1 - 10 Next
There is a difference between "is it right to ..." and "do I have a right to ...". I have the right to insult someone I am soliciting for a favor. On the other hand, if the insult would result in the favor being denied, would that insult was the right thing to do? We certainly have the right to say what we think is true about Islam, no matter how Muslims might react to it. But is it always right to do so? Those who think Islam is a despicable religion might think some speech disparaging Islam is true and may defend, even celebrate such disparaging speech. But given our need to work with Muslim majority nations for out own interests, is such speech the right speech to make?
In response to:

Seriously: Liberals Are Cheap with Charity

Ric47 Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 1:55 PM
"People in less religious ..." does not imply that those people think "You can’t build private charity efficiently-or anything else- without the government being involved". The real logical implication is that those people believe that government welfare programs are a charitable alternative to giving to say United Way or a church to distribute your donations as they see fit.
In response to:

Can it be un-American to be a Christian?

Ric47 Wrote: Jul 30, 2012 2:33 PM
Boycotts and even violence have a long history in this country and those instituted in the name of religion far more common in Christians against non-Christians that the other way around – an expected statistic given Christian's majority status in the US. Christians have the same right to 1st Amendment freedoms (speech, press, and religion) as do non-Christians. The Constitution was definitely nor created to protect the majority's moral sensitivities from "attack" by those who choose to live their lives in a way that is different from but has no materially effect on the way others choose to live their lives.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Government Spending

Ric47 Wrote: Jul 17, 2012 9:01 AM
Carter says "Given the massive inefficiencies the government creates in transferring resources from one group to another, along with the disincentive effects for those Americans who are de-stimulated through higher taxes, there might actually be an overall negative net effect on economic activity". But in some areas and some ways massive inefficiencies in the private sector are just as large as in government. The constant flow of private enterprise into bankruptcy is evidence of that.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Government Spending

Ric47 Wrote: Jul 17, 2012 9:00 AM
Carter says "In an economy, the economic effects from a transfer program always sum to zero". But if transfer payments move cash from under mattresses into commerce, they do increase economic activity. Whether a specific transfer program is fair or effective in getting frozen capital into circulation is surely debatable. I'd have no problem with arguments about how Food Stamps, Medicare, or Social Security effect economic activity. But the blanket statement that no transfer program can have a positive effect on the economy is clearly erroneous.
In response to:

'Compromise' Is Not a Dirty Word

Ric47 Wrote: Jun 07, 2012 12:13 PM
Part 3 : Goldberg is right in theory but misses some important points. First of all, most liberals and conservatives actually agree on the goals for America – freedom and prosperity – but disagree in part about what that freedom and prosperity imply and how to get there. Forward vs backward involves direction, not final destination. Sometimes going backwards is necessary to get around an obstacle to going forward. The example Goldberg cites about throwing gasoline on a fire is bogus – backfires (starting a fire to block the advance of another fire) is one of forest fire fighting's most powerful weapons. Sometimes, fighting fire with fire isn't so stupid after all.
In response to:

'Compromise' Is Not a Dirty Word

Ric47 Wrote: Jun 07, 2012 12:07 PM
Part 2 : Goldberg is right in theory but misses some important points. First of all, most liberals and conservatives actually agree on the goals for America – freedom and prosperity – but disagree in part about what that freedom and prosperity imply and how to get there. Conservatives, more than liberals, measure prosperity by average prosperity (the mean) while liberals, more than conservatives, measure prosperity by the prosperity of the average person (the median). Since the median is always less than the mean, Conservatives, compared to liberals, value the prosperity of the wealthy more than the poor. But this difference is much smaller than the areas of agreement and the potential for rational compromise should be obvious.
In response to:

'Compromise' Is Not a Dirty Word

Ric47 Wrote: Jun 07, 2012 12:05 PM
Part 1 : Goldberg is right in theory but misses some important points. First of all, most liberals and conservatives actually agree on the goals for America – freedom and prosperity – but disagree in part about what that freedom and prosperity imply and how to get there. Conservatives, more than liberals, measurer freedom as freedom from government oppression while liberals, more than conservatives, measure freedom as freedom from all oppression, government and private. This difference is much smaller than the areas of agreement and the potential for rational compromise should be obvious.
In response to:

Bush Was Right (in 2000)

Ric47 Wrote: May 28, 2012 9:52 AM
Bush was right in 2000 and Bush did blow it when he subsequently failed to follow his own advice in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Bush's advise is better preventive medicine then any cure for existing involvement – if we don't want to be involved in nation building then we shouldn't use our forces for nation destroying. As a general rule, if the enforcement of law and order is removed in the defeated country then disorder, not a better government, follows and the result will be worse than if we hadn't gone in in the first place.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

Ric47 Wrote: May 16, 2012 12:57 PM
I believe that those who violate the law (either actively or passively) on moral grounds have the moral obligation to accept the punishment that the law provides for its violators. Very few advocates of active or passive resistance to law seem to publically share this view – they seem to think that their self proclaimed righteousness exempts them from the penalties of the law. I despise that point of view. And I am uncertain where Williams stands on that issue.
1 - 10 Next