"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote:

===================================
Well I think you've hit the nail on the head. The problem here is that
those on the right really don't believe that there is such a thing as
"common good." They believe that the good of individuals is the only
goal. As long as I am doing well, it doesn't really matter how you are
doing - that's your problem.
=======================================

AKA: The Reagen doctrine.

I got mine, you're on your own.

Lew



No, the doctrine is called 'individual liberty'.

Outside some very narrow areas like the so-called "commons" (air,
water, risk of pandemic disease ...) there is no such thing as the
"common good". The "common good" is a pernicious notion invented by
people seeking power so that you'll follow them. They appeal to the
"but its good for everyone" argument, neglecting the fact that such
schemes inevitably require people to give up some or all of their
liberty. Such schemes benefit some to the detriment of others.
Such schemes place the few in charge of the many. Such schemes
are essentially totalitarian, dishonest, at least dangerous,
and at worst murderous. Such schemes cripple political, religious,
intellectual, and economic freedom.

I struggle sometimes to know what's good for me. I am pretty sure I
don't know what's good for you and I am *certain* that I do not know
what's good for other larger groups of people, the "common good". So
long as people do not steal, use force, or threaten each other, it is
simply no one else's business how they live their lives (as adults).

"The Common Good" in many forms has been the basic argument put forth
by every thug, gang, tin pot dictator, genocidal maniac, and human
rights violater throughout history. The argument took on many forms:

- Do it for the good of the tribe
- Do if for in the name of God
- Do it for the good of your Sovereign
- Do if for the good of your nation/community/race/ethnicity/cause

Every single one of these Common Good arguments always boils down to,
"You the many shall be forced to do what we the few dictate." The last
100 years alone is littered with the results of people forcing the
"Common Good" down their neighbors' throats. Here's just a few
memories from the Common Good Hit Parade

- The Bolshevik Revolution
- 1930s starvation of the Ukrainians by the Russians
- The attack of Nanking by Japan
- 1935 and following in Germany, Japan, and Italy
- Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos
- The Chinese Maoist era
- The Castro Era
- Muslim-on-Muslim violence in the Middle East
- Congo, Somalia, Mauretania, South Africa, and Darfur
- Hussein's Iraq

*Every one of these* were genocidal nightmares (Hitler, Stalin,
and Tojo alone top something staggering like 100M dead at their
hands. Pol Pot was good for 1.7M. The Tutsi-Huttus another 1+M.
The Muslims of the Middle East, some 3+ M.). *Every one of these*
argued that they were working for the "common good" of their
people/nation/tribe/religion ...

You can keep your common good and the attendant villagers with
torches. I want my freedom ...




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk


you forgot one, "'liberating the oppressed people of iraq' by initiating a
illegal war on false pretenses, murdering the sovereign leader of their
country, bringing "democracy" to the middle east, facilitating the ethnic
cleansing of baghdad, stealing (yet another) dark skinned people's
resources".

b.w.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:01:13 -0500, "William Wixon"
wrote:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote:

===================================
Well I think you've hit the nail on the head. The problem here is that
those on the right really don't believe that there is such a thing as
"common good." They believe that the good of individuals is the only
goal. As long as I am doing well, it doesn't really matter how you are
doing - that's your problem.
=======================================

AKA: The Reagen doctrine.

I got mine, you're on your own.

Lew



No, the doctrine is called 'individual liberty'.

Outside some very narrow areas like the so-called "commons" (air,
water, risk of pandemic disease ...) there is no such thing as the
"common good". The "common good" is a pernicious notion invented by
people seeking power so that you'll follow them. They appeal to the
"but its good for everyone" argument, neglecting the fact that such
schemes inevitably require people to give up some or all of their
liberty. Such schemes benefit some to the detriment of others.
Such schemes place the few in charge of the many. Such schemes
are essentially totalitarian, dishonest, at least dangerous,
and at worst murderous. Such schemes cripple political, religious,
intellectual, and economic freedom.

I struggle sometimes to know what's good for me. I am pretty sure I
don't know what's good for you and I am *certain* that I do not know
what's good for other larger groups of people, the "common good". So
long as people do not steal, use force, or threaten each other, it is
simply no one else's business how they live their lives (as adults).

"The Common Good" in many forms has been the basic argument put forth
by every thug, gang, tin pot dictator, genocidal maniac, and human
rights violater throughout history. The argument took on many forms:

- Do it for the good of the tribe
- Do if for in the name of God
- Do it for the good of your Sovereign
- Do if for the good of your nation/community/race/ethnicity/cause

Every single one of these Common Good arguments always boils down to,
"You the many shall be forced to do what we the few dictate." The last
100 years alone is littered with the results of people forcing the
"Common Good" down their neighbors' throats. Here's just a few
memories from the Common Good Hit Parade

- The Bolshevik Revolution
- 1930s starvation of the Ukrainians by the Russians
- The attack of Nanking by Japan
- 1935 and following in Germany, Japan, and Italy
- Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos
- The Chinese Maoist era
- The Castro Era
- Muslim-on-Muslim violence in the Middle East
- Congo, Somalia, Mauretania, South Africa, and Darfur
- Hussein's Iraq

*Every one of these* were genocidal nightmares (Hitler, Stalin,
and Tojo alone top something staggering like 100M dead at their
hands. Pol Pot was good for 1.7M. The Tutsi-Huttus another 1+M.
The Muslims of the Middle East, some 3+ M.). *Every one of these*
argued that they were working for the "common good" of their
people/nation/tribe/religion ...

You can keep your common good and the attendant villagers with
torches. I want my freedom ...




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk


you forgot one, "'liberating the oppressed people of iraq' by initiating a
illegal war on false pretenses, murdering the sovereign leader of their
country, bringing "democracy" to the middle east, facilitating the ethnic
cleansing of baghdad, stealing (yet another) dark skinned people's
resources".

b.w.

Who did that? Saddam?
He always was a murderous no good scumbag. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The next evil group to go down is the Islamofascists and American
Leftards.

Death to them all!! Liberty to everyone held down by them!

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:01:13 -0500, the infamous "William Wixon"
scrawled the following:

you forgot one, "'liberating the oppressed people of iraq' by initiating a
illegal war on false pretenses, murdering the sovereign leader of their
country, bringing "democracy" to the middle east, facilitating the ethnic
cleansing of baghdad, stealing (yet another) dark skinned people's
resources".

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/003999.html

--
Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized
anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:09:49 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:01:13 -0500, the infamous "William Wixon"
scrawled the following:

you forgot one, "'liberating the oppressed people of iraq' by initiating a
illegal war on false pretenses, murdering the sovereign leader of their
country, bringing "democracy" to the middle east, facilitating the ethnic
cleansing of baghdad, stealing (yet another) dark skinned people's
resources".

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/003999.html


ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Well done Sir...well done indeed!!!


"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno