To "Ultrabob403" that is too easy. The business is owned by the 1
homeowner who is taking the responsibility. The other home owners are only
stipulating conditions of the contract. That one homeowner controls his
business. If he agrees to the stipulations, including price, then the job is
for him to oversee.In this case, the only person that most likely
will benefit financially is the guy mowing the lawn. He could be charging the
same or more than the other lawn services because of the restrictions put on
Quote "Freedomingood. If you don't want to be poor, don't
be!"I'm far from poor mountainman. I just happen to believe
all those christian pricipals and vote accordingly. I'd rather build
schools than blow up infrastructure in other countries so oil companies can get
the oil.The fact is that republicans spend more tax money and
borrowed money than democrats but on the wrong things. So if you want to have
the free will discussion start in your own side of the isle.
Mountanman Hayden, ID"Freedomingood. If you don't want to
be poor, don't be!" Don't be old. Don't be sick.
Don't be handicapped. Don't be part of a minority group which is
discriminated against. Don't be young with not family."Develop job skills and market them to the highest bider employer!"A fine sentiment, but unrealistic for the disadvantaged and disabled. A
woman working in Utah, on average, makes 55% of what a man makes. Perhaps
"highest bider employer" opportunities are lacking in the state.
Mike Richards, you make way too much sense to be posting out here in anonymous
comment wasteland. You may want to find better places to spend your time and
RedShirt,No question that the rights of employers need to be
respected and that without it, capitalism fails. But we have been rethinking
the exact parameters of those rights for 200 some years. Minor adjustments are
likely okay. Major redoes lead us to ruin.Although segregation and
Jim Crow laws were in the (then) largely Democratic south, it was hardly
liberal. It was liberal northerners who chipped in with blacks in the Civil
Rights fight.Mike Richards,If govt. is the problem then
it is deficient in all areas, true. It does NOTHING right so the military,
police, etc. are all hapless, correct? Please. Govt. does some things well,
others not. Business does some things well, others not.As to what
problems has govt. ever solved? Let me see . . . the rebuilding of Japan and
Europe, the Hoover Dam, the National Parks (which drive lots of tourism), forest
fire fighting, etc.If you are looking for societal things, civil
rights comes to mind. And poverty is certainly much different (less severe) in
America than it was a century ago.Many of the issues you cite are
cultural/moral issues. They are not governmental.
According to Redshirt the government can't do anything correctly so disband
the military and stop governments from carrying out the death penalty.My goodness why would you let the government kill people if it can't do
Mike Richards South Jordan, UtahMike, you're a stitch! What
would the world be without people like you? You're like a lighthouse,
keeping rational people from crashing on your shore. You're a true
believer if ever then was one, and as long as you believe what you want to
believe, that's OK. It really doesn't matter to me. Like I said, it
only reminds me that life is a continuum. There are many perspectives on any
issue, ideology is oftentimes the path out of the light and into the swamp.We need you. I need you. As long as you're out there writing your
stuff, there will always be a need for a progressive mind in the discussion. It
make people like myself think more critically and more carefully about the
issues of the day and why our type of democratic government, albeit flawed, is
necessary for a free people.
Mountanman Hayden, IDTaxation, by it's very nature, is
redistribution of wealth. It is the way government pays for the programs and
services it provides. We as a community create government and in its creation
allow for taxation for programs, goods and services, we want government to
provide.Redistribution is necessary because we have created this
covenent to have a government and to have that government do things. The only
way to have government do the things we want and pay for it, as mentioned, is
through taxation.If you are opposed to redistribution, you are
opposed to taxation. If you are opposed to taxation, then you don't want
government. And if you don't want government, you don't want
community. And if you don't want community, then . . .
That's right, Mike. I guess if your home gets burglarized, you don't
call the police department. If your house catches on fire, you just put it out
yourself. The mail gets to your postbox by magic. The roads you drive on pave
themselves. The food you buy at the supermarket and in restaurants is safe to
eat because they just care about you that much. And I suppose that the US
military doesn't count as "government", either.Are you
being serious? Really?
Mike Richards. I think the best indicator of the success of a
society would be a change in the average age of a person dying. It would be the
most overall measure of success in the quest of the good life. The
question of whether or not government is the root cause of longevity is
debatable but if you compare the longevity of the American people versus other
societies and forms of government I think we come out ahead. Not that we always
have the oldest people, but that we have the best average.
RedShirt.If a group of homeowners in a meeting decide that rather
than mow their own lawns they would be happy to pay someone a reasonable amount
to do it for them. The expectation is that the cost to the homeowner would be
less than when each homeowner has to own and operate his own lawnmower. If one of the homeowners who has a fine lawnmower and a couple of teen
age boys volunteers to take on that responsibility, a business opportunity is
thus is created. And permission to operated that business is given to the one
homeowner along with some specifications as developed by the homeowners in
general. Specifications like hours of operation of the lawnmower, the height of
the grass, the frequency of the cutting etc. etc. Question: Who
owns the business. Who has the right to control the operation of the business?
Who has the right to benefit financially from the operation of the business?
What problem has government ever solved? What? Uhhh sewer systems
solved cholera and a host of other disease outbreaks... If you have
children, that creation of GOVERNMENT socialist sewer systems have kept you from
burying half of them.Should we even start on clean water....
What societal problem has government ever solved? Do we have less
poverty in America than we had when FDR told us that government was the
solution?Do we have less poverty in America than when LBJ gave us
the "Great Society"?Do we have fewer unwed mothers?Do we have fewer drug addicts?Do we have fewer people on
welfare?Just what has government done with our money?What progress has been made?Is it possible that government is not
the solution, but that it is the problem?
To "Wanda B. Rich" you are wrong. Todays liberalism is even further
left than before.Today's liberalism is yesterday's
Communism. Just look at the reactions here. You have comments here ranging
from advocacy of striping businessmen of ownership of their businesses by giving
their employees the "RIGHT to enjoy some of the rewards for the things THEY
manufacture". You also have people stating that people have the right to
healthcare, food, clothing, and housing.All a worker has a right to
is their time. They do not own the business they work for, nor do they own the
equipment they use. They sell their time, and are compensated for it. If they
don't like the compensation rate, they are free to find new employment.If a person doesn't want to work, do they deserve food, clothing,
and shelter?If you want to look at who wants to help people the
most, just look at the last 100 years of liberal acts. They gave us segregation
in the military and Jim Crow laws. They also blocked integration in schools,
and did not support civil rights like conservatives did.
Liberalism is alive and doing very well, thank you very much. Looking back at
the movement in the 50's and 60's, you see great progress being made
in changing actions. That part was reltively easy because the actions were
heinous and had very visible effects on the victims of racism, sexism,
environmental degradation, etc.Today's the actions are not as
overt and liberalism is striving to change thoughts and beliefs. That is much
harder work and the results can take a generation or two to show results.We are still here. We are still committed. And we are stll changing
"....the Obama agenda also reflects a broader shift in American liberalism,
which has become reactive." - Michael Gerson__________That's necessarily so, Mr. Gerson. Liberalism became programmatically
defined beginning in the 1930s providing a visible and vulnerable target for its
opposition. Hence, liberalism's legacy is now endangered by conservatives
who would rescind much of its hard-earned victories. But if conservatism, as
classically defined, is defense of the status quo, then liberalism has truly
become the new conservatism of our times, tasked with defending and reinforcing
its gains for posterity.
You know, as a liberal, there's nothing I like more than having a
conservative point out what he thinks I should believe in. It's almost as
fun as when a Baptist tells me, a Mormon, what he thinks Mormons should believe.
"Back in the day, you guys believed in marryin' lots of females. That
was way better! Made you SO much easier to attack!" Thanks, pal.
As a Liberal American I tend to think of people as being the important issue of
the world. I like the American creed that says that all people are equally
important and should be afforded equal opportunity to succeed in the quest of
the good life. Conservatives seem to think of people in the same
way in which a farmer regards his cattle.People in the conservative
picture are to be nurtured, guided and used according to the purposes defined by
so-called enlightened leaders. While both promote the idea that a
person has success mostly according to his own efforts, conservatives seem to
place more obstacles in the way of a person than do liberals. Conservative
define the end of equal opportunity at birth whereas liberals would like to
extend the equal opportunity further along a persons life. Liberals
might believe that necessities of life like the availability of food, clothing,
health care, education and such should not be the fault of the person and only
the extra effort for success beyond existence should count for success. It
comes down to being fair about the distribution of equal opportunity.
Perhaps the most telling belief of the new extreme conservative movement is
"American exceptionalism," which is just another name for nationalism
and is very different from patriotism. Nationalism brought the world such
wonderful gifts as Nazi Germany. Nationalism is also very good at labeling other
groups who disagree with their agenda. The label "socialist" certainly
comes to mind.
There is no direct relationship between liberal thinking and liberal politicsTherein lies the probelm
I agree with the premise of the article. Proper liberalism has given way to soft
conservatism. The democrats had the chance to step on the republicans'
throats for a while and blew it. We should have single payer health care now.
Funding for the endowment for the arts, the FDA, EPA and most other departments
should be secure by now, all of it at the expense of military spending. A lot of
things should be better than they are, but history and mission creep has a way
of taking us off track.
Gotta love it when a repub reports on liberals. It's like going
to a Baptist minister to learn about Mormons.
There is good news and bad news for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid etc. The good news
is: God is a liberal. The bad news is: He votes Republican.
Liberalism is alive and well, even in right wing Utah. Over the past 40 years
conservatives and the republican party have sought, with too much sucess, to
demonize liberals, who believe that goverment can and should be a positive
factor in advancing the condition of those less advantaged. They call them
Socialist (which has been turned into an evil word). The demonize liberals by
suggesting that they are all anti family, anti religion, and anti traditional
values. They call them "tax and spend liberals" when the truth is that
more spending has been done since Reagan by conservatives than by liberals.
They call them big goverment idealogs when the biggest expansion of government
has actually occured more under so called conservative Republicans.We need not worry about Liberals, they will always be around to push for
change when change is needed. And we will always have conservatives to keep
Liberals from giving away the store. But I wish that conservatives would be
less mean spirited about it. I see so much meaness in some of these editorials
and right wing comments, and even hatred.
Freedomingood. If you don't want to be poor, don't be! Develop job
skills and market them to the highest bider employer! Liberalism always creates
dependancy and more poverty! That's the difference and it is no straw
Today's liberalism is yesterday's moderate conservativism. Which means
today's conservativism is what? Whatever you want to label it, it is
extreme, certainly something Ronald Reagan could never have supported.
Had president Obama proposed an LBJ style agenda, Mr. Gerson and his political
allies would be calling him a communist.
Mountainman is fighting a straw enemy. I'm a liberal and all I want is to
NOT be a poor, powerless, begging slump that conservatism has always made out of
men. Conservatives favorite em0loyees are the powerless, desparate of China. The
wealth of the world was not meant to be hoarded by a few people.You
can't deserve more than you need any more than you can deserve salvation.
@ Ranchhand. You are probably right! That's why welfare recipients are all
conservatives. Not! Liberalism needs "victims" to survive. That's
why we have Obamacare, re-disribution and food stamps, for the
@Mountanman;Liberalism teaches people that they have a RIGHT to
enjoy some of the rewards for the things THEY manufacture, not just the business
owners.Conservatism teaches people that ONLY the business owners
have a right to the profits generated by the WORK of the industrious laborers.
Liberalism teachs people that they have the right to produce nothing yet benefit
from those who do!
conservatism today...the protection of accumulated assets transfered
from the middle class...arranged by sneering plutocrats.Perfect.