Did I just read this in the DN?Amazing.
Ranch, I'm with you. However notice the lack of comments.I'm just re-reading outliers for fun and just finished the chapter where
Caldwell chronicles this same idea in the lives of so many accomplished
individuals. The interesting part here is that this idea is at the heart of his
famous 10,000 hours chapter. He shows how without the help of others and some
pure dumb luck many famous people would not of even had the opportunity to
practice their talent for 10,000 hours and we wouldn't have ever heard of
Gentlemen-While this editorial is "precious", Sam and Frodo are
fictional charecters and I think that's where this editiorial is leaning as
well. For most of the readers of this paper, "a village" is fine for
movies or if we are discussing the church but when it comes to the real world,
the prefernce should be to live like Jermiah Johnson and just take care of
Mountain men had to get along with their environment, which included those
native to the area. Common sense that life is a mixture of personal
responsibility and also cooperation with others.
@pragmatistferlifesalt lake city, utahRanch, I'm with you.
However notice the lack of comments.-------- I've
posted 2 -- The DN "monitor" did not post them.Must be
some hidden "rules" about saying: "Socialism" and getting ready
for the negative uber-consenservative comments to come through out the day.
It takes a village - what a concept!
A garden is an example of what life is really like. Someone has to till the
ground, someone has to water the garden. Someone has to pull the weeds.
Someone has to pick the fruit and vegetables. But, once that fruit and those
vegetables have been picked, everyone in the community thinks that they have the
right to eat because God gave us earth, and sunshine and water. They
didn't till. They didn't water. They didn't weed. They
didn't even pick the fruit and the vegetables; but, they think that they
own the "fruits of labor".Mr. Obama did not pay for the
roads, the schools, or anything else that we all hold in common and have all
paid for. (Government pays for nothing. The People pay all the bills of
government.) We all have equal access to those "roads" and to everything
that "government" claims to have provided. If someone uses those
"roads" to gain a profit, he is entitled to his profit. ANYONE can do
the same. NO ONE deserves any of those profits except the person who labored
Everyone is entitled to the profits of their labours. However, as noted in the
article, they took advantage of all the benefits of our organised, governed
society to create those profits from labour. We all have responsibility to
maintain the infrastructure, including governance, that underpins our
prosperity. The prosperity wouldn't be there without it. Who knows, this
concept could even be extended to the provision of health care, but that's
for another article.
@Mike RichardsHow do your post get approved with CAPITALS? We "the
people" are the goverment. That was Barrack's point. In addition to
hard work, sucess requires a strong support system of family, friends, and
community. We are blessed to live in a country that provides a person with
great opportunities because of the sacrifices made by many of those around us
and those that came before us. By putting a piece of our profits back into the
community pie we pay it forward for those around us and those coming after.
That's what my religon teaches me and one that I have instilled in my
children as well. What you espouse seems to be one of greed and selfishness.
Great article!It gets something right that often goes unrecognized
in a society drunk on worshipping and aspiring to be rich & famous –
namely, that smart people employing a strong STEM education undergird most of
our achievements & civilization, often with little material reward.
And any article that would make Ayn Rand’s head explode is a good
one, although she may have been ‘almost’ correct in one regard
– if scientists & engineers (not only entrepreneurs) ever decide to
“shrug Atlas” en masse, we’re in deep trouble.
FT,You have equal right to use the roads, benefit from the schools
and use any infrastructure that THE PEOPLE have paid for. All of us paid for
those things. All of us can use those things. All of us, if we have the
incentive, can travel those roads to take our product to market. Because THE
PEOPLE have built those things with their money and their sweat, all people have
the right to use that infrastructure. No one has the right to make
a businessman pay a "toll", for the use of that infrastructure. He is
one of THE PEOPLE. He paid his fair share. What he did that most don't do
is to work hard in his business to develop a service or a product. Using that
infrastructure makes it possible for him to get his service or product to
market. All people have that same opportunity. No bandits are allowed to rob
that businessman for travelling on a public highway. That's what many want
to do. They won't work, but they'll rob that businessman.
@ Mike RichardsYes, many don't want to work and sponge the system.
And many business's and individuals don't want to pay their fair share
and cheat the system (think Clive Bundy). They want to use the things "we
the people" paid for and rob the common man who is working just as hard.
Business and the wealthy have done better under this current President than they
ever have before. Yet, they cry for more. Our world would be a better
place if we had a few more "Sam-wise" around (think BO) and a few less
Golums (think Mike Lee).
Maybe this is what our President was telling us when he said, "If
you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made
that happen".Maybe he was right. But I still think
it would have been a pretty boring movie with just Sam and no Frodos...
Frodo be darned. Of course we all depend on others who have helped us.
That’s obvious. This meandering piece wanders hither and yon and finally
reveals itself in the last paragraph: a socialist diatribe against those nasty
wealthy people who just don’t pay enough taxes! A hint was given early on
in her rationalizing defense of Obama’s stupid “You didn’t
build that” remark, which of course he did mean. The fact
that the top “one percenters” pay thirty percent of this
nation’s tax bill seems to have eluded her. That and the fact that Mitt
Romney’s 13.9 % contribution is far more substantial than my meager 30%
tax bite. 50% of Americans pay no taxes at all and are riding on the backs of
those wealthy capitalists they envy so much. And the fact that many wealthy
people take advantage of the tax code is less a condemnation of them than of the
writers of that unwieldy morass of regulations. Most people I know try to take
advantage of the deductions that are allowed under the law. As
Churchhill said, “Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.”
Has DN become liberal?
"ANYONE can do the same. NO ONE deserves any of those profits except the
person who labored for them."Wow Mike right out of the mouth of
Marxist. Sam Walton 62 billionWalmart
"worker/laborer $10 an hour and food stamps. Is that what you were talking
FT,When you categorize people and compartmentalize them into your
caricatures, like "Businessmen who cheat the system (think Clive
Bundy)", etc... When you setup a frictional paradigm and pretend it fits in
general (because it's your reality)... you lose some people.Seeing people as YOUR movie character allegories. More "Sam-wise"
(think BO) and a few less Golums (think Mike Lee)... etc... is no way to view
the world IMO.===Open Minded Mormon,If you
comments aren't getting posted... there's usual a reason (not a DMN
conspiracy against you, or some hidden "rules" about saying:
"Socialism"). Stay on topic, don't troll or be
offensive, and it will get posted. There's no rule against saying
"Socialism"... it's the rest of the stuff in there (I suspect).===Bottom line...People are not your stereotypes for
them, or the movie character for them. They are real people. Try
to seeing EVERYBODY as real people (not as Ayn Rand, Frodo, Sam, Darth Vader,
catnis, Bundy, or Golum).Books and movies are great... but
don't use them to simplify, compartmentalize, stereotype the REAL people in
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahFT,You have equal right
to use the roads, benefit from the schools and use any infrastructure that THE
PEOPLE have paid for. All of us paid for those things. All of us can use those
things. All of us, if we have the incentive, can travel those roads to take our
product to market. Because THE PEOPLE have built those things with their money
and their sweat, all people have the right to use that infrastructure. No one has the right to make a businessman pay a "toll", for the use
of that infrastructure. He is one of THE PEOPLE. He paid his fair share. ========= GE made $60 billion and paid ZERO taxes to use any
of that intrasturcture that THE PEOPLE paid for.Call it whatever you
want, but Corporations need to be paying their fair share of tzxes or
FT,In case you hadn't noticed, Mike and other conservatives get
a free pass on all caps. The rest of us get censored if we try to emphasize a
word. I once got a comment denied for all-capping the inflammatory word
"sixteen." On the real topic here, anyone who thinks a CEO
or entrepreneur should get 400 times as much pay as his employees is hoping for
the demise of this fair land. All we have to do is look at where the Reagan
revolution with its addiction to voodoo economics has taken us and look at the
trajectory to get a sense for where we are headed. And it ain't pretty.
So if I invent a new kind of widget that I think everyone would want to buy for
$10 each; and I can make a profit selling them if I can get people to build my
widgets for $7 each; then I am evil if I sell 100 million of them and get
rich?I am evil if I don't share my profits with each of my
workers (just pay them the $7 for each one they make), even thought they
didn't invent it, take any risk starting the company, or invest any capital
(just their labor) in the venture?If I pay my workers by the widget
and some can build a widget in 1 hour (below minimum wage) while others can
build them in 10 minutes each ($42 per hour), then I am evil because my
low-skilled workers can't raise their families on their low production
wage?I am evil if I don't give all my profits to the government
(just taxes - a huge portion of my profits) because the government built some of
the infrastructure (education, roads, communications, etc.) my company uses to
get my product to market?Is that what you are saying???
Mike Richards paraphrased:Anyone can use someone elses labor to make
a fortune and the laborers deserve zip.
@ 2 bits-I'm not as current as I probably should. What is IMO?
Also, just having some fun. These blogs can get so serious and nasty. @Mike
Richards has some interesting, informative takes but the glasses in which we
view the world are defintely with a different perscription. I enjoy reading his
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTTry to seeing EVERYBODY as real
people (not as Ayn Rand, Frodo, Sam, Darth Vader, catnis, Bundy, or Golum).Books and movies are great... but don't use them to simplify,
compartmentalize, stereotype the REAL people in your life.10:52 a.m.
April 18, 2014=========== Great advise -- You you think the Obama is the Anti-Christ, Lucifer, and Hitler all rolled
into one crowd will get on board with that pledge?I somehow doubt it
LDS Liberal: "You you think the Obama is the Anti-Christ, Lucifer, and
Hitler all rolled into one crowd will get on board with that pledge? I somehow
doubt it very much."No, the left firmly established that
position for G. W. Bush during his 8 years as president. Funny how liberals who
called (and continue to call) anyone in the GOP every name in the book now call
foul every time someone criticizes this president.I'm not
condoning all the bad behavior by some conservatives, but the hypocracy of the
left when it comes to name-calling would be laughable if it wasn't so
serious an issue.
Joe Capitalist, you simply a very complicated issue. Once again you like most
on the right are looking for a black and white answer when one doesn't
exist. First of all your premise that those of us who believe in a
different form of capitalism than you think getting rich is evil is just wrong.
Let me say it again just wrong.Secondly your presentation of
disagreement as thinking someone who disagrees with you is evil is simplistic
and distracting from a reasonable discussion.Thirdly, "I am evil
if I don't give all my profits to the government (just taxes ). Who ever
said you owe everything to the government? Please tell me where this comes
from. Lastly, the discussion is not about evil but what is
effective, sustainable, desirable, and productive. If you want to
join in that discussion you will be taken seriously but not when your entire
premise is, it's mine and anything to the contrary is evil.
"just their labor' - That's a pretty big "just." How many
of your widgets would have been produced without it?
@LDS Liberal,I never said your strawman. I never said, "Obama is the
Anti-Christ, Lucifer, and Hitler all rolled into one"... so don't tell
me I believe that (when I don't).See how stereotyping and
grouping people by their "Type"... goes wrong?I actually
think Obama's a pretty good guy (on most things). But since I've
been "Typed" by you... now you assume I believe all the other ridiculous
stuff you hang on everybody of that "type".If you got away
from typing people and believing all your presumptions about them are correct...
your posts would be WAY more objective and credible.=====@FT,IMO = In My Opinion. I use that one a lot because I don't
assume ANYTHING I say is "correct"... it's just MY opinion.FYI = For your Information. I use that one a lot too, because I
don't assume anything I say has any value... it's just more
information to take in and consider (or not consider, whatever, it doesn't
matter to me).
@2 bits – “Try to seeing EVERYBODY as real people (not as Ayn Rand,
Frodo, Sam, Darth Vader, catnis, Bundy, or Golum).”Love
it… especially the inclusion of “catnis” made me laugh…
thanks.But you do realize that Ayn Rand was a real person who
espoused a real ideology (full of so many straw man cartoon situations &
villains she makes Star Wars look like a WWII documentary) and had very real
followers – some in fact who are very powerful, like the former Fed
Chairman and the current House Budget Committee Chairman. That
said…@2 bits – “If you got away from typing people
and believing all your presumptions about them are correct... your posts would
be WAY more objective and credible.”This is good advice for us
all… and I say this as both a former victim and a perp.@JoeCapitalist2 – “No, the left firmly established that position
for G. W. Bush during his 8 years as president.”Really
Joe… the “two wrongs somehow make a right” defense?
We can make a difference. I am gay. I say that because it is part of what I want
to say. I work for the state and most everyone I work with is Mormon. They all
know that I am gay. None of them have ever done anything to put me down. The
opposite is true! A few years back I almost died. I had some serious operations
and it is truly an experience when you know that you won't make it without
help. I want to tell you that over a period of months or maybe more, these
Mormon co workers helped me along my path! It wasn't so much the things I
could pin point, but it was more in a spiritual way, which is what I truly
needed! It is hard for people to discuss God with me, but they did! They
listened to how I felt! They helped me keep my job! Some things are hard to put
into words! Knowing that they cared was one of the most powerful things I have
ever felt. It was scary, but I thanked every single one of them and they knew
Ok, seeing that the discussion is quickly devolving into a liberal vs.
conservative dialoge, we need to look at Sam.The liberals are all
saying that it takes a village. The difference is how the help of the village
is brought into play. The liberal mindset is that the village must be mandated
to help. The conservative says that help should be voluntary.Sam,
just like the other examples here, volunteered. Nobody forced them, and the
person who received the help was prepared to go it themselves regardless of
obtaining help. If you have actually read the Lord of the Rings you would see
that each person volunteered, nobody was forced into going on the quest. Just
like in an Amish barn raising. People are not forced to help, but do so out of
a desire to help their neighbor.So, before you liberals think that
Sam justifies forced help, think again. Remember Frodo and the others were
ready to go about their task alone, but appreciated the help that others
offered. This is what conservatives have been preaching for years. Prepare to
support yourself and your family, but also help your neighbor because you know
what help they need.
"The liberal mindset is that the village must be mandated to help. The
conservative says that help should be voluntary."Once again
Redshirt you are very wrong about the liberal position. The real liberal
position is success takes talent, preparation, and opportunity. You as an
individual are responsible for the first two either through your own doing or
sometimes talent is pure luck. However number three is very complicated. It
often depends on circumstances way outside your control which include, family,
culture, economic and world conditions, social conditions, and the list goes
on.To point number three the liberal position is not that help is
mandated, but that it is not a desirable society where someone can gain an
advantage and then use that advantage to completely dominate the rest of a
society. In those situations it is a proper role of government to
circumstances or conditions for success for those who have talent and
preparation but who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity. It is clear through history that the advantaged will not volunteer the
opportunities nor especially will unregulated markets.
"You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own
power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your
hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize
competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted
them." - Mitt Romney“I know that you recognize a lot of
people help you in a business. Perhaps the bank, the investors. There is no
question your mom and dad, your school teachers. The people who provide roads,
the fire, the police. A lot of people help.” - Mitt Romney"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There
was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this
unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody
invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you
didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. ...The
point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual
initiative, but also because we do things together." - Barack ObamaReally just the same message.
To "pragmatistferlife" prove it. If help is not mandated, why is it
that liberals have always pushed for more government intervention? Why is it
that during the ACA debates they said that we had to help others? Why is it
that Obama told Joe the Plumber that Joe had to help those behind him?It was liberals/Progressives (both Rs and Ds) that gave us all of the
government bailouts and recent increases to the welfare state.You
claim that liberals do not mandate that you help others, but their record says
the opposite.You yourself admit that it is the job of government to
help. You do realize that government is funded by ALL of us, and when
government wants to help somebody they do it at my expense regardless of my
personal desire to help that person.Actually, history shows that
without government force that the wealthy do volunteer. Two local examples are
John Huntsman Sr and Larry H. Miller. Historically, look at the Carneges, and
look at all of the libraries and foundations that bear the name of wealthy
people that were established over the past 100 years.
I still think it would have been a boring and pointless movie without Frodo.Or if he were drafted or forced by his government to take Sam on his journey
and save the shire...
@Redshirt"Actually, history shows that without government force that
the wealthy do volunteer. "Not nearly enough. The food stamp
cuts that were recently passed into law are the equivalent of all the food
pantries in the nation combined, the House version would've cut even more.
So... who has doubled their food donations this year?
@RedShirt – “You claim that liberals do not mandate that you help
others, but their record says the opposite.”A fair point to
some degree, but let’s look at it a different way (not so binary). If the majority of the country decides they want to help people (and
just to be clear, the vast majority of that help goes to senior citizens no
longer able to “raise their own barn”) can a vocal minority,
resenting that it will be done through taxes vs. charity, stop them?[Let’s assume its constitutionality since no SC has struck down social
security or medicare.]Seems to me your “everyone must be
onboard or it’s illegitimate” view is a direct contradiction to a
democratic republic and is something more like anarchy (not the violent kind).
That may work in a tribe or small village but it’s hardly the way to run a
country our size.
To "Tyler D" I am not arguing the method for forcing or that laws that
force others to help are illegitimate.All I am saying is that
typically the liberal/Progressive method is to force everybody to help
regardless of desire or ability to help.The typical conservatives
will help on a voluntary basis and advocates that as a government stance.To "Schnee" you also realize that nationally we have more people
on food stamps than ever before. You should also realize that food stamps are
used for more than just essential food. You can buy pizza from Papa
Murphey's, hot dogs at 7-11, and all sorts of other things that those who
don't qualify for food stamps would consider a treat. IMHO, food stamps
should be cut even more to include all junk food.
After reading all the comments so far on this forum I am amazed that if you boil
down the issues both sides want the same thing. Both sides want to culture a
village that helps each person succeed and reach their potential. The difference
is semantics. Conservatives tend to think that when each person need to take
personal responsibility and works really hard. Liberal's side tend to think
that the government is responsible to make sure each person succeeds.IMO taken to their extreme neither ideology would work. If conservatives had
complete control the US would be full of ponzi schemes and the environment would
be ruined in the name of progress. On the other hand if liberals had complete
control the average person wouldn't have any reason to try hard, and
progress and development would stop.But the big takeaway is we
should all realize we are trying to accomplish the same objective, by focusing
on what is the same it becomes easier to find ways around the differences.
@JoeCapitalist2If you invent a new kind of widget, sell $100 million of
them for $10 each, pay zero taxes, pay some (not all) your employees below
minimum wage and below a living wage, pay some of your profits to political
groups to ensure minimum wage is never raised above a living wage and did I say
pay zero taxes while paying political groups to buy the vote (because your
corporation is a person) then yes, you are evil.So, @JoeCapitalist2,
in your scenario of $10/widget produced at $7 each, how much of your 3 profit
covers the social welfare net that your employees rely on to eat? Answer that
and then we can discuss whether or not you are evil.
OneWifeOnly: Who said anything about paying zero taxes? My widget
company would pay a lot of taxes. I would pay each person by the widget (i.e.
commission). If they had the skills they would make a good wage. If they were
slow or lazy, they might not make minimum wage, but that would be their choice.
The $3 profit on each widget is my reward for inventing the widget, starting the
company, and taking all the risks.I should be able to get rich from
selling millions of widgets for a $3 profit each. I should pay some of that in
taxes, but the government shouldn't make more from my efforts than I do. I
don't owe my employees any of that profit, just the $7 that we mutually
agreed as payment for each widget they made for me. It should not matter if I
use my money to do things that you do not personally approve of.
bricha: "...both sides want the same thing...the difference is
semantics."No the difference is not "semantics". It is
force vs free will.The left wants government to insure that everyone
does "their fair share" through increased taxes and government
regulations. It is not enough to just help, you have to help in the way that the
left wants you to or it doesn't count. It is not enough for a rich guy to
create a job to help give a homeless person an opportunity, he has to give free
money so they can have what they need without any effort.I wonder
what the left would say if we tried to force people to be religious. Religion
inspires the village to look out for others and give generously of their time
and money. What if we started mandating that all those godless people out there
spend 3 or 4 hours each week in church? Pay tithes and offerings? What if
government regulations required that everyone read scriptures and teach Sunday
School lessons?That would be an intrusive, overbearing government.
But it wouldn't be any worse than the government that currently enforces
the "religion" of the left.
Conservative vs Liberal, my experience. TMMV. I was a member of a
conservative church. Policy and custom said every member should hold a volunteer
position to contribute and maintain engagement. Some filled key leadership
positions for the congregation or congregational groups. But many were
make-work, like "Choir Music Librarian" and other such. I
now attend a church that is very liberal. We have a small paid staff - two
half-time ministers, an administrator, a finance officer, a couple of others.
And there are Sunday school and other teachers. Congregation members have huge
volunteer efforts in the community. Some I am aware of includes Gay rights;
human trafficking; fracking; healthcare legislation and access; voter access;
prison and sentencing reform and at least 20 more areas. Two
evangelical churches I attended were more like the first, and a Methodist church
I was part of was closer to the latter. My experience says
conservative groups tend to turn in and be primarily (not exclusively) focused
on the group. Liberal groups tend to turn out, and put efforts into helping
those in the wide-world and building inclusive beloved community.
Marxism is alive and well on this thread. Look at how many posters believe that
being paid for your labor is not enough. They believe that you have to be given
part of the company. "Lick" was paid for his efforts. He had no further
claim on the Internet, yet liberals tell us that he deserved $billions. Why?
He was paid for what he did. They believe that when you and I and they each pay
our fair share of the infrastructure, that they get to own it, and that we have
to pay them to use it. Why? Who made them more equal than the rest of us?We eat our bread by the sweat of our brow, but too many think that they
are entitled to be served at the King's table without working. They think
that their labor, for which they have been paid, also entitles them to the deed
for the property.Who taught them those Marxist theories? Were they
sluffing school when AMERICAN civics were being taught?
"I wonder what the left would say if we tried to force people to be
religious. Religion inspires the village to look out for others and give
generously of their time and money. What if we started mandating that all those
godless people out there spend 3 or 4 hours each week in church? Pay tithes and
offerings? What if government regulations required that everyone read scriptures
and teach Sunday School lessons?That would be an intrusive,
overbearing government. But it wouldn't be any worse than the government
that currently enforces the "religion" of the left."No
worse then the current government? What country do you live in? Because here in
'Merica nobody forces you to volunteer at the homeless center, or read
Marx. What government regulations do you think are equivalent to requiring you
to read scripture and teach Sunday school? You do realize,
don't you, that nobody forces you to help the poor?
@Redshirt"hot dogs at 7-11, and all sorts of other things that those
who don't qualify for food stamps would consider a treat"No
civilized society has ever considered 7-11 hotdogs a "treat".
Liberal Agenda: “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your
possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in
heaven.”Clearly socialist: “I tell you the truth, it is
very hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I’ll say it
again—it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for
a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!”Welfare Moocher:
"For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you
didn’t give me a drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me
into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick
and in prison, and you didn’t visit me."Probably a
homosexual apologist: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and
her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor
To "Stormwalker" you have it wrong.The Liberal Agenda is we
will take your possessions and distribute them to the poor, while retaining some
for us. Unless we force all to do this, all will be lost.The
conservative agenda is, if you want to help then volunteer your help. If you
don't want to help that is your choice. If you offend us, don't
expect our business anymore.The welfare moocher is not as you paint
it either. The welfare moocher says I need more stuff, but don't expect me
to give up my $300 smart phone, booze, or smokes. Don't expect the moocher
to work more than 1 job if they do work.Through your examples you
try to make liberals look sainted. However, research and hard facts show that
liberals give more to art programs than food shelters, and are hard to find when
volunteer efforts are needed. Conservatives are the ones giving to the poor,
helping the poor, and are looking to keep us away from Sodom.