Robin Beck

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled to keep. I do not want it. And I do not see it as one that is consistent with the Dharma either.

Not at all. The libertarians and republicans do what they do and stand for what they stand for, I'm sure there are many libertarians and republicans who have other motivations other than screwing the poor but that is what they do in actuality whatever they may think. It's not a matter of opinion or conjecture but an objective fact.

Perhaps you presume to?

I don't pretend to know what people think. I only see what the results of their actions are.

One moe, Phil, on my positions. I tend to be libertarian / conservative and agree with Republicans more often than Democrats on most issues. Culturally, I might resemble what most people might think is liberal.

On some issues. like social insurance, I am probably to the left. I have not commented much on that. The word social insurance is redundant. Insurance is a socialist concept; it is pooling of risk.

At present, the USA social insurance program is not very good, there are some huge holes. Dependant spouses are way under protected. There is a paranoid fear that free loaders will get something they do not deserve.

Our Private Health & Disability Insurance is not real good either. The problem with private insurance is that they have to protect against adverse selection or go broke.

The only way to prevent adverse selection and cover everyone who needs it is to make it mandatory. The largest segment of the uninsured
are voluntarily uninsured. They could get it cheap, but do not see the need.

I go around in circles on solutions. I tend to think that insurance is just a really bad way to fund routine health care. I tend more toward to public clinics.

We do not have private police and fire protection. Well we do, for those who need services beyond what is available to the public. We also insure against loss from theft and fire. Does anyone want to ban private security and fire prevention? However, does anyone want insurance to pay for security systems or fire alarms? Does anyone want a National Single Payor fire and theft insurance program?

Insurance should not pay for routine health maintenance any more than it pays for routine home maintenance. Before nationalizing health insurance, we need to reconsider the concept.

Meanwhile, I would rather restructure medicare and medicaid to provide delivery of basic services, rather than financing of private services. Like that will happen.

I post this just so you know that it is not so easy to pigeon hole what a conservative libertarian republican thinks.

Is it generosity that says that members of society should possess the means to live and be healthy? Generosity is the virtue of charity but I think what we are talking of here is not generosity but simple human decency. I also think that whereas the mark has been fallen so short of people should be forced to do the right thing which they have failed to do. Or we can continue to live on the planet of the apes. You probably don't recognize your philosophy as mammalian pack hierarchy but that is what it is with the strong and rich having their way with the weak and poor. I think it is immoral, unethical, and inhumane. You seem to hold it up as an ideal. Very strange!

Absolutely the libertarian position is you should get to keep all you gather with as little interference as possible to keep society together.
Take a look at the Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
The first sentence reads, "Libertarianism is a label used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty and minimize, or eliminate, the role of the state."

Can anyone deny that the Republican agenda has been to cut taxes for the wealthy, reduce restrictions on big businesses, and cut entitlements as much as they can?
Again Wikipedia says,"Today, the Republican Party supports a conservative platform (as far as American politics are concerned), with further foundations in economic liberalism, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

I understand you to have said that you are a social liberal, but as far as economics go you are for the rich and against the poor, or your classification of yourself as a libertarian/republican is an error on your part.

republican/libertarian position,"I should be able to aquire and abuse resources as much as I want and I owe nothing to society beyond paying for the hired guns who protect my property."

You think that is the real world of how most libertarian conservatives live? So generosity in this age is not cultivated, it is legislated?

I am not sure I get your logic. Coveting someone else's wealth and property, because in your judgment, they do not need it, is compassion?

No need to delete my comment it perfectly describes the republican/libertarian position,"I should be able to aquire and abuse resources as much as I want and I owe nothing to society beyond paying for the hired guns who protect my property." I'm not trying to state your position I'm saying what I think it means in the real world. So I'm not embarresed in the least. You can do what you like obviously, state your position, explain how I mischaracterized your thoughts or intententions, or decide you don't want the discussion or my comment and delete it. I wouldn't say to delete it. I would say it's completely accurate whether you realize it or not. I don't characterize you as crazy at least, there's nothing crazy about valuing greed over compassion, it's not crazy to be selfish. At least not in the clinical mental illness sense of crazy. Selfishness is not unrealistic. But it doesn't seem to me that it would be the fruit of Buddha Dharma either.

" "People with views they do not like are attacked and called evil." You may not call people evil you usually shoot for crazy, but the tactic is the same you deny any reality but your own has any validity. I don't see how you can complain.

"That is not good for my blood pressure." Maybe you are consoled by the knowledge that you inflict the same pain on others. I'll take a page from your book. I can't be bothered trying to explain something to a neo-con nut job who is incapable of logic and who wouldn't admit a mistake even if he were able to realize it. See your way is simple the debate is over and you lost."

Jim,

Thank for providing another example. Sorry for forcing you to read this blog and giving you hbp.

My response was to Bruce about providing yet another version of the moon bat urban legend about the secret meeting. It is comparable to those who think the moon landing was staged.

I thought of that because Algore just recently said the same thing about those who he calls Global Warming Deniers. That is the level of political discourse at present. It is a lot like the old ARBN food fights.

The hilarious part is I actually know about the survey on defense issues that Jim Nicholson and Grover did; I even filled one out.

I also know that some think higher oil prices in the short run might be a good idea; to force us to develop alternatives, like Shale Oil, before it is too late.

Urban legends start with nuggets of truth, then the spinners play connect the dots. David Brock & Ariana Huffington once did that sort of thing for wing nuts [I confess, I bought into some of it]; they now do it for moon bats.

I have been there and done that on the wing nut side; so bring moon bat fantasy here; you shall get a sarcastic response.

gassho

"your ideology that rich people have a right to do whatever they like and that society has no obligation to care for the poor."

I would prefer to explain my views than have you mischaracterize them. I should delete that comment, and will if you want me to. Making misstatements about the blogger does not seem real bright. Perhaps you want me to delete it, so you can whine about censorship?

This is another example of exactly what I stated about these sort of discussions. Thank you for providing an example.

"People with views they do not like are attacked and called evil." You may not call people evil you usually shoot for crazy, but the tactic is the same you deny any reality but your own has any validity. I don't see how you can complain.
"That is not good for my blood pressure." Maybe you are consoled by the knowledge that you inflict the same pain on others. I'll take a page from your book. I can't be bothered trying to explain something to a neo-con nut job who is incapable of logic and who wouldn't admit a mistake even if he were able to realize it. See your way is simple the debate is over and you lost.

Bruce,

I deleted your earlier cut & paste job. That was a spam bomb, not a comment. Now, I prefer to deal with facts, not urban legends. If we believe that W lied {as opposed to being wrong} about WMD, then so did Bill Clinton in December of 1998.

At any rate, if people want to read about kook conspiracy theories, there must be thousands of moon bat and wing nut web sites that deliver that sort of thing by the boat load. I see no need to have that on this page; except maybe to make fun of it.

I have some thoughts on the WMD issue, Due Process for soldiers who are not really soldiers, domestic drilling, the increase or decline in terrorism since the invasion of Iraq, and a few other current issues. I have thought those out after looking at all sides. I am happy to present those views occasionally.

The problem is that those discussions turn into weird hate fests dominated by keepers of odd knowledge who use a scatter shot approach of making numerous unsubstantiated allegations. They have pretty much made up their minds, and will not be swayed by anything resembling actual evidence.
People with views they do not like are attacked and called evil. That is not good for my blood pressure.

Whether or not the moon landing was fake has little to do wityh your ideology that rich people have a right to do whatever they like and that society has no obligation to care for the poor. After all is said and done that is what Libertarians and Republicans stand for. You have no regard for th epoor and consider their situation to be their own fault. Not suprising that a guy who advocates torturing people would be so hard hearted. You have to make it seem that anyone who disagrees with you is nuts because that is the only way you can dismiss evrything they say without any reason. You equate believing that Bush and Chaney and others have acted criminally with not believing in the moon landing becuase that way you discount everything you choose not to consider. I wish I could see you the way you see yourself, as a reasonable and rational person, but I can't, instead I see an ideologue with tunnel vision who is out of touch with reality whether you believe in Neil Armstrongs lunar stroll or not.

Bruce,

This is why I stay away from these topics. There is really no response to flights of fantasy, whether it comes from moot bats or wing nuts. I have heard simlar stories, though not this exact one. I thought the speech was at a BBQ hosted by Grover Norquist. Do you believe the moon landing was faked too?

gassho

robin

Clown, you are wasting your time. Robin does not know that Bush and Cheny lied to the American People and caused a war that has killed millions, and that Dick Cheney gave a speech to Chevron before he was VP that he wanted a monopoly on oil in the middle east, and his goal was to drive oil to $200 a barrel, Robin will probably delete this like the last truth I posted. There were no weapons of mass destruction, they lied about the whole damn thing, The Bush family and the Bin Laden family do business together, Grandpa Bush did business with Adolph Hitler, just do some homework or do some Google. And no, I don't think Nasty Pelosi, or the Democrats are innocent either, but I am not going to cover anything up or lie about it. Dick Cheney is a monster, and kept lying about Sadam and Bin Laden connection when he knew there was none, but Robin thinks he is a great guy, so Clown, give it up.

I don't see any wisdom from pre-lotus meditation or medication. And my head had not been cut-off yet.

Bruce

You don't have to respond, and if you want to use "leftist" as an excuse go ahead. Greed is causing starvation and suffering, that is a fact. A redistribution of wealth would have to happen to relieve that. You can close your eyes and meditate but that is no solution at all. I don't expect you to agree, it would go against all that you seem to hold dear. I also don't expect you to understand that you are part of the problem not the solution. You often claim to be cultivating compassion so maybe one day you will. It's obvious to me that it hasn't happened yet.

The second comment is so full of leftist dogma, I have no energy to respond. It is based of the limited resources concept; that Pater's consumption takes from Paul. I also do not want to reduce humans to net consumers or producers.

Greed / attachment is one of three root causes of dukkha if that is what you mean.

As one small example which is in the news as of late, the price of simple basic foodstuff like rice has doubled in the last year bringing many poor people to starvation and this has been caused in no small part by the speculation in oil driving up the prices. Some people are making a lot of money speculating on oil and as a direct result people are dying. Those people are no more ignorant than they were last year they are just too poor to afford enough food in the current market. The market is driven by profit and doesn't care if people starve. By saying it is o.k. for people to invest and take profits in this way you are also saying that it is o.k. that people starve. This is what is happening all the time. The rich developed countries might represtent 30% of the world population and use 80% of the world's resources which meqans the other 70% of the world has to make due on the other 20%. It really is a problem. Higher mental states don't mean much outside of personal self fufillment unless they result in action to correct that.

Most of the problems in the world are caused by the way resources are distributed until this is addressed a peaceful equitable world is not possible. The entire world system today is based on greed and that is the root cause of poverty any politics that doesn't address that is just more of the same. Buddhism as well as just about all religions recognize that but have been relatively useless in doing anything about it.

I do not think wealth redistribution succeeds at fixing the problems of greed and poverty. Perhaps Buddhism, rather than Marxism or radical strains of Islam might be helpful.

By greed, I assume you mean avarice? Buddhisms sort of slices "bonno" very thinly. Lobha, or avarice, is the desire to acquire material wealth. Real wealth is acquired by cultivating virtues; such as the 6 paramitas and 4 immeasurables. In other words, qualitative wealth, not quantitative wealth, leads to lasting satisfaction. Attachment
to material wealth as means of happiness actually leads to dukkha.

It is interesting that you identify poverty as a sort of opposite of greed? Poverty is the absence of wealth. I think it stems largely from ignorance
more than from an unequal distribution of wealth.
So, it is equally a spiritual malaise. The cure is still the same; cultivating virtues.

As long as you are not concerned with a redistribution of wealth you are part of the problem and no other solution will help much. Around the world people are in degrading poverty and starving while others continue their empty consumer lifestyle in a vain attempt to be happy. Don't get me wrong ecology is a concern but the biggest obstacle to a sustainable future is povert and greed. It seems you are unaware of that.