I know this may seem like a bit of an odd question but I’ve been wondering about it for the past few days and for some reason I can’t escape the feeling that it (atheism) would be a rather ‘conservative’ point of view (that is, at least in title), and yet I’m constantly being called a liberal because of my social and political leanings. I'm just wondering what your views are on this.
PS: I’ll be gone for a few days but I will catch up with this thread when I return.
2+2=4 is pretty simple too. That doesn't make it any less true. And while I doubt that you go around doing evil. Your vote likely is to endorse the physical coercion of others. Which is immoral. So, you say I am lame, simple and a prick. Brilliant.
You are the one name calling like a child. Asshole? Come on. I am simply stating the truth that forcing others to give up their means of life so that other's can be provided for is fundamentally evil. A willful violation of another's rights is wrong.
If we strip our concepts to include only essentials, and no arbitrary attributes, then all of philosophy becomes easier to understand, including ethics. So, I would, in fact say that while our implicit ethics is the same, I am able to explicitly articulate its nature in a less complex and less contradictory fashion.
So, you think it is good to violate individual rights as a means to life. That is immoral any way you look at it. We can do better.
Your road analogy is arbitrary. Having rules and regulations is different than not having control over your own means of life.
You are evil in as much as you endorse physical coercion as a way of life. This is not hyperbole. We need not extra arbitrary complexity to see and face the truth of it.
You can call me what you like, sure. But the difference is I am calling you evil in as much as you advocate immoral force, literally. And you are calling me an asshole, metaphorically to mean, well, I'm not sure exactly, that you don't like me, that you think i am not compassionate, that your feelings are hurt, that I am selfish, that you think I'm mean to the suffering poor by not supporting them willingly.......
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong. ...H. L. Mencken,
In a society as complex as is modern society, to believe that any simplistic solution to complex problems can be found is beyond wishful thinking – it's delusional. The application of simple fixes to complex problems is like stabbing a watch with and ice pick and hoping it will keep better time.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. ~Albert Einstein
Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. ~Confucius
The greatest truths are the simplest: so likewise are the greatest men.
~Augustus William Hare and Julius Charles Hare
The problem (among others) with your Ayn Rand philosophy MT is that if you leave it up to the rich to decide whether they want to help out the poor and the struggling, they would on the whole keep their money for themselves, using the same rationale as you are using. There was a time when the rich were allowed to do nearly anything they wanted. You know what happened? The Great Depression. So it turns out it is in the interests of the rich to look out for the interests of the society as a whole rather than buy into this selfishness Ayn Rand bullshit. Are you for or against anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws?
You have zero evidence that philanthropy and charity would not provide adequate assitance for the needy. As if evidence of that would make forcing people to help acceptable or moral. The more of my own money I get to keep, the more I give to organizations I value. The same goes for other wealthy people I know. I have also witnessed directly multiple times in the last 30 years, the number of employees, which is in the thousands, of a company my family runs, reliably going up when taxes are lower.
You also have zero evidence that individuals making and being able to keep their own money caused the depression. The way I see it, after a sizable amount of inquiry, is that it was government support of the banking industry which allowed the creation of the federal reserve and orchestrated inflation and debt as a rule. It makes no sense to say that individuals making their own decisions about business results in the loss of the value of the dollar and ability to get a job. Also, it is supremely clear that the war and the military industrial complex, not the New Deal, got us out of the depression.
Regarding anti-trust and anti-monopoly: I do not think that in a truly free market these things are necessary, but if any group or individual can be shown to directly cause the violation of another's right to their own life, then I am all for a government intervention in this case. That said, I am not for laws that are enacted because the competition is more difficult for some than it is for others.
Again, it is not the responsibility of the rich to support the poor. I understand that it can be logical and in the interest of the self to help others, but why is it moral to force people to pay for shit they do not want or use and why is it moral to take more money from the rich to sustain a welfare state?