Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Liberals, I Have A Challenge For You

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/09/17


I have a challenge for you Liberals. I know you loathe challenges, so much so that you have even refused to allow scorekeeping in some organized youth sports. But try to get over your fear of challenges to accept my challenge. I have a single rule for you to follow by letter and spirit:

You shall not covet your countryman’s house. You shall not covet your countryman’s ability to have a domestic staff, his car or bank account, or anything that belongs to your countryman.

Now the challenge. After reading and fully understanding the single rule, and obeying that rule, put in writing your economic and social agenda for getting the US out of its financial and social morass.

There. That’s the challenge. Do you have the intestinal fortitude to accept the challenge?

I expect Liberals to have three responses to the challenge.
1) Ignore it completely, as many before have done.
2) Complain about how unfair the rule is.
3) Ignore the rule completely while putting forth an agenda that violates the rule with practically every step.

Prove me wrong, oh great and wise Liberals. I challenge you.

24 Responses to “Liberals, I Have A Challenge For You”

  1. Tincup said

    I am not sure whether I am a Liberal or a far right Darwinist…I am working on your challenge and have two posts on the topic…judge for yourself:)

    Like

  2. Tincup, I allowed your comment because looking at your blog, I see you have potential. I would suggest you actually provide commentary other than “look at my blog for your answer”. While drawing attention to your blog is not in itself a bad thing, providing no actual information while drawing attention to your blog is.

    That said, I did read your two blog posts and they are relevant to the challenge. But the first blog post does indeed directly violate the single rule I provided and I do believe the second blog post indirectly violates the single rule. I would like to know more of your position and how it is keeping in line with the single rule, or a new position at which you arrive when you do follow the single rule.

    Like

  3. We could shoot all the right-wingers. That would eliminate about half the population, which would create full employment. Eliminating Republicans would also increase the ability of Congress to pass sensible legislation, which would stabilize our economy and balance the budget. We could have a new, clean, comfortable, efficient high-speed rail system so we wouldn’t be stuck flying in sardine cans. We could honor our Founding Fathers’ request to not have a standing army and reduce military spending to a bare minimum.

    There. Problem solved. 🙂 And right-wingers are dumber than dirt, so that would also increase the average intelligence in America, which would result in more innovation and prosperity.

    [Buh-bye, Ben Hoffman. You have now entered the Siteban Zone.]

    Like

  4. Tincup said

    LOL…I enjoyed your opening comment about youth sports. I was brought up by an ex-marine that went from truck dock worker to CEO. My brothers and I were brought up playing football in front yard as little kids playing with a real college sized football…and winning and losing was everything.

    But when I left the nest, I have encountered my own experiences, which include success and failure. I am in my early 40’s now and I think I am beginning to understand my surroundings.

    Although I have a pre-college conservative, republican (no religion), wealthy background,my education was a combination of liberal and conservative pursuits…Rhetoric (Greek/Roman classics) and business administration combined with college baseball (world series team in 1988). Got an MBA later. My business career was fortunate for 10 years…top 5% earnings range in the country. Right now I am broke and have been unemployed for over two years. The only thing keeping me going is I have an 8 year old son…coaching his baseball and soccer…which is why I got a kick out of your opening post about youth sports…very very different from when I grew up.

    My thoughts on the human predicament, focusing on the United States and the morphed American Dream that went from broad principles (Freedom to pursue your dreams) to own a house, big screen tv, and a car, is that it is a shallow endeavor. That said, the voice of the left, or the liberals, the “good guys”, comes from the rich left that merely want to placate the poor to prevent a revolution. I can’t identify with left or right.

    In my opinion, every human being should have a house, food, transportation,and currency in the bank, that is just the basics…it should not be the goal of the human project. We are the masters of the planet with immense potential. But that said, we need discipline, sacrafice, and cooperation. Breeding is the first principal. People need to breed responsibly…the population cannot be allowed to explode as it has when the parents are not fit to provide and bring up the young with a solid education. The children and their teachers should be top priority…and we should be allocating all our power and resources to that end…but exactly the opposite is true. As a result, we breed and throw them into half a** day care centers and both parents go to work in an attempt to affort and live the morphed American Dream.

    But educated kids isn’t enough. There needs to be inspiring and motivating visions for them to grow into. I don’t find our current visions…the morphed American Dream, to be inspiring. As I said, that is just the basics.

    What we have currently, in my opinion, is one big ponzi scheme. Those with the power and money attempt to keep the mass of domesticated pigeons placated with little pieces of bread but all their efforts are to move hordes of us to spend what little we have to enrich themselves. The media, sports, pop culture, investment banks, banks, Wall Street, business…run by the rich influennce the masses to spend their little dimes here and there…they accumulate more…the pigeons go broke.

    The above is a crude summation of my thoughts but they will be developed on my eloquent blog (LMAO) over-time.

    Like

  5. The media, sports, pop culture, investment banks, banks, Wall Street, business…run by the rich influennce the masses to spend their little dimes here and there…they accumulate more…the pigeons go broke.

    This is where you directly violate the single rule put in place. You definitely run askew of other Conservative principles in your allusion to the so-called “Population Bomb”, and your “the population cannot be allowed to” is a huge no-no, unless you like the idea of Big Brother. But those weren’t prohibited from being part of Liberal solutions.

    “The children and their teachers” runs up another red flag. Liberals love to put “the children” out there as a catch-all for their destructive agenda, and Liberals also love to say if we paid teachers more, they would teach better or something like that when the truth of the matter is private K-12 costs far less per student than public K-12 schools yet produce better educated students, and the dollars-per-student number has been steadily increasing for decades without a coinciding increase in student knowledge or ability.

    Like

  6. Tincup said

    I don’t care whether my concerns for over-population offend the left or the right. It is, in my opinion, the number one problem. If big brother doesn’t take care of it, then nature certainly will. Nature is in control, not us. I do agree that coming up with a policy or solution for over-population is extremely difficult. The other 99.9% of the species on this planet don’t have to write up policy, for nature dictates the policy. We think we have conquered nature…but we have an inability to comprehend natures time clock…it isn’t based on a generation, or 200 years, or 10,000 years, it is based on 5 billion years (past) and infinity (the future). Either we come up with an idea, or believe me, nature will.

    I don’t disagree with you on the second point regarding education of our most precious resource…the children and future for next generation. Money isn’t the silver bullet. In fact, I believe the best education system in the world is not Singapore or some other Asian nation…but Finland. And they spend much less resources on education than the United States. But check out information on Finland and the school system and look at the society as a whole. Finland has a small population, teachers don’t necessarily make a bundle but they are highly respected in the culture and teaching positions are a coveted spot. Finland isn’t my “Utopia”, but there are some lessons that can be learned from that society…and it isn’t a Capitalist regime.

    Like

  7. AOTC said

    tincups seems to be positing that there is a “moral” solution to our “problems”. (ie; he appears to have an idea of right and wrong as it relates to choices). he asks us to assume a moral framework and that humans are subject to it, and if they somehow do not discover the correct moral position in the natural universe… that nature will do its thing and correct it all… because nature has the solution.

    he seems to be saying that our moral responsibility is to choose to do things as nature instructs via natures example. though he doesn’t trust nature to actually do its thing.

    it seems a duplicitous position.

    Like

  8. DNW said

    Ben Hoffman, noticing a challenge to leftists to justify their appropriative activities writes instead:

    “We could shoot all the right-wingers. That would eliminate about half the population, which would create full employment. Eliminating Republicans would also increase the ability of Congress to pass sensible legislation, which would stabilize our economy and balance the budget. We could have a new, clean, comfortable, efficient high-speed rail system so we wouldn’t be stuck flying in sardine cans. We could honor our Founding Fathers’ request to not have a standing army and reduce military spending to a bare minimum.

    There. Problem solved.”

    So, “right-wingers” are about half the population, according to Ben.

    “And right-wingers are dumber than dirt, so that would also increase the average intelligence in America, which would result in more innovation and prosperity.”

    Maybe what Ben really wants to do is shoot the half of the population with IQs of 100 or under.

    Well, all things considered, I don’t think that Ben is serious, do you?

    I mean, I do think that he is sincere in his malice despite the smiley face, but I don’t think that he is a man to be taken seriously.

    Maybe if Ben can decide who it is he really wants to kill, he will come closer to realizing his dream of high speed rail for his wife and his cat. But, I doubt it.

    Like

  9. DNW said

    Lot of people who seem to want to see other people dead.

    Like

  10. Well, Ben has been banned from this site, so he can discuss all that elsewhere if he is inclined to.

    Like

  11. Tincup said

    AOTC: I never used the word “moral”. In fact, nature is far from “moral” as we define it. My main point is that Ben’s concern about a house, bank account, a staff, a car, in other words the morphed American Dream,combined with his limited parameters of an economic and social solution, doesn’t take into account the big picture. I don’t think there is a solution for the mess we have created if we try to operate under our comfortable framework.

    Like

  12. Tincup, I’m not Ben, just to clear that up. And you just proved my prediction number two to be accurate. And, in case you didn’t notice, if you look at my single rule and then look at my sidebar, you’ll find something very interesting.

    Oh, and do be careful of using “as we define it” because that is an ad populum fallacy.

    And trust me, there is nothing “comfortable” about strongly adhering to that one single rule, as you have shown so far to be incapable of doing so, thus proving it is not comfortable for you to do so.

    Like

  13. The reason I issued the challenge with the single rule is because I have yet to see a Liberal put forth a social or economic plan that doesn’t violate that single rule, dating back to 1913 and beyond. I don’t believe the Liberal philosophy allows one to obey that single rule. If I’m wrong, I’d like to see it.

    Like

  14. Tincup said

    I am sorry for using Ben’s name John especially considering the content of his post. I read the side bar and I now understand the source of your single rule. As I mentioned earlier, my religious knowledge is lacking, although I did read the old testament on my own when I in my early twenties. There is some great knowledge and content contained in that work and I hope to re-read the old and embark on the New Testament sometime in the future.

    I was surprised by one theme in the old book. After God performed so many miracles and wonderful things for his people, why did they repeatedly disappoint the almighty? In fact, if I recall, didn’t the Old Testament say God is a jealous God, and therefore would not allow his followers to worship another God or Gods? Isn’t that in and of itself “coveting”?

    I agree with you that coveting or jealousy is not an admirable trait and we should try not to give in to such a human emotion. In an attempt to make people equal, taxation or re-distribution of wealth can certainly be linked to coveting or the suppression and prevention of coveting spilling over the top. My solution, as I already mentioned, is a work in progress, but the structure or framework is outside the scope of the status quo. If I am confined to the status quo, then I don’t have a solution and I don’t think the Liberals will have one either, which is why you haven’t gotten any credible Liberal commentary on this post.

    Like

  15. Tincup said

    I have one more broad comment as it relates to the single rule. Aren’t there other parts of the bible that preach compassion to help your fellow man? You have pulled on one piece and attempted to apply it to our current mess. If compassion is part of God’s will, then isn’t it understandable why our government has become so large and developed such a large safety net? And doesn’t a large safety net require tax dollars beyond what our original founders had in mind?

    Like

  16. The Bible teaches Compassion, yes, and the very nature of Compassion means that it is a voluntary and willful act, not one of Government coercion. Therefore, the over-powering Government coercion is decidedly not in line with the teachings of Christ or any other part of the Bible. Furthermore, many charitable organizations got overrun by Government agencies, causing the charitable organizations to go under. And since charitable organizations are more efficient than the Government and can place requirements on the recipients the Government ignores, those charitable organizations are much more helpful in giving a hand up instead of the government hand-out and can weed out the leeches the Government creates.

    This is where Liberals go wrong. They presume that since Conservatives are against Government taking money from people to give hand-outs that Conservatives are uncaring. The fact is, Conservatives are much more generous with their own money than are Liberals.

    Do not confuse Government taking from you, skimming off the top, and then giving to me with you deciding on your own to help me out. There is a HUGE difference there.

    Like

  17. By the way, I have a very strong moderation filter (that I will strengthen if I find loopholes). For instance, your comment went to moderation because you wrote “compassion” which has a 3-letter moderated word in it. If you were to type out my last name, that comment would find its way into moderation as well.

    Like

  18. Tincup said

    Well, we are in agreement. I don’t like what our government has become and I agree man’s good heart and generosity should come from his own free will. Forcing someone to do something doesn’t work in the long run. That is why I struggle with Utopian ideas and it is a big problem that I will confront when I work on my ideas regarding over-population. Take care and I hope you get some good and legitimate comments and discussion for the Liberal line of thought.

    Like

  19. Tincup said

    AOTC, not sure you will revisit John’s post but I understand your confusion. I believe the human can avert nature’s solution, which would be harsh. We are in a position due to our large brain and opposable thumb to achieve more than 99.9 percent of the other species on this planet. So it isn’t that I don’t trust natures solution…I want us to come up with our solutions to avert nature’s solution. Hope that helps.

    Like

  20. […] great and wise Liberals. I challenge you. _______________________ I issued this same challenge on my own blog site, and a Liberal troll who previously trolled my blog site promptly got himself banned. It had a lot […]

    Like

  21. ncooty said

    Since you cross-posted your “challenge” on Caffeinethoughts, I’ve cross-posted my reply.
    ================
    I think I might have an answer for you, but I don’t think you’ll agree, given that you seem somewhat convinced of the mutual exclusivity of your premise and an answer. On that note, I find it interesting that you seem to assume the following:

    1) An answer is only valid if it meets your criteria, which seem to be biblical (leading me to wonder if you would consider other biblical references–even contradictory ones–valid).
    2) U.S. economic policy should be biblically based.
    3) Taxation is an act of coveting.

    Having said all of that, you have a few options. Here are two (with similar outcomes despite different rationales).

    Option 1:
    a) Commit to long-term reductions in continuous federal spending (in absolute or inflation-adjusted terms, or relative to revenue or tax base) and increase federal tax revenues (e.g., by reducing tax-based subsidies, returning high-end marginal income rates to a rate still far below those under Reagan)–but see the next point on counter-cyclical implementation
    b) Conform to counter-cyclical government spending (as proposed in Genesis 41, especially verses 33-36), such that our government spends in times of need and saves in times of plenty.

    Option 2:
    a) Jesus explicitly addressed the morality of the payment of taxes (Matthew 22:17-21), directing his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. By condoning the payment of taxes by Jews, Jesus taught that taxation is not an act of coveting, but a civil duty. (In fact, whether you think the value of US currency is derived from the US government or from God, Christ’s words unambiguously describe the payment of taxes as a moral OBLIGATION. Calling them covetous is a perversion of Christ’s own words.) All citizens enter into a social contract (whether actively or tacitly) by choosing to live within a society. In our (US) social contract, our legislative system has produced a graduated system of taxation–as in every other advanced economy.
    b) Continue to employ economic policies according to our best understanding of the influences of monetary, fiscal, and financial policies. At the moment, that means a graduated system of taxation, counter-cyclical spending, and federal spending and regulation in economic areas with a documented propensity for market failure (e.g., air and water quality).

    It’s also worth noting that there is substantial historical evidence on the harms of flat taxes and strangled governments. If governments were really so detrimental to human achievement, our species probably wouldn’t keep inventing them. In the words of Barney Frank, “‘Government’ is name we give the things we choose to do together,” (like it or not).

    Like

  22. “You seem to assume the following:”
    1) true, although your parenthetical relies on an absolutely false premise.
    2) false
    3) false

    Regarding [3)], taxation should be based solely on fulfilling the Constitutionally-provided responsibilities of the Government, not on some Liberal-designed social engineering, which is absolutely without question outside the purview of the US Constitution. As it stands now, the Liberal agenda is wholly outside the US Constitution.

    But thanks for proving my point number 2. And thanks for showing that you believe Government Mandates can replace the Jesus-motivated personal decision with the Satan-mandated “everyone is required to” social agenda that the Liberals adhere to. You cannot, within any sort of Biblical parameters, push for the agenda you espouse without lying and violating all manner of Jewish and Christian doctrine. It is impossible for you to do so.

    Of course, you will demand your context-free and literarily-dishonorable agenda be allowed to stand, despite their wholly dishonest pretexts and premises.

    Like

  23. ncooty said

    John,

    The reason I post replies to your sorts of questions is so that, if nothing else, I can better understand your point of view, not belittle a caricature of it. I don’t think that just because I have a Ph.D. in this field and work for an international financial institution on global economic and monetary policy that my opinion is necessarily more valid than yours. I’ll admit, when I first read questions like the one you posed, my initial reaction is to think it was written by an uneducated moron whose opinions are undaunted by what should otherwise be a stifling level of ignorance. HOWEVER, that’s not fair to you. I don’t know you. Maybe you have very good reasons for thinking what you think. So, I wrote a reply in good faith, laying out what it seemed to me you had assumed, without making personal accusations about you or putting words in your mouth (e.g., your arrogant overstatements about what I believe).

    However, I don’t think you posted your question and replies in good faith, because rather than having a reasonable discussion in search of an answer, you merely attack the people providing possibilities (ad hominem, and straw man to boot) and evince a strong personal defensiveness about your position (that to me seems to border on a victim mentality). You have stipulated in your phrasing that the only possible answer is that there is no answer. That’s closed-mindedness.

    Your flippant assertions that I’m just complaining (e.g., “… thanks for proving my point number 2”) don’t address the content of my reply. Likewise, scatter-shot, vague accusations about Constitutionality seem at best tangentially related to the question you posed–about the structure and function of the tax system, not the use of funds for some “Liberal agenda” [sic].

    Moreover, you seem repeatedly to accuse those who disagree with you of complaining, doing Satan’s work, using “wholly dishonest pretexts and premises,” “lying and violating all manner of Jewish and Christian doctrine,” (though, as with your accusations about Constitutionality, you don’t bother with specifics), etc. So, I’ll leave it to other people–presumably people who already agree with you–to read your blog and otherwise put up with you.

    On the whole, you have sadly reaffirmed my preconceived notions about fundamentalist Christians. I think you’re counter-evangelizing.

    I won’t be returning to read your reply, so please feel free to continue to play to your audience; I’m sure many of them will agree with you.

    Like

  24. AOTC said

    the other night Chris Christie said in a speech what i take as johns fundamental point.

    “Telling those who are scared and struggling that the only way their lives can get better is to diminish the success of others. Trying to cynically convince those who are suffering that the American economic pie is no longer a growing one that can provide more prosperity for all who work hard. Insisting that we must tax and take and demonize those who have already achieved the American Dream..: -chris christie

    ———————————–

    regarding the tax question of “what would jesus do”

    “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, ‘Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matt. 22:19-21)

    Ravi Zacharias goes on to open up a new question, (paraphrased):

    The questioners missed out on this one. They forget to ask a follow up question. Stunned by Jesus’ wisdom, they do not ask the question: “Well then, what belongs to God?” I wish they had, then Jesus could have replied: “Whose likeness do YOU bear?” We can’t forget that we were made in the image of God, and therefore we are to render what is due to Him–ourselves.

    ————-^^^that is an example of how christian principles are not found to be bad as much as they are not actually ‘found’ at all. no wonder, as it is written: ‘”For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Is. 55:8-9)

    ———————————————————

    then, there is this…

    ncooty said
    2011/09/27 at 18:42

    ” I don’t think that just because I have a Ph.D. in this field and work for an international financial institution on global economic and monetary policy that my opinion is necessarily more valid than yours. I’ll admit, when I first read questions like the one you posed, my initial reaction is to think it was written by an uneducated moron whose opinions are undaunted by what should otherwise be a stifling level of ignorance. . ”

    and then he said this:

    “On the whole, you have sadly reaffirmed my preconceived notions about fundamentalist Christians. I think you’re counter-evangelizing.”

    ——–to that i have one response: … on the whole, you have sadly reaffirmed my preconceived notions about phd’s with delusions of grandeur. i think you are over-compensating.

    Like

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: