Our Moral Dilemma

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Of course the left leaning libs will see Mr Williams as nothing more then Greedy and uncaring and even a racist of sorts...or an "uncle tom"....


Our Moral Dilemma

By Walter E. Williams
June 15, 2011 | 12:51
Our Moral Dilemma | NewsBusters.org

Most of our nation's problems are a direct result of our being immune, hostile or indifferent to several moral questions. Let's start out with the simple and move to the more complex. Or, stated another way, let's begin with questions that generate the least hostility, moving to those that generate the greatest.

If a person benefits from a hamburger, a suit of clothing, an apartment or an education, who should be forced to pay for it? I believe the question has only one moral answer, namely the person who benefits from a good or service should be forced to pay for it, that's if we wish to distinguish ourselves from thieves who only care about enjoying something and who pays is irrelevant.

Aside from the moral question is the economic efficiency question. If the user of something isn't paying, it's a good chance that he'll overuse and waste it. Our country's problem is that too many Americans want to benefit from things for which they expect other Americans to be taxed.

A related moral question is: Does one American have a moral right to live at the expense of another American? To be more explicit, should Congress, through its taxing authority, give the Bank of America, Citibank, Archer Daniels Midland, farmers, dairymen, college students and poor people the right to live off of the earnings of another American? I'm guessing that only a few Americans would agree with my answer: No one should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another American.

You might say, "Williams, if Congress makes it a law, then you should submit to being used to serve the purposes of others."

Such a vision introduces the next moral question, namely under what conditions is it moral to initiate force and threats of force against a person who himself has not initiated force or threats against another? Before that question can be answered, you might ask for a bit more specificity that has an important bearing on the answer, namely are we talking about a free or a non-free society?

In a free society, there's no moral case that can be made for the initiation of force against one who hasn't himself initiated force against another. But that's a societal ideal that might be beyond our reach here on Earth. After all, we have delegated certain rights to government to provide certain services, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, particularly as specified in Article I, Section 8 of the document. Each American is duty-bound to pay his share.

So a case can be made for the initiation of force against one who refuses to pay his share of those expenses. If an American says that he'll pay his share of those constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government but refuses to give up his earnings to be used for handouts to the Bank of America, Citibank, Archer Daniels Midland, farmers, dairymen, college students and poor people, should some kind of force be initiated against him?

I am all too afraid that most of my fellow Americans would answer, "Yes, some kind of force, fines or imprisonment should be initiated against a person who refuses to give up his earnings for the use of another." Their only source of disagreement would be just who had the rights to another's earnings.

Some would argue that farmers and dairymen don't have a right to another's earnings, but students and poor people do. Others would argue the opposite.

French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." That endeavor has plagued mankind throughout his history and has now reached a crisis stage in Western Europe and the United States, and the prospects for reversing it don't appear to be promising.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
ya know Dennis...even with all this doom and gloom....this IS the US of A.....we will get thru this....have before and will again....when the dust settles we will be better and stronger then ever.....
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Not quite doom and gloom yet. As it stands now we have health care at the point of a gun. It, and the evils like it, can, at least for now, be defeated. There is not much time left to accomplish that but it can yet still be done.

IF these evils are not defeated at the ballot box the fight will move to the streets. Far too many still cherish their freedoms.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
No Doom and gloom...just fact..and I am finer then frogs hair...:) And yeap, those that get hurt will suffer thru it, some will be stronger for it, some will whine that the government didn't help them...and if we are lucky when the "dust settles", we will not have these entitlemnet programs and those that feel the government is here to take care of them...Then we can say we are back on the road to recovery...BUT...we need to fall along way for it to happen....

Now, Mr Williams words have nothing to do with "doom and gloom"...just the state of our country and the dilemma we face...and the fact that OUR government put us here...and its the people that need to realize that we need to be responsible for our own and those around us that are in real need thru our own charitable help, not thru government theft and handouts...

Read the quote by Mr. Williams at the buttom of my post, it goes right along with his article here....
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I agree to a point.

BUT here is the sticky of it all, not many in congress are willing to give up the power they have nor will they want to see the changes to the system so to prevent the power from being given back to the people.

See the real question we need to be asking is how can we rid ourselves of this mental incapabilities to remove the roadblocks we created ourselves so we can effect change?

We depend on those who we elect, forgetting who is more important in our government and then being disappointed when it gets worse.

Many rode the high when Obama got elected but soon discovered our second black president wasn't as good as the first. We as a country looked forward to the change from the old stodgy GOP to something exciting and refreshing but got the old stogy democrats who still controlled things as they did even with a republican majority in congress.

A lot of people keep saying 'we need to vote them out' but who is running against them is what I have to ask. It isn't that the opponent is any better or worse but rather is there an opponent?

Many on one side of the aisle have screamed about the other side of the aisle for such a long time with the result of sounding all the same. We got used to the conservatives verses the liberals not understanding they are the same when we examine their position on issues or how they want to control the people just as much as the opposition.

They used the same old catch phrases, which have been called talking points in the recent past. There is this fallacy with many of the same old phases about what is going on, one fallacy is we need to swing to the right to fix things which makes no sense when the right AND the left gave us the mess in the first place.

BUT the biggest fallacy that we are facing among those who espouse one baffling blurred political thought is that this administration and the Democratic party is there to distribute the wealth and I got to ask WHERE is this happening?

I do not see it happening with people who are making a few million.

I do not see it happening with people who are making tens of millions but I do not see it at all.

I have to mention the companion talking point -

the left is out to take the money from the rich


That is sooooo old and very wrong.

It isn't the left at all, because it is not true with this administration and congress. IT is in fact the opposite.

This catch phrase was used with was the "Bush Tax Cut" renewal to rally the troops. The funny thing about it is the tax increases at the top would not have really done much to hurt the economy, but the middle tier would have. The conservative movement knew as the liberal one knows these "tax cuts" need to be flexible so not to endanger the power base.

Examine the profits those big businesses are making, examine the money people profits and you will see that their profits, even though taxed, are great. Their revenue is up too.

Surely the uber-wealthy have yet to have a tax on their wealth, Buffet is a great example. He provides no jobs, does not "give back" to the country he has made his money in and seems to be in a cloud so high up that he thinks that we all should be paying more taxes forgetting what it was like to pay taxes. He could not make that money if he was a citizen of Germany or the United Kingdom but the United State and he is one who should be taxed to provide the country help IF anyone.

We as a country failed to understand why this administration and those in congress are not going after individual wealth but rather trying to control the economy as other presidents have been trying to do for generations only to cause many to believe that their intention is to redistribute the wealth when everything points in the opposite direction.

Why?

Because if one is to actually examine what has been going on in the past few years with incomes, taxes and businesses, it is not a wealth grab but rather a misplaced idea of how the economy works.

The president, with all his advisors seem to think as did FDR and Hoover that a interventionist economy is the best route to follow. IT is the idea that they have to find the right combination to fix a problem that is caused by outside forces, outside of the government that is. This president, like those presidents before him depend on the same advice that has been given to them by those who are 'experts' but seem not to ask if they are experts, why didn't it work the first few times around?

what happened this time around is that we failed ourselves by buying into the consumptionist ideals that we have to consume in order to make things work. We forgot that it isn't the big companies, like GE, Time-Warner or even the new and improved GM that provides the jobs, the national wealth or the economy moving forward but the little guys, the people with 40 employees who watch every penny and who strive to improve themselves, employees and the company all the time.

It is the problem that government got in the way of those who are job creators and out of the way of those who are not.

Nothing about redistribution of wealth when you come down to it, is there?

So if the left wants to take the rich's money away from them and redistribute it, where is GE's or Bank of America's profits being funneled through?

It isn't.

AND that's the problem.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
ya know Dennis...even with all this doom and gloom....this IS the US of A.....we will get thru this....have before and will again....when the dust settles we will be better and stronger then ever.....

Bravo......Bravo.....

I know, I know its Jon Stewart( and yes, I know, he's entertainer), but I actually watched this episode of O'reilly and remembered this comment and thought of it when OVM made the above statement.

STEWART: I don't -- again, I feel like this country is stronger than any individual you can throw at it. So I don't hate any of these people. I don't think personally that the damage that they can do is so drastic and so great that we would ever be run off course by one individual.

Link: Part 2: Jon Stewart Evaluates GOP Presidential Field, Obama - Interviews - The O' Reilly Factor - FoxNews.com
 
Last edited:

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
IF these evils are not defeated at the ballot box the fight will move to the streets. Far too many still cherish their freedoms.

Only the most radical on either side will go to the point of "taking it to the streets" The huge majority still believe in the ballot box and will do nothing extreme when confronted with things they do not agree with. Most will just complain and deal with it.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Only the most radical on either side will go to the point of "taking it to the streets" The huge majority still believe in the ballot box and will do nothing extreme when confronted with things they do not agree with. Most will just complain and deal with it.

But I AM a radical! Just as those who founded this country were. I will NOT live under the thumb of a government. That is MY choice. You may chose to do so, you can complain and deal with it. I will, if forced, fight to retain my RIGHTS under the Constitution.

I believe, to my dying breath, of the idea that I, and only I, can control my destiny. I refuse to be told to buy health insurance and to pay for others. I pay my own freight. I am NOT satisfied to sit back and be told, ruled, by the likes of Congress or Obama. I will never accept being ruled by my employees.

I believe solely in freedom and liberty. I don't deal with oppression. TV, football and brewskis mean nothing to me.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Whos Jon Stewart? Those were my words, my thoughts...maybe we are related? :cool:

Stewart_2.2.jpg
 
Top