News Even the conservatives have turned on Bush

[Ivan Seeking]

A massive federal budget deficit

JIM LEHRER: Let's talk about the cost. You say the conservatives are upset. How upset are they and what are they going to do about it?

DAVID BROOKS: They are upset for a lot of reasons. Some of it is Katrina - anger just with reaction. A lot of it is that. Again Katrina is always the end of a long accumulation of events and for conservatives on spending, you have got a highway bill which was ridiculous, a travesty of pork barrel spending; you had an Ag bill; you had really five years in which George Bush has spent money at a faster clip than Lyndon Johnson.

JIM LEHRER: Say that again.

DAVID BROOKS: Domestic discretionary spending - non-defense spending - non-homeland security spending -- has increased.

JIM LEHRER: Non-Social Security, none all of those things -
DAVID BROOKS: -- has increased under George W. Bush twice as fast as under Bill Clinton, and faster than under Lyndon Baines Johnson. Conservatives didn't expect that in 2000. I guarantee you that. A lot of it is, frankly, the Republican Congress's fault. If you look back - when we look back on this period, we are going to look at a Congress that came preaching limited government but just has gone hog-wild in spending, and a president who never disciplined members of his own party to restrain themselves.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/sb_9-23.html

 

[pattylou]

A massive federal budget deficit


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/sb_9-23.html

But... but... but... he gave me a tax break!

 

[SOS2008]

The pushback on Katrina aid, which the White House is also confronting among House Republicans, represents the loudest and most widespread dissent Bush has faced from his own party since it took full control of Congress in 2002.
-----------------------
Conservatives are calling for spending cuts to existing programs, a few GOP moderates are entertaining the possibility of a tax increase, and many in the middle want to freeze Bush tax cuts that have yet to take effect.

The resistance suggests that Bush's second term could turn out far rockier and more contentious than his first. One indicator many Republicans are watching to gauge whether Bush is becoming a liability for the party is in Pennsylvania, where Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, is trailing state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. by double digits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092001704.html

I've seen conflicting news reports on this, such as what percent of Americans are fiscal conservatives (I understand they are all here in Arizona) and how much clout they really have. What bothers me is not the spending of money on relief efforts--that's obviously needed, but rather the existing debt due to tax cuts, the invasion of Iraq, and pork spending in bills such as the highway bill.

In the meantime Bush supporters are accusing Dems of the "big government" spin, while claiming Katrina relief is the conservatives' vision of how to fight the war on poverty. Right.

 

[pattylou]

Several senior Republicans, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy publicly, said Tuesday they‘re starting to fear Bush‘s troubles could threaten the GOP‘s standing among voters in next year‘s elections. By an 8-point margin, voters are more likely to call themselves Democrats than Republicans; there was no gap in self-identification a year ago.

http://www.leadingthecharge.com/stories/news-0076759.html

There were lots of headlines on newsgoogle, I found the statistic quoted above amazing. I didn't realize party affiliation could change so radically in the course of a year.

Same source:

AP-Ipsos asked half the respondents to rate eight issues in terms of their priorities. The economy and jobs were cited by 25 percent, an 11-point jump since late August.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A quote from Washington Week, tonight.

From a source close to the Bush Admin: " We are now in the post Bush Republican era"

But we still have all of those hypocrites in Congress...

 

[SOS2008]

I don't see Bush recovering unless things really turn around in Iraq. At the same time, Republicans may swing in upcoming elections (like Dems did regarding terrorism), but I don't see people changing their party affiliation in large number. As for the increased interest in jobs and the economy--high time! These issues were so over-shadowed by fear mongering about terrorism and gay marriage before now (I can't imagine why).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But... but... but... he gave me a tax break!

Yes, my brother-in-law had his $600 check stuck to his refrigerator for months. It's so nice to see his eight and five year old kids already supporting their parents. What great kids!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another interesting point:

I mean, all of a sudden what you're looking at is every kid born in this country, every child born in this country is starting life hobbled by part of the national debt that has to be paid off. Do you think the fact that China and these other countries hold 46 percent of it in anyway mutes the United States' criticism of China's trade policies, China's religious persecution, China's abuse --

JIM LEHRER: Do you think it does?

MARK SHIELDS: Of course it does. Of course it does

 

[MaxS]

http://www.leadingthecharge.com/stories/news-0076759.html

There were lots of headlines on newsgoogle, I found the statistic quoted above amazing. I didn't realize party affiliation could change so radically in the course of a year.

Same source:

It didn't change radically.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

There are numerous statistics that show the exit-polls had FAR FAR FAR higher democratic votes in the past two presidential elections than the official results demonstrated.

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/election-fraud.htm

In fact there were more voters voting in swing states than the number of eligible voters living in those states.

There are simply an insane amount of voting anomalies that have been absolutely downplayed and ignored by the press.

Sadly, the democratic election process in this nation has been compromised.

 

[sid_galt]

But... but... but... he gave me a tax break!

What nonsense!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1844.cfm


Besides do you really advocate taking people's money away by force as a means to an end?

Bush should be cutting spending and freeing up the market from regulations, not taking more money from the people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce?[continued]

PEGGY NOONAN - Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

 

[Gokul43201]

Peegy Noonan !? Wasn't she papa's speechwriter (and Reagan's before that) ? Why, I remember her singing the praises on GW on Scarborough Country

Good, for her, I guess !

Domestic discretionary spending - non-defense spending - non-homeland security spending -- has increased.

That's just sickeningly unbelievable ! Does someone have a source or an explanation for this ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's just sickeningly unbelievable ! Does someone have a source or an explanation for this ?

He said it again this morning on Meet the Press.

He also said that in his darkest moments, he imagines "Bush as some kind of Manchurian Candidate who takes all of his best ideas and ruins them". This is just too strange after listening to all of his excuses made for Bush for five years.

 

[SOS2008]

He said it again this morning on Meet the Press.

He also said that in his darkest moments, he imagines "Bush as some kind of Manchurian Candidate who takes all of his best ideas and ruins them". This is just too strange after listening to all of his excuses made for Bush for five years.

Here's another quote from that link:

The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! ...But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it's a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.

We never hear this one in PF do we?

 

[faust9]

Here's another quote from that link:
We never hear this one in PF do we?

Yeah, replace Kerry with Clinton and you have the typical apologist response...

 

[MaxS]

Russ's world is collapsing.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sadly, Russ is only a fiscal conservative...and is almost a social lefty. Too bad Bush is just the opposite.

There's someone else here that's a real social conservative...can't recall who...only remember he wasn't accepting applications from "women of the left".

 

[Astronuc]

As for a bridge to nowhere - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/09/bridges/index_np.html

A bridge to nowhere Alaska's Gravina Island (population less than 50) will soon be connected to the megalopolis of Ketchikan (pop. 8,000) by a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge. Alaska residents can thank Rep. Don Young, who just brought home $941 million worth of bacon.

Aug. 9, 2005 | A mess of thorny devil's club and salmonberries, along with an old chicken coop, surrounds the 40-year-old cabin where Mike Sallee grew up and still lives part time on southeast Alaska's Gravina Island. Sallee's cabin is the very definition of remote. Deer routinely visit his front porch, and black bears and wolves live in the woods out back. The 20-mile-long island, home to fewer than 50 people, has no stores, no restaurants and no paved roads. An airport on the island hosts fewer than 10 commercial flights a day.

Yet due to funds in a new transportation bill, which President Bush is scheduled to sign Wednesday, Sallee and his neighbors may soon receive a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and 80 feet taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. With a $223 million check from the federal government, the bridge will connect Gravina to the bustling Alaskan metropolis of Ketchikan, pop. 8,000.

http://www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/gravinabridge.htm
Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is trying to sell America's taxpayers a $315 million "bridge to nowhere" in rural Alaska. As Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he is in a very good position to get his way. But Rep. Young should be stopped from using his political clout to force federal taxpayers to pay for a bridge that is ridiculous in its scope, unjustified on its merits, and far too expensive for taxpayers to swallow at a time of record federal deficits.

If Rep. Young succeeds, tiny Ketchikan, Alaska, a town with less than 8,000 residents (about 13,000 if the entire county is included) will receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a bridge to Gravina Island (population: 50). This bridge will be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge.

Road Bill Reflects The Power Of Pork
White House Drops Effort to Rein In Hill

- but isn't that the duty of the president? Checks and balances?

Three years ago, President Bush went to war against congressional pork. His official 2003 budget even featured a color photo of a wind-powered ice sled -- an example of the pet projects and alleged boondoggles he said he would no longer tolerate.

Yesterday, Bush effectively signed a cease-fire -- critics called it more like a surrender -- in his war on pork. He signed into law a $286 billion transportation measure that contains a record 6,371 pet projects inserted by members of Congress from both parties. I guess Bush is equal opportunity at least.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081000223.html

Statement of STPP President Anne P. Canby on Enactment of New Federal Transportation Law - http://www.istea.org/

-- It Is Now Up to State & Local Leaders to Deliver Real Travel Options to the Public (August 10, 2005)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reauthorization/safetea.htm

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted August 10, 2005, as Public Law 109-59. TEA-21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005-2009.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reauthorization/index.htm

========================================

Generals recommend national plan for emergencies
Bush weighs military's role in large disasters

CNN

You mean Homeland Security doesn't have one? On what are they spending those $ billions? Why do we need HS?

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AP, CNN) -- Military officials told President Bush on Sunday that the U.S. needs a national plan to coordinate search and rescue efforts following natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

Bush said he is interested in whether the Defense Department should take charge in massive national disasters.

Seems to be a slippery slope.

 

[pattylou]

Sadly, Russ is only a fiscal conservative...and is almost a social lefty. Too bad Bush is just the opposite.

Which is why one might wonder why Russ supports the man!

 

[pattylou]

What nonsense!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1844.cfm


Besides do you really advocate taking people's money away by force as a means to an end?

I certainly do!

 

[sid_galt]

I certainly do!

Then you support robbery and looting.

Are you a communist by any chance?
If you are, I must say, you are very honest in terms of advocating your beliefs.

 

[pattylou]

Yes, I am honest. :)

But if you really believe taxation is the same as looting... then you validate some of my views of right wingers!

So tell me, if you had a homework assignment asking you to state the differences between taxation and looting, would you be able to come up with anything?

 

[pattylou]

Are you a communist by any chance?

I don't believe I meet the criteria for communist.

I *do* agree with the maxim: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

 

[sid_galt]

But if you really believe taxation is the same as looting... then you validate some of my views of right wingers!

Don't worry. Most right wingers aren't like that.

So tell me, if you had a homework assignment asking you to state the differences between taxation and looting, would you be able to come up with anything?

Oh yes!

Taxation is legalized looting.

 

[pattylou]

LOL. That's the best you can do?

 

[sid_galt]

I don't believe I meet the criteria for communist.

I *do* agree with the maxim: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

You agree with the basic premise of communism. You support using force to violate the rights of men by taking away their property.

I would be interested to know which criteria of communism you do not meet.

 

[sid_galt]

LOL. That's the best you can do?

Well, with only one essential difference between them, that is the best I can do.

 

[pattylou]

You agree with the basic premise of communism. You support using force to violate the rights of men by taking away their property.

Do you recognize that this discussion could become very involved and that you are oversimplifying parties?

I won't have the time to invest in a lengthy discussion of this sort.

I would be interested to know which criteria of communism you do not meet.

I don't recall. From "what are your political leanings" type internet questionnaires, I don't come out communist.

I wouldn't know from those questions which are and aren't directly for and against communism per se, as there are dozens of "parties" that you can end up being assigned to based on your responses.

If you'd like to find such a questionnaire it might be an interesting exercise for various members to take.

And now, to turn the tables: I take it from your response, that you don't believe in taxation at all - even taxation with representation - and therefore don't believe in any social services whatsoever that are federally funded; road upkeep; public schooling; the military. School loans. I take it you believe that only those that can afford education or health care should have it.

Does that sound about right?

 

[Astronuc]

Taxation is certainly not looting - however, taxation without representation is more or less so.

Paying taxes is part of a moral obligation to support the community - part of a social contract. The community in turn provides support and services that an individual might not otherwise be able to provide for him- or herself, or one's family.

Taxes should not be more than necessary, and if so, place a surplus in the "community chest" as a reserve, just in case of an emergency or unanticipated problem.

Humans (and primates) are territorial, so it is difficult for an individual to go anywhere in the world and live outside a community and its government.

Ideally, we make the best government possible, which should provide for fair and impartial laws, and we obey the laws, which should in theory provide for domestic Tranquility and the general Welfare.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sadly, Russ is only a fiscal conservative...and is almost a social lefty.

So what you are saying is that there is right, left, and then the other left.

 

[Astronuc]

or three lefts make a right.

 

[Smurf]

You agree with the basic premise of communism. You support using force to violate the rights of men by taking away their property.

I would be interested to know which criteria of communism you do not meet.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[sid_galt]

Taxation is certainly not looting - however, taxation without representation is more or less so.

I'm not getting you here.

Taxation involves telling a man to give money to the government and threatening him with physical force if he does not.

Looting involves telling a man to give money to another person and threatening him with physical force if he does not.
The essentials are the same.

I have no problem if someone voluntarily contributes to the society or the government. But he should not be forced to do so.

Paying taxes is part of a moral obligation to support the community - part of a social contract.

You mean if a person wants to deal with civilised people, he has a moral obligation to contribute to a common fund which is spent away on causes he may or may not approve of?

If two civilised persons or a group of persons want to participate in mutual trade or want to live near other civilised persons, how does that impose a moral obligation on them to contribute to the common fund?

The community in turn provides support and services that an individual might not otherwise be able to provide for him- or herself, or one's family.

That is only true for a person who is not productive enough. In which case he is living off people who are more productive than him without their consent.

Humans (and primates) are territorial, so it is difficult for an individual to go anywhere in the world and live outside a community and its government.

True. But how does that impose on him a moral obligation to give money to the common fund?

I am not advocating that he live alone and apart from everyone. If other people don't want to talk to him, that's their choice. If the person wants to contribute money to the community for charity work or the like or help other people that's his choice.

But what I'm advocating is that he should not be forced to give his money to anyone no matter where he lives. His life and property do not belong to the govt. or the community.

Ideally, we make the best government possible, which should provide for fair and impartial laws, and we obey the laws, which should in theory provide for domestic Tranquility and the general Welfare.

Sadly, given the current state of the world, with the govt. getting even bigger and bigger, that is not very likely.

 

[sid_galt]

I won't have the time to invest in a lengthy discussion of this sort.

k

And now, to turn the tables: I take it from your response, that you don't believe in taxation at all - even taxation with representation - and therefore don't believe in any social services whatsoever that are federally funded; road upkeep; public schooling; the military. School loans. I take it you believe that only those that can afford education or health care should have it.

No. I do believe the government should enforce the law, mantain courts, mantain a police force and mantain the military. I do believe the govt. has to make roads to support the military and the police. I am somewhat Jeffersonian on the purpose of the government.

I do not believe that the government should itself violate the code of ethics by appropriating the wealth and property of private citizens.

As to the practicality of my view, if people know that without contributing, they risk running into an anarchy, they will contribute more than you can think. If they can contribute 600 million dollars for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, they'll contribute much more for their personal security.

Most of the revenue these days is wasted anyway in welfare, spewing out money to other countries and to the UN, funding useless projects and putting unnecessary restrictions on the market so that the Chinese companies can beat the crap out of US companies and give us a trillion dollar deficit.

 

[loseyourname]

No. I do believe the government should enforce the law, mantain courts, mantain a police force and mantain the military. I do believe the govt. has to make roads to support the military and the police. I am somewhat Jeffersonian on the purpose of the government.

Personally, I think that the military should at least partially be funded by selling military technology to be adapted to civilian use. Roads can largely be built and maintained through user fees and public authorities, at least the major highways and bridges. It seems like the government has to enact some amount of taxation, at least on services it renders (like stamps, for instance) and sales taxes. It's the income tax and property tax that gets me. Many of my ancestors lived in this country for thousands of years before there ever was a United States. What right does the government have to claim the land for itself and tell us we now have to pay to live on it? My great-great grandfather built his house out in California City before California was even part of the United States. What is the theory here? That by remaining on his own property, in the house that he built, on the land that he worked, he consented to being governed by and giving over his land to the US? Did his children and grandchildren consent to the ridiculous property tax hikes that California went through before Prop 13? I don't see how this is substantially different from the King coming in and claiming divinely ordained lordship over you, exacting tribute and promising to protect you from other kings in return.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is the other quote from Brooks. The transcripts weren't available until now.

Mr. David Brooks: No. Listen, George Bush, his administration, has spent more on domestic discretionary spending, non-defense spending, twice as much as Bill Clinton, more than Lyndon Johnson. It is not what Republicans expected. I put most of the blame on Congress. But I wouldn't say--I mean, I think it's a mistake to say it's all about Bush...

... And as I say that, you always got to go back to competence. And sometimes in my dark moments, I think he's "The Manchurian Candidate" designed to discredit all the ideas I believe in. [continued]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9438988/

So, according to the conservative David Brooks, we can pretty much blame all republicans in Congress and Bush [whose competence he now questions].

Edit: Also, that's not a bad description of how Bush Sr made a Democrat out of me. They are both utterly transparent to me. I've seen better cons by used-car salesmen.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not getting you here.

Taxation involves telling a man to give money to the government and threatening him with physical force if he does not.

Looting involves telling a man to give money to another person and threatening him with physical force if he does not.
The essentials are the same.

Not really. The government is merely demanding payment for the services and protection it provides you. The looter didn't do anything to earn your money, the government did.

 

[Gokul43201]

I *do* agree with the maxim: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

How do you see justice in rewarding the needy at the expense of the able ?

 

[sid_galt]

The government is merely demanding payment for the services and protection it provides you. The looter didn't do anything to earn your money, the government did.

But the point is what if a person doesn't want those services?

The fact that the govt. provides a few services after taking quite a bit of your money doesn't change the fact that the govt. is threatening you with jail if you don't give it money. Not to mention that most of the money is flittered away on non-essential things which don't even remotely benefit you.

Let's say a person is a little ill. He doesn't want to take medical treatment at that point because he can't afford it. A hospital takes his money by force and then treats him. Would you say that the hospital acted ethically?

If a person walks 10 miles to work and a car company takes away his money without his consent and then gives him a car, would you say that the company acted ethically?

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not saying the saying the amount "charged" to each citizen is necessarily fair. And a fair system may never be practically implemented. There's just too many problems with scrapping income taxes, especially right now, when the govt is neck-deep in debt.

 

[pattylou]

How do you see justice in rewarding the needy at the expense of the able ?

I don't see it as a matter of justice. I see it as a matter of reaching our individual and social potential for good and/or growth.

If people are abusing the welfare system for example, then they aren't giving according to their abilities. That's a problem. That's a problem for the system - but it's also a problem for the individual because they are "wasting" their life.

In an ideal system individuals reach their own potential by striving to do their best. This benefits them directly and it benefits the society as well.

Realistically we have to understand that some people can't contribute, and there must be a safety net. THis is where "To each according to his needs" comes in. This is good for society too - it builds community when it is not abused, and it is good for the individual for obvious reasons.

In other words, I think both parts of the maxim serve individuals and society well.

~~~

Also: A quick ramble:

Part of the Western mindset is "me me me." "My comfort, I deserve whatever I can afford etc. If I want to eat McDonalds and gain forty pounds that's OK."

You can argue that allowing or promoting this idea lies in line with Justice (protection of individual rights to do whatever one wants as long as it's legal.) But taken to its extreme, this is a very unhealthy attitude, and we have seen some of this extreme in our society with consumption that outstrips production (at the expense of the rest of the world), increasing personal health problems (at an increasing cost to society), etc. So "Justice" is not necessarily the only thing to keep in mind when envisioning society, and perhaps the western mindset could promote better health across the board if it were slightly less "me" focused.

Actually, with that ramble, I realize that I could argue that it is not "Just" for you to eat whatever you want, become morbidly obese, and therefore require more of my tax dollars to keep you healthy. In that sense, the maxim does apply to Justice.

 

[Astronuc]

Sid - I am planning to respond, but I don't have the time at the moment. Of course, I am referring to an ideal situation, and life (or reality) is often far from ideal.

Anway - looting - refers to pillaging - which is to rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; plunder.

The government does not plunder - although it might seem that way at times - particularly to those who do not wish to pay taxes.

However, if one lives in a community, one uses services both directly and indirectly - e.g. roads (directly) and perhap 'border control' (indirectly) or 'jail' (hopefully indirectly) - or perhaps weather monitoring systems (directly and indirectly).

Anyway, one may pay a small amount of one's earnings or capital, but collectively a large amount is paid to the government in taxes, with which the government buys material and pays salaries/wages for people to provide services. One may not wish to use 'all' services of the government, but at least one has the choice. Likely, someone is using some service that the government provides.

I'll catch up later.

 

[sid_galt]

There's just too many problems with scrapping income taxes, especially right now, when the govt is neck-deep in debt.

I am not advocating scrapping the income tax right now. That would result in a chaos. However I do favor it and others being ultimately being scrapped out.

 

[sid_galt]

Sid - I am planning to respond, but I don't have the time at the moment.

k

Anway - looting - refers to pillaging - which is to rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; plunder.

The government does not plunder - although it might seem that way at times - particularly to those who do not wish to pay taxes.

My dictionary (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) also defines it as the illicit gain of money by a public servant.

However regardless of the semantics, the government is violating the rights of people who do not wish to pay the government, do not use many of the services it gives (e.g. welfare) and yet are forced to pay.

However, if one lives in a community, one uses services both directly and indirectly - e.g. roads (directly) and perhap 'border control' (indirectly) or 'jail' (hopefully indirectly) - or perhaps weather monitoring systems (directly and indirectly).

You are talking about the free rider problem, aren't you?

Consider this case. If a large group of people organize a fund drive to plant trees in the city, there will certainly be many who won't pay but will benefit from the planted trees.
Regardless this does not give the group of people to coerce the money out of the non-payers for something they do not want to pay.

Defense services, border control, etc. will benefit everybody regardless of whether they pay or not. But the problem with coercing the money is, there will be many people who do not use or want to use any of the services but still will have to pay the tax.

On the other hand, if taxation is voluntary, there will be free riders but atleast the honest won't have to suffer. And I think there are enough sane people left who will contribute for their security and for the protection of their rights.

 

[sid_galt]

So "Justice" is not necessarily the only thing to keep in mind when envisioning society.

pattylou,
There are only two options - a just society or an unjust society. There is no middle ground.

If you advocate an unjust society, then what you are arguing for is not benevolence and humanity, what you are arguing for is death and destruction.