Again, from the same post from TH: Are British Conservatives Really Committed to Climate Action? Note the nuance of the structure of the post title – can we TRUST Conservatives? Do they really accept Climate Change – and are willing to use Government (in this case, the new and then quickly former Prime Minister Liz Truss) to force the change WE want onto everyone else?
Not well stated but look at that title again and we see the difference between European and American governance. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Europeans have been conditioned, over a few thousand years, to do what they’re told (with a few exceptions along the way). Americans still, however, retain a bit of that distrust of Government. Up until the Pandemic, that is, when many of our fellow Americans gave up their freedoms for security – with Government diktats being the Oppressors (I’m thinking of you, NH Gov. Chris Sununu!).
Anyways, the same commenter I talked about in my last post, gr8bkset decided to take ANOTHER crack against Conservatives:
The goals of conservatives is to save THEIR money from being spent on the masses. They believe they’re rich enough and old enough to outlive climate change. Dying with a bunch of $$ left does them and society no good.
Well, I as a Conservatarian take issue with that. Painting us all as Scrooge McDucks seems to be the purview of all of the Greenies – that is, green with envy. If we won’t think like them, slander us. It’s not a new thing but his statement is clear – the only good purpose is what benefits Society. And I’ll add, that rich person could have spent millions or more funding all kinds of philanthropic ventures. After all, just look back to the Gilded Age where the rich were called Robber Barons. But they also funded libraries, hospitals, and other works.
Another Socialist agree with him, Stephanie, with “Sadly True”. Then Vindaloo Bugaboo asked her a pointed question:
Whom do you consult with first when deciding what you want to do with your own money, Stephanie? Anyone?
Just asking for a friend.
OUCH! I then moved the conversation to where the Eco-Socialists have little expertise: Government and governance with THE question that generally goes unanswered (shades of Bruce Curry):
Answer this: whose money is it FIRST? Whose money is it really?
One of the Pillars of our Constitutional Republic is the Right to Private Property – and yes, wealth is part of Property. Where do *I* get off in demanding that your money be taken from you, forcibly, to spend it on my home? That’s what your words are agreeing to, that “it’s no longer yours when MY purpose needs it”.
So let me also ask this: Where in the US Constitution is the enumerated Power for the Federal Government to do such things? I don’t care if it is a good idea or not, but another Pillar is The Rule of Law. We keep ignoring that at our peril.
And let me ask you the same question that I ask others that “somebody has to DO something!”:
Then do something – stop being lazy, form a non-profit, get donors, and do it yourself.
American Society USED to be all about self-reliance and voluntary responsibility for others. When De Tocqueville toured the US in the mid-1800, he was agape at how little people bothered with Government (and the converse, how little Govt interfered with us). With the rise of Big Government starting with Wilson, shoved into higher gear with FDR, Nixon giving it a shove, and Obama going into overdrive, those two attributes have withered away.
As I said during my 10 years on my hamlet’s Budget Committee: “it’s not OUR money but we should spend that money like that taxpayer, from whom we have TAKEN the money from, would”.
And then a non-American, Annie Cass, decided continues the trope that Conservatives hoard their money. It’s the bolded part that shows what she believes to be THE Proper Role of Government:
Sidenote: as I’ve said before, studies have shown that the opposite is true in that Socialists tend to give less money and time than Conservatives. The former believes that Government should do such things. The latter believe we INDIVIDUALLY are mandated to do so for others.
Those of you advocating fracking need to revisit the reasons why those wells were capped – clean water is as pressing a need as energy, and if ONE source of energy messes up the ONLY source of non-bottled water you’ve got, other sources of energy start to look not only good, but absolutely necessary.
I really don’t know why they call them “conservatives” when the only thing they’re really interested in conserving is the size of their bank accounts. The lives of their constituents are of little apparent account to them. British people are going to die this winter because they can’t heat their houses. Most of these people will not be welfare recipients, but full time workers. Many of these full time workers are employed, directly or indirectly, by people who pay themselves many thousands a week for working no harder than the people who actually produce the goods or services they sell.
It is the duty of governments to tax those who are paid much more than the average person so that those whose entire income barely covers food and rent aren’t bled further. Conservatives have a track record of allowing the poor to literally starve and freeze so that their wealthy mates aren’t troubled by having their wealth diminished. They only do anything different if the results of business as usual are so outrageous that it just can’t be sold to the electorate. As a significant proportion of the British public won’t be able to find the extra money to cover multiplying energy costs this coming winter, Truss is forced to make noises about helping out. You can be certain that, if humanly possible, the cost of that bill won’t be coming out of her backers’ back pockets. So the rush for cheap-and-dirty fuel is on.
Russia can’t capitulate soon enough.
So if the other side is trying to convince me to join them, insulting me to my face (“Conservatives have a track record of allowing the poor to literally starve and freeze so that their wealthy mates aren’t troubled by having their wealth diminished”) isn’t going to work. Mostly because it isn’t true. But she decided to go to that Governmental purpose:
It is the duty of governments to tax those who are paid much more than the average person so that those whose entire income barely covers food and rent aren’t bled further.
Not in the US it isn’t – our Declaration of Independence (the philosophical underpinning of our Constitution) clearly states what the Proper Role of Government is.
I’ll say again what I said earlier but a bit differently – show me where in the US Constitution, which Article and Clause gives the Federal Government the enumerated Power to do what you claim it should be doing?
Yes, I know, too many Americans are clueless about the “fence” in which the Constitution is/was supposed to keep us safe from Government in providing for that the Proper Role and that the Feds do so much more than it should (a bug, not a feature).
For that, I blame our poor education system that no longer teaches basic Civics such that voters would “kick the bums out” that stray beyond that fence.
And it’s, like many Americans unfortunately, she has no idea what a Constitution is for – really, a place where excuses are made?
Not being a US citizen I’m not sure quite what excuses your constitution gives for allowing your government to work for only a proportion of your citizenry, and not all of it. From the outside, the US looks like a slave state which never quite got over having to replace actual slaves with wage slaves. It only gets away with allowing the predators to rule because so many US citizens dream of being one of them. It’s your cultural DNA that gives you poor domestic infrastructure and literal beggars on the streets. But hey, if that’s what the people want . . .
Heh! My quick response:
Slave State
BINGO – I win! DRINK!
I’ll give her some excuse for not being an American citizen. However, it’s clear that many Americans now think the same thing. Really, “wage slave”?
Do I get the chance to say “Hey, Biden’s in charge and he PROMISED that other countries would look upon us better than that Mean Tweeter”.
So, is Biden succeeding?