Skip to main content

View Diary: A guide to the conservative movement in one handy chart (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that would be the logical conclusion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    That sort of goes into 'life's fair or not' doesn't it?

    Equally Opportunity as an umbrella concept requires a Brave New World societal order, starting from conception. You in?

    If I wouldn't want to be disadvantaged from birth, regardless of the reason, then why would I be OK with it happening to anyone else?
    •  I sort of delineate from 'not disadvantaged' and (0+ / 0-)

      'child of Mitt' but ymmv.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:35:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I used Mitt's kids as an example (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        of the kind of people who are going to have better lives than 99.999% of all humanity - longer, fuller, safer, cleaner, healthier, more fun, more meaningful (at least to them), more support by family, friends, and the state, more opportunity to develop and exercise one's faculties, etc. - but all for no other reason than whose kids they are.  In a just society, there can be no reason why one person is constrained to have, do, and be less than someone else.

        I would be the first to concede that "natural inequality" exists, but I won't call it just ... and I don't believe for a moment that all inequality is natural.

        •  So, naturally, there are not dominant males (0+ / 0-)

          in a herd of elk, for instance?

          I think there will always be Mitts. Question is whether the other side are destitute, or can always find a job, housing, and healthcare.

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:28:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  humans are not elk (0+ / 0-)

            What animals with no self-awareness or capacity for intentional action do is irrelevant.

            We should not have to live under Mitts.  To me, it's more than a question of poverty.  It's a question of whose world do we live in and for whose purposes do we live in it: ours or someone else's?

            In the old days, aristocrats could be poor too, but you still had to bow to them. You had no rights which they were bound to respect, while they were owed your respect and deference, and pretty much any life but that of a peasant was simply not an option for you.  Even if you had money, you could not display it, lest you be seen as aping the trappings of aristocracy.  The rise of classical liberalism during the late 18th and early 19th Centuries boiled down to the desire of wealthy commoners to ascend into the ruling class and enjoy the power and perks of status that they felt was their due, and by and large they succeeded.

            But just as we abolished the de jure privileges of birth, now we must abolish the de facto privileges of wealth.

        •  Hell Mitt's horses live better than most people! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Reporting from Tea Bagger occupied America

          by DrJohnB on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:01:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site