when you take from those who produce and give to those who can't, look at Russia during the height of communism, look at Cuba, look at North Korea with it's 3 million dead of starvation last year alone. If you are not rewarded but punished for producing (being turned into a slave for common good) then nobody will have the drive to produce and it becomes an entire society of parasites.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Exactly...so why in the blue hell would anyone think it a good idea to give them more?

I don't. But it appears to be the fact.

They already abuse what power they have, often at the expense of our rights and freedoms.

Yes.

That's why I will fight tooth and nail to prevent them passing any more legislation that will contribute to their expanding sphere. If it contninues, in a few generations there will be nothing even remotely similar to the sovereign nation intended by the founders.

I agree.

My point was merely that quoting rule and verse about what the federal government ought to be is probably not going to change anything. I further added that I doubt it is changeable at this point. That doesn't mean I like it.