Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
We are blessed to have our problems
I told you Rubio was good. You owe it to yourself to watch it all.
While I agree with most of what Senator Rubio had to say, I most vehemently disagree with his statement at 5:44 regarding economic justice vs. economic opportunity. He says,"...one is not more moral than the other." Not only do I disagree with him, but so did the Founders:
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'” -Thomas Jefferson
Certainly economic opportunity is morally superior to economic justice, as economic justice is merely a phrase created by the Marxists to replace "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
'"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'” -Thomas Jefferson "
Actually the irony there underlines the modern day reverse slavery the gummint tries to impose... making some work for others is wrong no matter which end of the socioeconomic bracket does the work.
Actually I disagree. Economic opportunity is a neutral value. You can take it or you can leave it. Justice is a virtue. There are several kinds of justice... retributive, distributive, social and commutative justice. To take from someone involuntarily and give to another who has not earned it is a violation of one or more of these kinds of justices. Charity is what we strive for. Forced charity is an oxymoron.
In this case we are talking about economic opportunity and it is morally superior to economic justice. This is not an argument about the abstract ideas of opportunity and justice in their pure forms. Economic opportunity takes nothing away from anybody, while economic justice is used to redistribute to those who have not earned anything through their own toil. You have to exert positive effort to take advantage of economic opportunity. Economic justice takes away from those who took advantage of the opportunity (a positive and morally superior position) and redistrubutes it to those who do not put forth the effort to suceed, but expect to have success handed to them (a negative and morally inferior position). Equal economic opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes. Equal economic justice equals equal economic misery.
R5 Nice ad hominem on your part. The sentiment of Jefferson is correct, but his hypocrisy is evident in today's light. 20/20 hindsight is 20/20 for a reason.
The cradle of democracy in Greece yielded us equally imperfect philosopher politicians; however without them we surely would not have reached the markedly better enlightened utopia that we currently enjoy.
Before you $hit all over the giants of history, place them into context of their time. Acknowledge their fallings. But marvel at the leaps of knowledge and thought that they brought to the table. AND BE GRATEFUL.
TUS: you and DB are in violent agreement. The only difference is that you are accepting the LIBERAL definition of "economic justice", and she is using the correct (and conservative) definition. Thus, if you were to hold the line on not letting liberals re-write Webster's Dictionary, you and her would be clicking "LIKE" on each other's statements!
While I agree with most of what Senator Rubio had to say, I most vehemently disagree with his statement at 5:44 regarding economic justice vs. economic opportunity. He says,"...one is not more moral than the other." Not only do I disagree with him, but so did the Founders:
ReplyDelete"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'”
-Thomas Jefferson
Certainly economic opportunity is morally superior to economic justice, as economic justice is merely a phrase created by the Marxists to replace "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
'"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'”
ReplyDelete-Thomas Jefferson "
Pretty funny coming from a slave owner.
Actually the irony there underlines the modern day reverse slavery the gummint tries to impose... making some work for others is wrong no matter which end of the socioeconomic bracket does the work.
ReplyDeleteActually I disagree. Economic opportunity is a neutral value. You can take it or you can leave it. Justice is a virtue. There are several kinds of justice... retributive, distributive, social and commutative justice. To take from someone involuntarily and give to another who has not earned it is a violation of one or more of these kinds of justices. Charity is what we strive for. Forced charity is an oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true lawyer. Rubio is making Perry look better every day.
ReplyDeleteIn this case we are talking about economic opportunity and it is morally superior to economic justice. This is not an argument about the abstract ideas of opportunity and justice in their pure forms. Economic opportunity takes nothing away from anybody, while economic justice is used to redistribute to those who have not earned anything through their own toil. You have to exert positive effort to take advantage of economic opportunity. Economic justice takes away from those who took advantage of the opportunity (a positive and morally superior position) and redistrubutes it to those who do not put forth the effort to suceed, but expect to have success handed to them (a negative and morally inferior position). Equal economic opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes. Equal economic justice equals equal economic misery.
ReplyDeleteR5
ReplyDeleteNice ad hominem on your part. The sentiment of Jefferson is correct, but his hypocrisy is evident in today's light. 20/20 hindsight is 20/20 for a reason.
The cradle of democracy in Greece yielded us equally imperfect philosopher politicians; however without them we surely would not have reached the markedly better enlightened utopia that we currently enjoy.
ReplyDeleteBefore you $hit all over the giants of history, place them into context of their time. Acknowledge their fallings. But marvel at the leaps of knowledge and thought that they brought to the table. AND BE GRATEFUL.
TUS: you and DB are in violent agreement. The only difference is that you are accepting the LIBERAL definition of "economic justice", and she is using the correct (and conservative) definition. Thus, if you were to hold the line on not letting liberals re-write Webster's Dictionary, you and her would be clicking "LIKE" on each other's statements!
ReplyDeleteSolomon hath spoken. I think TUS, if he's using the liberal definition, needs to put "economic justice" in ironic quotes.
ReplyDelete