Some thoughts on this feature of many so-called “liberals.”
I wouldn’t compare them to psychopaths, though. More like sociopaths. Bill Clinton is a classic example.
[Update a while later]
Here’s some empathy for “liberals” from Frank J. — they’re mostly not exactly like terrorists:
For one thing, what do we do when we capture terrorists? That’s right: We waterboard them to get them to talk and tell us where their base is or what their secret plans are or what their favorite color is. Terrorists have information we need. With liberals, we’ll do anything we can to keep them from talking. They talk way too much as it is and often in venues where it’s completely unwelcome, and we’d just as soon waterboard ourselves as listen to them (which is the problem MSNBC has with ratings). Plus, it’s not like they have any secret plans we don’t know about. What are they going to tell us if we waterboard them?
“I’ll admit it! ObamaCare is the first step towards single-payer and a complete government takeover of health care!”
Who doesn’t know that? Liberals are too dim-witted and too arrogant to keep any of their thoughts secret. As we learned with Obama, if we want to find out what liberals really think of Americans, we just have to slip a tape recorder into a fundraiser with elites in San Francisco.
Another difference between liberals and terrorists are sleeper cells — terrorists could have infiltrated American society and be waiting to attack. Liberals, on the other hand, are completely incapable of associating with normal Americans. Remember when John Kerry tried to go hunting to appear like an American? If only terrorist sleeper agents were that obvious and awkward.
Now that’s what I call compassionate conservatism.
[Update mid morning]
This seems pertinent, particularly to the discussion in comments. Dennis Prager: Leftism as a religion:
Leftism, though secular, must be understood as a religion (which is why I have begun capitalizing it). The Leftist value system’s hold on its adherents is as strong as the hold Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have on theirs. Nancy Pelosi’s belief in expanding the government’s role in American life, which inspired her passion for the health-care bill, is as strong as a pro-life Christian’s belief in the sanctity of the life of the unborn.
Given the religious nature and the emotional power of Leftist values, Jews and Christians on the Left often derive their values from the Left more than from their religion.
Now, most Leftist Jews and Christians will counter that Leftist values cannot trump their religion’s values because Leftist values are identical to their religion’s. But this argument only reinforces my argument that Leftism has conquered the Christianity and the Judaism of Leftist Christians and Jews. If there is no difference between Leftist moral values and those of Judaism or Christianity, then Christianity is little more than Leftism with “Jesus” rhetoric and Judaism is Leftism with Jewish terms — such as “Tikkun Olam” (“repairing the world”) and “Prophetic values.”
But if Christianity is, morally speaking, really Leftism, why didn’t Catholics and Protestants assert these values before 19th century European Leftism came along? And, if Judaism is essentially a set of Left-wing values, does that mean that the Torah and the Talmud are Leftist documents? Or are the two pillars of Judaism generally wrong?
As a provisional atheist, I find this fascinating.
Rand,
It seems to me that Chris Gerrib is saying that you should pay the bellhop even for a service he did not provide. After all it isn’t his fault you prefer to carry your own bags, and he is just trying to make a living.
Chris G. definitely lacks empathy for those of us who value our liberty and don’t like being pushed around. And now that he stands revealed as a theocrat (basing his statism on Christianity), the reason for this lack of empathy is apparent. We’re not just selfish reactionaries; we’re heretics and non-believers. No wonder he pretended not to get the point of the Grand Inquisitor parable. The ol’ G. I. looks a little too much like the face he sees in the mirror.
Wow there was a party in the comments and I missed it. 🙁
I just wanted to point out that the leftist have been trying to use Christianity to cover their lack of ethics for a very LONG time.
Check out this rant from Martin Luther in 1525d during the peasant revolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
“… the gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who, of their own free will, do what the apostles and disciples did in Acts 4. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others … should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, want to make the goods of other men common, and keep their own for themselves. Fine Christians they are! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. Their raving has gone beyond all measure.”
It kinda pisses me off when people use God’s name as reason for their own vain self-interest… Hey, isn’t there something in there about not doing that?
Working backwards in comments:
Ryan – Martin Luther was complaining about hypocrisy – the peasants wanted his stuff AND their stuff. I’ll add that Luther was a man, and just like all of us, could have been wrong.
Bilwick1 – never called you a heretic. I still challenge you to find any moral code, secular or otherwise, that doesn’t advocate helping those less fortunate then ourselves.
Chris L. – you accused me of moral superiority. I challenged you to find a moral code that didn’t support my position.
Jiminator – what about those that can’t work? BTW, the health care bill does have means testing – if you can pay you are supposed to pay.
Rand – Prager’s article is so full of unsupported assertions and false logic I don’t know where to begin with it. For a start, the 19th Century was the start of democracy in Europe, and most European countries have explicitly Christian parties. (Probably why they have health care for all).
For another issue with Prager’s article, let’s discuss being pro-life. I define that as not just the unborn, but children and elderly. I’m not actually sure how you square pro-life with allowing for criminal executions, for example, yet a lot of pro-lifers do make that link.
Also, this blog talks frequently about freedom from government interference. What is more “interfering” then the Government reaching into a woman’s body and saying “you will carry this pregnancy to term”?
There are things which are immoral but not illegal. It is immoral to cheat on your spouse, but shouldn’t be illegal. Some Christians hold gambling and drinking as immoral acts, but neither should be illegal.
“Bilwick1 – never called you a heretic. ” (Again with the [feigned?] literal-mindedness.) “I still challenge you to find any moral code, secular or otherwise, that doesn’t advocate helping those less fortunate then ourselves.” I wasn’t aware that you had challenged me to do so in the first place. Like I’m supposed to care whether someone else’s moral code tells me what or what not to do?
How about the Bilwick Moral Code? It’s nice to help people in need, but there’s no moral imperative to do so. If you think there is, please prove it, logically. And even if you believe there is such a moral imperative, and could prove it logically l(a dubious supposition), then prove why you’re entitled to enforce that believf at gun-point.
y
Wanna bet Chris Gerrib objects to the Religious Right? You know, because they want to use the power of the State to force the rest of us into compliance with their dogma. Not like him at all.
There are things which are immoral but not illegal. It is immoral to cheat on your spouse, but shouldn’t be illegal. Some Christians hold gambling and drinking as immoral acts, but neither should be illegal.
And yet you want to enforce your morality on me, and make me provide health care for others at gunpoint.
Bilwick1 – actually, I do object to the religious right. I find the policies they advocate tend not to be supported by the Bible they profess to follow. I also think that we have separation of church and state for a reason – to protect the church.
That’s why I asked for “any” moral code that doesn’t support helping the less fortunate. Because the only code I see that supports the “Bilwick Code” is also called “selfishness.” It’s your right to be selfish – doesn’t make it right or moral.
The logical reason to help those that are less fortunate then you is that your fortunes may change. Sickness, accidents and just bad luck can befall anybody.
Rand – I also think crime is immoral. I want to enforce the criminal code on you and everybody else.
Perhaps if you understand it as “pro-innocent life” it will make more sense.
A society punishes people for violating its values. If society values innocent life above all else, then putting murderers (and only murderers) to death is not only moral (murderers cannot logically argue against execution (q.v. estoppel)) but the act sends a clear message to any would-be murderers.
I think most commentators on this blog would support using the state to prevent violence against a person, birthed or not. Some might even argue that’s its raison d’etre. Of course, practicallity is a huge component of the law, but given that almost all abortions are immoral, there’s certainly every right to regulate the thing to minimize the loss of life.
I also think crime is immoral. I want to enforce the criminal code on you and everybody else.
In other words, you have no coherent criteria for which morality is to be enforced at gunpoint, and which is not.
What is more “interfering” then the Government reaching into a woman’s body and saying “you will carry this pregnancy to term”?
There’s a large hole between “An abortion” and “Removing the pregnancy.”
I, for one, would be willing to give everyone the choice to undergo a medical divorce at any point. So long as lifesaving efforts were applied to both parties. This leads down the scientific path of developing uterine replicators a whole lot faster. The status quo kills babies that would tend to survive given the standard care available to premature babies.
On capital punishment:
An executed man in America needs to be caught, tried, convicted, fail his free appeals, avoid pardons and clemency, and live long enough for all of that to occur. That’s an absolute minimum of two layers of the executive, one legislative law, three layers of judicial oversight, and twelve jurors, all deciding death is appropriate – within view of and with the carping of the fourth estate.
Should we provide that level of protections to (a) people we know have at least some plausibility of some guilt? or (b) those we know for a fact are innocent? I’m perfectly willing to provide that level of protections to both.
Bilwick1 – actually, I do object to the religious right. I find the policies they advocate tend not to be supported by the Bible they profess to follow.”
[So if those policies were supported by the Bible, then it would be okay for them to force them on the rest of us?]
“I also think that we have separation of church and state for a reason – to protect the church.” Still inconsistent and illogical. You object to the Religious Right for trying to force their beliefs on others, but you’re okay with using the State to enforce your own set of superstitions.
“That’s why I asked for ‘any’ moral code that doesn’t support helping the less fortunate. Because the only code I see that supports the “Bilwick Code” is also called selfishness. ” You say that like it’s a bad thing.
“It’s your right to be selfish – doesn’t make it right or moral.” But apparently you don’t think I have a right to be selfish. If you did you’d keep your collectivist little hands off me, and wouldn’t be trying to force me into obedience to Christian altruism. Who’s more moral? Me, trying to live my life in peaceful–and only peaceful–interaction with others, in voluntary, uncoerced transactions? Or you, trying to legally shakedown your neighbors because of some superstition?
You can no more prove that A had a moral imperative to help B than you can prove Transubstantiation or the Virgin Birth. You have the right to believe in that moral imperative, just as you have the right to believe in any religious belief, however dopey. And if you do believe in it, you should act on it. in acts of voluntary charity. Just keep your hands off my wallet and your guns out of my face.
You ask because it’s a complete straw-man: a man is free to give as much charity as he pleases. It does not follow that he is therefore righteous in giving-away his neighbor’s treasures.
Chris G.
Actually you didn’t challenge me to do anything. The question isn’t “should we help people in need?”, it’s “should we force others to help people in need?”. You want to use the power of the state to force other people to follow your version of morality. You are “clinging” to your bible.
I have no problem with trying to convince other people to help you help others. That is called persuasion. Again, using the power of the state to FORCE people to help you help others is not persuasion, it’s coercion.
The moral superiority in this case is the fact that you think your belief in helping others supersedes someone else’s right to property. You want to use other people’s money to conform to your sense of morality. And you will believe yourself to be a moral and just person for doing it. Perhaps even “heroic”.
As the “selfish” and “immoral” Voltaire wrote: “There is no reasoning someone out of that which he has not been reasoned into.”
If Gerrib was a devout Catholic, he would condemn Stupak for supporting a bill that uses the money collected from the commons to pay for abortion. His expressed religion should have compelled his opposition to the Senate Bill passage. But such moral principle wasn’t convenient for Gerrib when it mattered.
On the subject of the morality or otherwise of tipping the bellhop; personally I think that is the wrong question. The real question IMHO is whether it is moral or otherwise for tipping to be required to top up a basic wage that isn’t enough to live on. On that question, one could argue either way.
What is more “interfering” then the Government reaching into a woman’s body and saying “you will carry this pregnancy to term”?
How about the government reaching into your pocket to pay for that abortion, no matter what your opinions on the subject?
Leland – unlike Stupak, I could read the bill, and saw that it did not and does not provide funding for abortions. Although I’m not sure by what right the government gets to tell a woman she must carry a pregnancy to term. I’m not sure I have a right to tell a woman she must carry a pregnancy to term. I believe that decision is between a woman, her doctor and her God.
I’m not sure I have a right to tell a woman she must carry a pregnancy to term.
No, but you’re quite confident in your right to make me pay for her pregnancy. Or abortion.
Chris, government does not have rights. Government has authorized powers (as provided by the US Constitution, a state constitution, or laws of the state). This is yet another sign that you do not understand the issues of today.We already have enforceable laws against murder, the deliberate killing of one human being by another. If we were to consider the unborn as human beings, say from the moment of conception, then that would be a reason to consider abortion murder and go from there.
I personally am agnostic on the issue of abortion. I don’t see either side as having a compelling argument.
Mr. Gerrib, if you’re so worried about sick people, why don’t you help them? There is no law stopping you from using your own money to do whatever you like, including paying the medical bills of people too poor to pay them. And if you are so concerned that there are rich people out there who should be using some of their wealth to help sick people — who you seem to be so worried about — then why don’t you go to these rich people and ask them to put together a fund for poor sick people? It’s been done before, which is why there are so many charitable organizations for this and that disease.
Of course, that would take a talent you don’t seem to have — that is, the talent to persuade people to your cause. Instead, like a lot of bitter, angry people who think everyone else is doing it wrong, you resort to belittling and name-calling and trying to make others feel guilty that they aren’t as compassionate as you. Instead, you turn to a powerful authority to force people to obey you. Forced charity is theft just like any other theft, and it also has the effect of making people feel less charitable than they normally would. But then again, people like you don’t like true charity — the voluntary giving by people with more money and power than you. It means you’d have to be grateful to those bad rich people you envy so much. Also charitable giving makes the giver feel good — you don’t want people with wealth to feel good, you want them to suffer for having wealth you don’t think they should have.
Come on, Rand, come clean! There really is no Chris Gerrib. He’s really just a sock puppet to prove this part of the post:
Leftism, though secular, must be understood as a religion (which is why I have begun capitalizing it). The Leftist value system’s hold on its adherents is as strong as the hold Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have on theirs.
🙂
Mike
“Although I’m not sure by what right the government gets to tell a woman she must carry a pregnancy to term.”
Evidently the same right that says I have to buy health insurance.
One of my favorite quotes of all time is that an altruist [i.e. progressive] “is a double parasite. He lives off of the blood of the rich and the sores of the poor.”
Nothing better captures the mentality of someone who assuages his (or her) own “concern” over the inability of a poor person to get medical care [or food, or housing, or a car, or a flat-screen TV] by pointing the gun of the government at everyone else and demanding they pay for it.
You’re a parasite, Chris. And the fact that you can’t understand why people who produce wealth (which you don’t understand) are upset at having that wealth expropriated for the benefit of those who produce nothing (many by choice) means that you have no empathy (by your own definition).
One of my favorite quotes of all time is that an altruist [i.e. progressive] “is a double parasite. He lives off of the blood of the rich and the sores of the poor.”
That describes collectivists better than altruists. Altruists don’t necessarily demand that we all be altruistic at the point of a gun. Of course, I subscribe to the Mark Twain notion that there’s no such thing as an altruist.
Yes, Rand. Here’s the exact quote:
“[Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea.”
A “progressive” or “collectivist” (same thing) wants to feel virtuous by dint of his “concern” (or empathy) for the poor, which he demonstrates by robbing the rich — using the gun of the government.
Leftists who force me at gunpoint to pay for the healthcare of people who stuff their faces with junk food and smoke crack are sadists. There’s no “empathy” in that nonsense.
There seems to be a strong undercurrent here of “people who don’t have health care don’t deserve it.” Arguable (what did a minor child do to not deserve health care) but certainly not compassionate.
I always thought Robin Hood took wealth from people who didn’t earn it – folks like nobles who stole it from “their” serfs. But if you want to defend the rights of hereditary nobility, don’t let me stop you.
“people who don’t have health care don’t deserve it.”
You might think that, but that’s because your reading comprehension is horrible. The people opposed to your ideals are thinking “people who don’t want to spend their money on health care don’t deserve to be forced to buy it.”
If you want to provide health care to people you think deserve it, then put your money where you claim your heart to be. Go pay the bills of some poor person.
Me, I will once again volunteer my time for a weekend to assist others in raising money to help pay for people with MS. Just like I have volunteered my time to help pay for people to take care of children with birth defects. I do note it was people in the Democratic Party that suggested the way to deal with children with birth defects was to abort them during pregnancy, just ask Sarah Palin. I saw no outrage of this from Gerrib. I guess what mattered was party loyalty, not moral principles.
Chris Gerrib said:
I think you need to watch the movie, “Idiocracy”.
Nobles are government. (Censored.)
There seems to be a strong undercurrent here of “people who don’t have health care don’t deserve it.”
Typical leftist. Taking ownership of the sender’s message so they can change the meaning.
“But if you want to defend the rights of hereditary nobility, don’t let me stop you.’
In that vein, if you want to throw away your children’s and their children’s futures due to back-breaking debt, don’t let me stop you just leave mine alone.
“…(what did a minor child do to not deserve health care)…”
I’m surprised you didn’t post a picture of some starving orphan and say do it for teh children.
Chris G. – As a Catholic, the issue of Abortion should not be an issue with you. Your Pope has decreed…
I’m also fairly sure by your comments that you don’t understand that the concept we object to is FORCE. I’m charitable when I can be. FORCING me to be charitable when I choose not to be (the reasons for which are utterly immaterial) is the morally objectional part.
Christianity doesn’t force anyone to do anything they are not otherwise inclined to do. Any so-called Christian who claims otherwise hasn’t read the Bible I have.
the Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
That is funny. Stalin did precisely that to the extreme. If you did not work, or did work considered substandard, you were considered a wrecker and saboteur from the evil forces of capital and were sent to a work gulag, perhaps some mine in Siberia. If you were “lucky” a more industrial work gulag. There you were fed if you worked, and even when you were fed it was in minimal portions.
The Catholic Church defends helping and caring for the sick and the poor. As for the people in here who say they do not tax you for it, that was precisely what they did do in Medieval Europe when they made you pay a tithe. It was often like 10% of income. Oh and if you got branded as a heretic your property was usually confiscated by the Church.
Godzilla, you and Chris G. must have been raised in the same household. Offering the actions of Stalin when responding to a quotation from the apostle Paul is indeed extreme. I seriously doubt that Paul and the early church condemned slackers to hard labor in a mine.
And references to medieval history is a lame strawman, although your paragraph starts out with a defense of the church and ends with some kind of weird reference to the Inquisition? What point exactly are you trying to make?
What point exactly are you trying to make?
I wondered the same thing. I had written out a response, and then deleted prior to posting after deciding Godzilla might be in his cups.
That is, how they and their gang obtained the right to force A to pay for B’s health care?
You vote for it. Every year or so. If enough people agree that it’s wrong, then we’ll stop doing it. If you can’t persuade enough people then you’re SOL.
Think of it as a membership fee. And, by the way, you’re welcome for the all the goods and services that I and the wife pay for but don’t use. Like schools for kiddies we don’t have. AND, another funny thing, especially for the US – while I’m a legal resident Alien, I don’t get to vote for this stuff either! But I’m not complaining, for the most part the people seem to be doing a good job at the moment.
Of course, if you don’t like it nor democracy (insert Churchill quote for your own amusement) then I hear Somali is a lovely government free location this time of year.
Empathy relates directly to your ability to understand what the other person is feeling. Reading this makes me feel like I’m at an Asperger’s Sufferers convention…
Oh, right, it’s the web. I probably am.
I’d really rather live in a society in which basic service was included in the bill….
That sounds about right to me… education, healthcare, defense, highways, clean air/food/water.
Sounds like a good bill, where tipping isn’t needed.
I wonder who wrote that excellent piece?
Godzilla said:
“in Medieval Europe when they made you pay a tithe. It was often like 10% of income.”
When the Bush tax cuts expire in nine months, the lowest tax bracket will be the 15% tax bracket, which is 50% higher than the current lowest tax bracket of 10%.
When the Bush tax cuts expire in nine months, the lowest tax bracket will be the 15% tax bracket, which is 50% higher than the current lowest tax bracket of 10%.
So… glances at the tax tables. That’s going to cost people paying in the 15% bracket about $18 a month.
If your income is down there, frankly $20 a month is going to be the least of your problems. I’d rather see much larger allowances at the lower end so that the first $20$K+ of income is basically tax free and shift the burden up the chain to where it makes a significantly lower marginal impact.
In 2010, the 10% tax bracket for married persons runs from $1,146 to $2,042. The tax is calculated on 10% of the amount in excess of $1,146.. The tax on that amount would be from $0.00 to $89.60. If the tax rate is changed from 10% to 15%, the tax amount runs from $0.00 to $134.40. That’s a difference of up to $44.80 a month, not $18.
However, my point was not that the tax was a burdensome but that the government should be able to function on 10%.
the government should be able to function on 10%
I completely agree. We should simplify our tax schedule to something very basic:
1. Everyone files an individual return
2. Everyone gets a $20K poverty exemption
3. Everyone pays 10 percent of whatever they earn above the poverty exemption
4. No deductions or credits
So if you make 25K your tax burden that year will be $500, and if you make 200K your tax burden that year will be $18,000. I think that is reasonable
The government then needs to prioritize all of their spending and anything that cannot be funded from that tax revenue gets dropped from the budget.
I would love to see the elimination of several cabinet departments (Agriculture, Energy, Education, Health & Human Services, most of Treasury, Homeland Security, Interior, Housing & Urban Development, Labor, and Commerce) and transfer all of that labor back into productive sectors of the economy.
Nonsense. You voted with your feet. You clearly prefer our Yankee hinterland to whatever supercilious socialist democracy you hail from. No one’s keeping you here at gunpoint – you can be just as condescending across the pond.
Daveon said:
Actually Somalia does have multiple local governments of different types, with some of them having democratic institutions and others based on a theocracy. There’s just no central government in Somalia. The American equivalent of today’s Somalia would be if the 50 States in the Union became independent with some of them breaking up further into independent city-states. Like Somalia itself.