GraniteGrok

In this post, I offered Dean from Blue Hampshire to a blog debate - we shall see if that will be accepted (I have my doubts - he seems to be more interested to yelling in the Liberal echo chamber than in the arena of ideas).  However, I hold out a bit more hope for this next one.

Jim - I would welcome a debate with you on what is the most fundamental issue separating Progressives / Liberals / Statists and Conservatives / Libertarians / Limited Government folks:

Which sovereignty should pre-eminent: the State or the Individual?

Who works for who?

I'm willing to host it here on GG or as a "Ping Pong" between here and BH - your choice.

I do have to hand it to NH House Rep Jim Splaine - even for being as far Left as I am Right (or even further), he's been stopping by to leave comments - which shows to me both a bit of decency and a bit of bravura.  His latest one was from my re-posting yesterday (er, 2007's) Thanksgiving post about the drastic change of economic theory that saved the Pilgrims from certain disaster.  Go read it here; the important bits are these:

When the Pilgrims first settled the Plymouth Colony, they organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share everything equally, work and produce.

They nearly all starved.

Why?

When people can get the same return with a small amount of effort as with a large amount, most people will make little effort.

...

At length after much debate of things, [I] (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. ... And so assigned to every family a parcel of land."

The people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

"This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. ... By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many. ... "

Thus, our own history has shown us the folly of where Obama and the national Democrats are trying to take us - to make it possible (and without any stigma) for the those most able to NOT do the work necessary to sustain themselves and their families to again ride on the backs of those that are making the effort. In reality, they are actively attacking the economic system, capitalism, that allows resources to be turned towards the poor at all!  

Regular readers of the 'Grok know that I have often stated that the truly helpless require assistance - it is those that are gaming the system that should deserve our scorn and derision.  Yet, it seems that Rep. Splaine hold another viewpoint - that of rolling back the hands of time and philosophy will have no consequence and is immaterial in its outcome - only the present move, the present reality (without considering the longer term consequences or cost/benefit) matters.  

Jim's comment was this:

Even a conservative should believe in sharing the bounty. Having a society of The Haves and the Haves Not is never an answer for survival -- that's just survival of the fittest. I'm reminded of the question, "What would Jesus do?" When we help one another, we help ourselves. Happy Thanksgiving.

In this, he carefully twists, as most Progressives do, the meaning of the word "sharing".  He also brings out the old, tired canard idea that the "poor" are forever poor and that no change in economic status is possible.  Then he twists in a religious aspect with the WWJD - and trying to play that aspect of many (if not most) conservatives against their refusal against higher taxes.

My response was the following:

Sharing - a voluntary action on behalf of the giver to the recipient. I do believe in sharing - as a Christian, that is what I am called to do. The Progressive's version of "sharing" is merely enacting more and more taxes to enforce sharing. If I am forced, under penalty of law, to relinquish that which I have earned, how is that voluntary? Forced contributions is not charity - there is nothing voluntary about it. The problem, Jim, as Dr. Brooks's studies show, is that as taxes are raised, voluntary donations ($ or time) go down as the attitude becomes (as in Europe has found out) "why should I donate - Government already does it via my taxes?". Society operates better when we all take self responsibility for ourselves, and then reach out, as individuals, to each other.

Government can never be "compassionate" - only people can. Remember, Jesus spoke to individuals, calling each to redemption and service and laid upon them the call to redemption and service individually - not to Government. That is the lesson.

My response was the following (and my challenge as well):