Levin: Romney needs to lay out a principled case of liberty and stop with class warfare

Replied here to make sure we have a wider window.

America was based on individualism, where man is recognized as an individual endowed with unalienable individual rights, and not just some rightless part of some "group".

No one disagrees that a person is endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. Your problem is that the preamble of the Constitution starts with "We the people...." It would seem that "we the people" is more than just individualism, so get off the extreme libertarian bandwagon.

Dictionaries constantly change their definitions for words as the culture changes. I could go look up the dictionary definition for "capitalism" and I'd probably find a dozen different definitions. Which one is the right one? You can't tell.

I am so glad that you know the exact definition of the term, "sacrifice". Yet, you seem to miss the bigger picture of etymology. Words do have meaning, and generally their meaning does stay consistent until someone desires to hijack the term; like "gay" for example. If you go back in time of the meaning, the root, one would see that "sacrifice" has not changed that much at all in the sense that I use the definition.

Use logic (the art of non-contradictory identification)!

You can't call it a sacrifice any time you lose any thing. Otherwise, every time you buy a stick of gum, you'd call it a sacrifice, because you had to give up some money... in exchange for said stick of gum.

To me, sacrifice is when you suffer a 'net loss' from an exchange of value.

Right, you are going to try to teach someone logic when you contradict yourself, good one there.

Again, you determine that the "profit" of sacrificing for my child is greater value to me than it would be that I would spent it on myself and therefore not a sacrifice. You demean me as a bad parent if I thought differently, but isn't unselfishness a bad thing in your worldview? You seem to be a very confused individual.

I worked my butt off and then traded for them, exchanging value for value, neither sacrificing others to myself, nor myself to others. In all of this I was a sovereign individual;

Sorry but you did sacrifice to others. It cannot be helped. In the very nature of exchange and trade is that you had to work (sacrifice your time, effort) to meet the demands of another in order to trade such product. I know it does not make any sense to you. For example, you made $100 and you want an item another has. That person states that it will cost you $200, so you then work again for that money in order to meet the demand of value that the other assessed.

The moral justification for capitalism is in the man's freedom to pursue his happiness and to make money for himself.

Rudimentary capitalism is simply making another person happy in order to have your own happiness (trying hard to use your terminology here). If you want a dollar, you make something that you think will make another person happy enough to exchange that dollar for the item you made. For capitalism to work, one must be able to sell a product. Again, you have to read Thomas Sowell's book, or do you think he is a communist as well? He is an economist who's grasp on capitalism is well beyond what you have explained.

Whether you like it or not, you are not a sovereign individual, you are dependent upon others. You are dependent upon those who produce electricity, make the internet available, etc. In fact, you are dependent upon another to give you money to maintain your personal happiness. Your desire to equate altruism with slavery is demeaning and lacking of any substantial evidence. I have never mention "enslavement" this is your own device that continues to lack any coherence to the conversation. I am not enslaved to a person if I choose to help them out, or choose to make a product that will make their life better and at the same time earn myself a dollar.

This sounds like a broken record, but you do not know what my moral code is. Altruism is not the foundation on which I live. Altruism is not a religion but a worthy goal towards heroism and unselfishness. I guess you do not like heroes or those who willingly save another's life with no regard to themselves. You never did answer the question: Who/what are you willing to die for?

Simply recap: You cannot seem to fathom the "both/and" of life. We are individuals endowed with unalienable rights and at the same time are governed by "We the people" notice the plural we and people. In fact, it would seem that the Preamble to the Constitution is something that would be resented by extreme libertarianism.

Quote: "You go so far as to discredit Mr. Webster and every dictionary out there"

I merely explained to you how dictionaries work. Why do you think dictionaries don't provide ONE definition for each word? - Because people have different definitions for words, and all that the dictionary is doing is listing them all. Just because that sole definition is in the dictionary, doesn't mean that it is the true definition; all it means is that enough people think that it's the definition, so therefore it gets included. Dictionaries constantly change their definitions for words as the culture changes. I could go look up the dictionary definition for "capitalism" and I'd probably find a dozen different definitions. Which one is the right one? You can't tell. The only way to figure it out is to think for yourself and to use logic! If I go to dictionary.com to look up "sacrifice", I get ten bloody definitions, not one sole true 100% valid definition! Think for yourself! Use logic (the art of non-contradictory identification)!

Quote: "Again you set up a strawman stating that I would profit from spending my money on my child when I could have spent in on myself"

You profit from spending money on your child IF your child's well-being is of greater value to you than the lesser value which was the money you gave to them. If you consider it a "sacrifice" to spend money on your child's well-being, then you clearly value the money higher than your children, which quite frankly would make you a pretty uncaring parent! That's what it sounds like to me when I hear you call it a "sacrifice" to spend money on your child.

Quote: "Capitalism is the best system in the world, not because it is inherently selfish, but because it reigns in and harnesses man's greatest weakness for betterment"

I've read your comments about capitalism. It's clear to me that, being the altruist that you are, you are trying to justify capitalism on the basis of service and self-sacrifice to others, to the state, to society - Rather than on how it recognizes man's right to exist for his own sake.

Yes, a man may start a business, he may then offer work and he may produce goods which others benefit from. The moral justification for capitalism isn't the benefits that others derive from it; those are a mere secondary consequence that need not be his motivation. The moral justification for capitalism is in the man's freedom to pursue his happiness and to make money for himself. But you see, as I pointed out numerous times, you can't tolerate that because it's selfish to pursue your happiness, it's selfish to make money, it's selfish to want and gain the fruits of your labor - All of these things are EVIL according to your morality, even though those activities keep man alive and allow man to thrive on this earth.

Quote: "I'm sorry, but do you make your own food, where did you get the seed from? Did you build your own house, mode of transportation, tools?"

I worked my butt off and then traded for them, exchanging value for value, neither sacrificing others to myself, nor myself to others. In all of this I was a sovereign individual; I didn't enslave others to my needs, nor did others enslave me to their needs. This differs from your outlook, where all men are enslaved to all men.

You know, you go on about "society". Well let me tell you something: There is no such thing as "society". Any group is just a number of individuals, all with their own individual minds, bodies and property. You think of society as being some kind of super-organism, or hive-mind, or vast machine where all the individuals are faceless cogs in a machine. It is that collectivistic thinking that resulted in the worst tyrannies that Mankind has ever created. America was based on individualism, where man is recognized as an individual endowed with unalienable individual rights, and not just some rightless part of some "group".

Yes, we may 'use' others for certain things (eg. using a baker to bake bread, rathe than bake it yourself), but that does not mean that we have to use others. I could go off and live on a deserted island all by myself. People have lived for decades, all alone, totally self-sufficient. It is entirely possible. Stop subscribing to that utterly BS elizabeth warren rhetoric - It's the rhetoric of self-enslavement.

You are clueless as to what you think I know and detest. So now you make up definitions to fit your own paradigm. Wow! Way to build up that strawman act. You get to define the terms, argue against that, and then call anyone who disagrees with you names. You cannot find a single shred of evidence to support your idea. You call it logical but it is not. You go so far as to discredit Mr. Webster and every dictionary out there. It would look as if you need to take the class on etymology again.

You can't call it a sacrifice any time you lose any thing. Otherwise, every time you buy a stick of gum, you'd call it a sacrifice, because you had to give up some money... in exchange for said stick of gum.

To me, sacrifice is when you suffer a 'net loss' from an exchange of value.

It would seem to be that you are contradicting yourself here. Talk about being logical?

Again you set up a strawman stating that I would profit from spending my money on my child when I could have spent in on myself. So now you can judge me on whether I profited on this, how? What makes you so sure that I did? You have no idea what it may or may not be.

Capitalism is the best system in the world, not because it is inherently selfish, but because it reigns in and harnesses man's greatest weakness for betterment. I am sure you have had time to appreciate Dr. Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions". Then again, you must think that he is a communist since he would utterly disagree with about almost everything you wrote. Capitalism harnesses man's propensity towards evil and turns it into good. I know, you must be having a conniption pulling your hair out. You seem to not understand this at all. If you do not have a community of people, your capitalism will fail. Notice that when a person in a capitalistic society (man doesn't society tend to be community) desires to better himself, he also will tend to better others around him.

For example: a person starts a business for themselves, it is a success and so he hires a jobless person (bettering that person as well). Now that the jobless person has a great paying job, they turn around and buy a home. Wait, buying a home means someone has to sell it. Oh my, that means that the person who buys it not only betters himself but also the one who sold it to him. But according to you this isn't capitalism since it betters the community. Hence, your view is myopic (but I am sure your definition does not agree with everyone else, right?)

Altruism and benevolence are related to each other, in other words they are the same thing. But, since you do not trust dictionaries, I guess you will never know that.

since altruism practised consistently demands death, wholesale slaughter, genocide... for the sake of others. Little do you realise it, but altruism has killed more people than anything else in the whole history of Mankind.

Really, you have something to back this up with. Again, you have a myopic view of altruism. It is always evil, it is always bad, it is "moral." By the way, why do you have such a horrendous attitude towards morality anyway. Altruism is not a religion, though you act like it is and you want so much for it to be. It is an attitude of selflessness. Sadly, you just want to focus on those who abuse such motivation. There are many who have made great benefits to society through altruism.

With that one statement you have denied validity of man as a sovereign individual in his own right, and you have relegated man to being a mere faceless cog in a machine.

I'm sorry, but do you make your own food, where did you get the see from? Did you build your own house, mode of transportation, tools? Do you speak with others? If so, you are not sovereign. Sorry, but my definition includes personal responsibility. We are built for community. If not, you would have never been born. Interestingly, one cannot be sovereign if they needed to be born. Your desire for extreme libertarianism cannot be supporter or work since it has to reject the very notion of society and capitalism.

Quote: "This is a false premise. Sacrifice is not giving something of greater value for something of lesser: since when?"

Since the beginning of time. It is self-evident. Your example of not spending money on yourself, but spending it on your kids, is not a sacrifice. Yes, you've given something up, but you have profited from the exchange! You can't call it a sacrifice any time you lose any thing. Otherwise, every time you buy a stick of gum, you'd call it a sacrifice, because you had to give up some money... in exchange for said stick of gum. Don't call something "myopic" when it is your own lack of understanding that is at fault.

Quote: "Your understanding of sacrifice is laced with selfishness. Altruism is an unselfish devotion to the interests and welfare of others."

Altruism isn't about good will towards fellow human beings; that's "benevolence", which altruism makes impossible and declares as evil - It's a morality which says, in no uncertain terms, that anything which benefits you is evil; that if there's any self-interest at all in anything you do, then it dilutes your virtue. If you helped your friends or family, rather than absolute strangers, then you're being selfish, because you chose to benefit people who matter to you. In fact, even if you helped absolute strangers, then you're being selfish, because you chose to benefit your fellow human beings, rather than animals or plants. In fact, even if you helped animals and plants, rather than nothingness itself, then you're being selfish, because you chose to benefit fellow life forms, rather than nothingness.

Taken to its consistent extreme, altruism demands total and utter self-abnegation, self-denial and ultimately... self-destruction.

Nobody can practice altruism consistently; nobody can gain "full virtue" and become "fully good", except by immediately committing suicide.

Quote: "Sacrifice is what our military does on a regular basis in defending our Constitution for your betterment. Is your freedom of no value?"

Yes, my freedom is of great value, but so is it to those soldiers who fight for it. In defending the nation, they are defending their own freedom, their own property, and their own lives. Oh, but you see, you can't stand that aspect, because it's selfishness, isn't it? You can't tolerate any selfish gain whatsoever. It has to be total and utter sacrifice, no selfish gain at all allowed, otherwise it's not morally good by your standards.

Quote: "Webster defines sacrifice as Hence, to destroy, surrender, or suffer to be lost, for the sake of obtaining something; to give up in favor of a higher or more imperative object or duty; to devote, with loss or suffering"

I acknowledge that that is one of the definitions for sacrifice, but what you have to acknowledge is that dictionaries just reflect how people understand words, and even if their understanding is illogical, then it'll get included in the dictionary. If enough people decided that "slavery" meant "freedom", then that too would be included in the dictionary as one of the definitions, even though we might currently think it's completely illogical to define it as that.

There is no way that you can ever persuade me that profiting from an exchange of value is a sacrifice. It makes about as much sense as my gum example.

To me, sacrifice is when you suffer a 'net loss' from an exchange of value.

For example: 1. You give $100 to someone in exchange for $50, or 2. You give $100 to someone in exchange for nothing. Both are "sacrifices" because you have lost from the exchange; you have not profited.

The opposite of a sacrifice, which is to "profit" is when you have a 'net gain' from an exchange of value.

For example: 1. You give $50 to someone in exchange for $100, or 2. You give nothing to someone in exchange for $100. Both are "profits" because you have gained from the exchange; you have not sacrificed.

If you're the one gaining (in the latter example) then you're arguably "selfish", and if you're the one losing (in the former example) then you're arguably "altruistic".

That is LOGICAL. There is no amount of denial that will change that fact.

Quote: "Man is made for community. We are social creatures who are built for interdependency."

A member of the communist party couldn't have said it any better!

With that one statement you have denied validity of man as a sovereign individual in his own right, and you have relegated man to being a mere faceless cog in a machine. Your views are no different from the communists who marched innocent people into concentration camps for the good of the state, for the good of society, or for the good of the bureaucrats. You treat man as a disposable commodity with no intrinsic value. This is symptomatic for altruists though, since altruism practised consistently demands death, wholesale slaughter, genocide... for the sake of others. Little do you realise it, but altruism has killed more people than anything else in the whole history of Mankind. It is a morality of death.

Quote: "Man is built to be individually responsible for his own actions and also to work responsibly within a structure of community for the betterment of society"

Again, a member of the communist party couldn't have said it any better.

Yes, man is "individually responsible", but where I differ from your communistic leanings, is where you say that man should work "for the bettermen of society" rather than for his OWN betterment. Again, it's altruism at work. You can't tolerate any self-interest; it always has to be sacrifice sacrifice sacrifice.

Without even speaking to you about it, I know that you utterly detest "Capitalism". I know that you believe it to be the most evil system ever devised by man, because the moral justification of Capitalism is inherently selfish since it is a system which recognized that man has a right to exist for his own sake, where he neither sacrifices himself to others, nor sacrifices others to himself. Capitalism is a system which recognizes that each man is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; not a slave to others; not a sacrificial animal serving anyone's need. It is a system that is completely antithetical to your moral code of altruism.

Your understanding of altruism is myopic at best and a built strawman at worst. You only allow altruism in a negative sense of someone giving up a greater value for a lesser value. This is utterly false and wrong.

You state, "Sacrifice" is when you give up something of greater value (to you) in exchange for something of lesser value or no value (to you).

This is a false premise. Sacrifice is not giving something of greater value for something of lesser: since when? When I do not spend my money on myself and use it for my kids, I sacrifice for them. Am I devaluing myself over my kids? No, my kids needs are more important to me and I am willing to sacrifice for them. You have it all backwards.

Your understanding of sacrifice is laced with selfishness. Altruism is an unselfish devotion to the interests and welfare of others. Sacrifice is what our military does on a regular basis in defending our Constitution for your betterment. Is your freedom of no value? Webster defines sacrifice as Hence, to destroy, surrender, or suffer to be lost, for the sake of obtaining something; to give up in favor of a higher or more imperative object or duty; to devote, with loss or suffering

Since your definition of this concept is erroneous, your whole argument collapses.

Man is made for community. We are social creatures who are built for interdependency. This is why both "collectivism" and "individualism" are bad. They go to the two extremes. Collectivism goes towards unions, socialism, and communism. Individualism leads to anarchy, everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. Man is built to be individually responsible for his own actions and also to work responsibly within a structure of community for the betterment of society.

The founding fathers sacrifice was altruistic for they did not know the outcome, but knew that it was best for the whole of society and that was worth fighting for.

Let me ask you: what are you willing to die for?

You've got it ALL wrong, but you're not alone in that because most conservatives would say exactly the same things, and that's why Conservatives suck when they're up against the statism of the Left. You may not realise it, but you have basically just taken a crap upon the declaration of independence with your comment.

"Sacrifice" is when you give up something of greater value (to you) in exchange for something of lesser value or no value (to you).

To say that the founding fathers sacrificed themselves (for the sake of others) in creating the US, is to say that the creation of the US was of less or no value (to them) relative to the greater value which was the time/effort that they could have spent elsewhere, perhaps tending to their estates and/or businesses. No, I say that yours is a completely wrong view of what they did, for I say that (to them) the creation of the US was of greater value than the lesser/no value which was that time/effort they might have spent doing other things. I say that the act of creating the US was inhereently an act of self-interest/egoism. It was very clearly in their self-interest to create it, and it was very clearly in their self-interest to ensure that the government was constitutionally limited.

If the founding fathers sacrificed themselves to create the US and to limit it (with a constitution) then both of these things would have had to have been of lesser or no value to the founding fathers, relative to the greater value which was the time/effort they might have spent elsewhere. To make such a claim (of altruism) is to denigrate them and everything they did! Don't you realise that?

You've contradicted yourself in your last comment, since you denounce individualism and collectivism, which leaves you with no middle ground to stand upon. It's the morality of altruism which is doing this to you; causing your views to become so convoluted.

If you believe that individualism and egoism is destroying the country, then you are effectively rejecting the declaration of independence in which our individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are recognized. The right to the pursuit of happiness is the quintessentially selfish right, since it means Man's right to live for himself, so long as he respects the rights of others. The right to liberty means freedom from government coercion. The right to life, which is the source of all rights, means that you have the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being. All of these rights are inherently individualistic and egoistic, yet there you are, corrupted by altruism, denouncing the foundational principles of the United States.

Lastly, I want to refute your "heroism" argument. You probably think (as almost all Conservatives think) that joining the army and going to war is a "self-sacrifice" and therefore heroic and altruistic. I would argue that joining the army and going to war is selfish, because you'd value the survival of your country higher than the lesser value which is your time/effort and risk to your life; you profit from the arrangement. To say that this is a "self-sacrifice" is to say that the soldier values the survival of the country less than the greater value which is their time/effort and risk to their life. To make such an "altruistic" claim is to basically spit upon that soldier and his deeds, yet there you are, doing exactly that, but doing so with an aura of self-righteousness.

Look at the post I have to make just to refute your altruism. That is what I'm up against here. I'm up against people who spit upon the founding fathers and the declaration of independence, yet do so self-righteously, and worse, claim that they (and only they) are the "true defenders" of the founding fathers and of the declaration of independence.

I know my post won't do anything to sway you, just as there is nothing I could say to sway a suicide bomber who believes that by detonating himself in a crowd of unbelievers is the morally good thing to do.

I'll leave you with three questions to consider about altruism. Three questions which altruism cannot withstand.

1. Why must man live for the sake of others?

2. Why must he be a sacrificial animal?

3. Why is that the good?

Hint: There is no earthly reason for it.

You will be on a huge uphill climb in trying to reject the idea of self-sacrifice for the sake of others. This is foundational to our country and our Constitution. You would not be here in the USA if not for the altruism of our Founding Fathers. One of the problems of today is that altruism is not the root but has been forgotten or being destroyed.

True altruism is self-sacrifice by or of the individual for the sake of others, hence heroism. Heroism is one of the greatest displays of altruism. It is a part of the moral fabric that has been corrupted by those in government and on the Left and in small part by Libertarians (extreme).

I would argue that it is individualism and egoism as well as collectivism that is destroying this nation. Those three "isms" need to take a hike and never return.

When you donate a few million to BYU, I am sure a few things will be overlooked.