|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 17, 2009 6:15:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 17, 2009 18:18:21 GMT -6
I would like to cite the first paragraph of "Capitalism and Freedom" to refute the collectivist zealot in Iowafan, apparently the board's newest progressive begging for an expansion of the nanny state:
"In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your country" implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive."
|
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Mar 17, 2009 20:07:14 GMT -6
I haven't read the link, my connection out here is tenuous at best, however, BTR, ya gotta be kidding me. A sacrifice of time, commitment, money, service, etc. is not a worthy achievement, but merely a subjective subject laying down his freedom?
The idea is to give of yourself towards the common good, to serve your fellow man through service to the country. The service yourself is undefined. You pick the means to give back. But there should be some appreciation towards what this country has given you that you'll get nowhere else on earth. And let me tell ya, I've been to my share of other countries and nowhere else does the common man have it as good.
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 17, 2009 23:07:06 GMT -6
85,000 Tons of diplomacy capable of 30+ knots.
That's beautiful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 18, 2009 10:15:21 GMT -6
I would like to cite the first paragraph of "Capitalism and Freedom" to refute the collectivist zealot in Iowafan, apparently the board's newest progressive begging for an expansion of the nanny state: "In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about Smurf passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your country" implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive." That's weak Ralphie....you know better |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 18, 2009 10:41:08 GMT -6
BTR is a closet anarchist. Or maybe not even a closet one.
That "rugged individualist" shit sounds proper until desires clash.
|
|
