Having heard the term before but wanting to be precise, I looked it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

According to Wikipedia, the article itself referencing Webster's dictionary, there are two standard definitions for egalitarianism:

"It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights

or

as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power."

The first definition sounds like common sense and in keeping with the philosophical underpinnings of our Constitution.

The second sounds like redistribution of wealth bordering on socialism. That one I will vote against.

:tro:

the one thing that keeps jumping into my head-supreme court justices. there will conceivably be a couple openings during the next term-who will be the one to decide who fills any vacancies?

See what Wikipedia has to say about Thomas Paine.

Is that what has been propagated for the last four years? Certainly doesn't look or feel that way.

I am familiar with Thomas Paine.

Barack Obama has very little in common with him, despite all of the grandiosity in the coverage of him by the media.

Nah, you're worse than she is. Much worse.

Well sorry if your opinion doesn't carry much weight with me.

you might want to study more on the second one. egalitarianism came about in france during their revolution against kings, and their supposed 'divine right'. thomas paine was instrumental in advocating that movement both here and abroad-others were as well.
you see, a decentralization of power was what our forefathers fought for eight years to gain, against the tyranny of the king (the centralized power), and against a ruling class (which caused economic equalities).
i think geo washington and the other founding fathers would be shocked that you found them socialist. of course their peers in england called them worse.

imo, romney would be less inclined toward egalitarianism than obama.

I'm not alluding modern day politicians to Thomas Paine. My concern is with the tone and quality of the society in which we live. Though it won't make the discussion any easier, I'll leave while introducing the German/Yiddish word Menschlichkeit. It means humaneness -- caring for the impoverished and oppressed, any less fortunate than yourself. My preference in governance is for those that can at least maintain a modicum of the empathy required for it.

Oh like poverty has drastically changed. Pure nonsense, Steve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...._Timeline.gif

Come on.

Thanks - I understand. A good friend of mine uses that word from time to time. And I'm enjoying the discussion, though as usual I am catching some arrows from others.

But hey, like the description says, this group is where the "flame wars" thrive, so not complaining.

That isn't the point of contention.

It certainly can't change at all if there's an atmosphere of callous disregard for the plight of those in need. And a segment out there is actively promoting that very atmosphere.

in my opinion, caring for the impoverished is helping them find a job and get onto their feet... not to get on government programs like food stamps, which starts for some a continuous cycle.

food stamps and government aid do not help people get jobs and care.. no matter what Obama said in the stimulus bill.

granted, for those who are disabled, or looking for a job and need short time help for their family, those programs are okay. but in the current state, it is only helping the impoverished stay impoverished.

we need drastic changes to occur in this country. we need to get back to our constitutional roots.

Neither party can be counted on.

Quick note and request...

I'd like to spend more time on this but just cannot right now or in the week leading to Cup. I do want to ask everyone to be considerate of each other's opinions here as in other areas of DT though.

I was not happy with some things I saw yesterday in another thread that was totally inapproriate and out of character for this site. I'm almost always exceedingly proud of the atmosphere we have and remind that a lot of us have come to spend time with each other in person. No one should write anything that we know we wouldn't say aloud in polite company.

In other words, the 'DT Saratoga Picnic Table Rule' is in effect as much for Politics/Society as the Paddock...

THX!

:tro:

no, they can't.

like i said, people don't take this seriously anymore. voters are apathetic, candidates aren't the best this country has to offer-but the best and brightest don't see or feel a need to take a few years time to get involved. and that's what it's supposed to be, a few years given back by your community leaders. it's not supposed to be a lifetime 'job' to be a politician.

everyone, be more vocal with your individual members of congress. write, call, email, whatever. be heard, and not just in the voting booth. we need to be far more demanding about who serves us. and that's what's been lost-most politicians don't look at political life as a way to serve.

:tro: I agree wholeheartedly.

Yes, that is exactly correct. There is a misnomer out there that liberals care more about poor people than conservatives. I think it is absolute nonsense. They both care about poor people. They just go about helping them in different ways. I'm talking in general. There are obviously a few conservatives out there that care nothing about poor people and there are obviously a few liberals that care nothing about poor people. But in general, I think most people on both sides of the aisle want to help poor people.

In my personal life experience, conservatives are far more generous when it comes to helping others and all the scientific evidence (I've posted links to the studies in the past) backs this up. Conservatives give far more to charity even when you adjust for income. In other words, the average conservative that makes $30,000 a year gives much more to charity than the average liberal that makes $30,000 a year.

I know a ton of conservatives that go down to skidrow and feed the homeless. Many of the people at the churches that I go to, go and feed the homeless almost every week. I don't know too many liberals that do this.

By the way, if you had true socialism the rich would make a lot less money. But the poor would make a lot less money too. So everyone would suffer.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that we all have a responsibility to help those that are less fortunate than ourselves. For those of us that can afford to help financially, I think we should help financially. If you can't help financially, you can help by giving your time and doing some volunteer work. In terms of the government helping people, I think the government should give some help but you don't want them to go overboard because you don't want to encourage people to not work.

I know a girl that was diagnosed with bipolar disorder several years ago. She takes medication but she is fine. She functions as well as most people. She doesn't work and she is on disability. She gets bored sometimes so she volunteers at a hospital once a week and she feeds the homeless once a week. She also does a little bit of babysitting for a friend around once a week (her friend pays her cash under the table). I have asked her if she has thought about getting a full-time job or maybe a part-time job. She says she would like to get a part-time job but she is not going to do it because she will lose her disability payments from the government if she gets a part-time job.

How ridiculous is that? We have a system set up that encourages people not to work. I'm not saying that we need to get rid of the system entirely, but I think we need to make major changes to the system. In the case of my friend who gets disability, nobody is being helped by those disability checks. Those checks are actually hurting her. They are holding her back. She actually wants to work but she's not going to because she doesn't want to lose her disability checks.