Piper,

Below is a quick definition of "meek" from the web.

• adjective: humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness ("Meek and self-effacing")
• adjective: very docile ("Meek as a mouse- Langston Hughes")
• adjective: evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant ("A fine fiery blast against meek conformity- Orville Prescott")

So, you weren't wrong if you were meaning about "cowed submissiveness" or "evidencing little spirit or courage". It all depends on your interpretation of the word.

RobP “I'm not trying to "top" you at all. I'm simply putting my view. Every time I do you run interference on it.”

Ah, I suppose I am interfering with your interference?

Its like you said “I suggest you start treating people with a bit more respect instead of using your patronising language.”

Grim brings up the “Age of Chivalry” and “The (good) strong accepted that they had a duty to protect and defend the less fortunate” if you look back a few posts you will see I referred to the same thing as “noblesse oblige”.

It is flattering when Grim takes time to elaborate on my posts.

TPP “This party will blame it on the last one and this government department will point a finger at the one next door.”

Yes government is all a waste of time as well as your and my taxes, that is why libertarianism is a better option. People left tp make their own mind, to be generous, charitable, compassionate with their less taxed resources and fewer outcomes dependent upon the blunderings of incompetent government. People making decisions for their lives instead of some pompous arse telling us what legal substances we are allowed to eat, drink or smoke (the recent Nanny State Health Directive from another panel of here-today-gone –tomorrow experts, with their snouts deeply ensconced in the purse of public taxes.

Ah I see the “Meek” are making their humble presence felt…. Don’t worry RobP… someone with your levels of hubris will never be confused with being “Meek” or even a supporter of the meek,

what you don’t understand is the meek would never use their “meekness” as a weapon,

as you did to try and castigate me…

to a “meek” person that would have been hypocrisy,

to you… hypocrisy seems to be your natural response.

There's an old saying Col - one man's meat is another's poison. If you can't see that you are a dick. Every time you come across with your overbearing opinion, superior intellect and all the rest you are pushing someone else back a little further and making it impossible for them to put their view. My response is simply a direct reaction to what you are doing to me. You stop and I'll stop - it's pretty simple.

I know the game - you cleverly bait and switch all the while hiding behind the veneer that you are a libertarian. Why call yourself Col Rouge (which translates to red neck) if you aren't out to make a nuisance of yourself? You are as transparent as a bride's nightie. Take a hike.

Col Rouge, I'm only too happy to give credit, where credit is due; and happy to acknowledge those times when you have said something I thought was reasonable, and socially responsible.
Twice now, in about 2 years I think.
Yes,"“Noblesse oblige” is where the most powerful accept responsibility for the less fortunate a part of their social obligation"; unfortunately, we have had the opportunity to see how well this system works for over a thousand years, unlike the quite recent socialist experiments.
Since we still have 30,000 children dying daily, while 'the most powerful' measure their wealth in billions, the answer must be, not well.
Was it someone in these forums who supplied a link to this great Asimov quote?
“Two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have the freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, and stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. Everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in the freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, "Aren't you through yet?" and so on.”
Asimov used this quote to highlight the problem of overpopulation. No doubt Col Rouge would use the quote to highlight the problem of socialised bathrooms. I think it highlights the fundamental problem for libertarians; that 'freedom' along with wealth, is inextricably tied to resources, and is therefore a finite commodity.
The more 'freedom' we allow a tiny few, the less 'freedom' is left for everyone else.
I repeat my earlier question: do you believe all 6.7 billion people on this planet should have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness?

Pursuit of happiness?

I’m just big on perception right now. I am happy so I guess I shouldn’t pursue anything but something might come up that I decide will make me happier, is it socially responsible to pursue it? Maybe, or maybe there should be a “Pursuit of Contentment” or maybe if you have to pursue it the “it” needs to be justified. This is personal ethos (new word alert)?

Should I pursue a new pair of shoes? Well yeah if I don’t own any I maybe should?

You know the population thing…. It’s not the people being born is it, it is what they believe they should pursue.

And in full circle the meek are bugging me. The strong should help them but then there wouldn’t be any meek and maybe god didn’t want anyone to inherit the earth because he was going to destroy it wasn’t he? Maybe the message has been distorted?

What community wants to be able to have a list of the 100 poor unless “poor” means they are fine, just not quite as fine as the people next door.

Am I making sense... I just read that and I’m not sure. Col, you know in England there are squatters’ rights? What was that about?

Is Aussie like a Nanny state or libertarian - halfway?

Grim “Since we still have 30,000 children dying daily,”

Maybe the parents should slow down on copulating if they cannot feed their offspring.

I know I waited until I could afford children before fathering any.

“No doubt Col Rouge would use the quote to highlight the problem of socialised bathrooms”

Actually Grim used the quote to manifest his own straw man…

The point with the bathroom is simple, only a socialist would apply the false economies of social arhchitecture and build an apartment block with an inadequate number of bathrooms, in a libertarian society, the individuals decide what sort of bathroom facilities they will pay for… and those buildings which do not meet consumer expectations for bathrooms will be left either empty or rented only at a significant discount to marginal occupants.

“I think it highlights the fundamental problem for libertarians; that 'freedom' along with wealth, is inextricably tied to resources, and is therefore a finite commodity”

Not at all… most libertarians are higher up Maslow’s hierarchy and hence derive more enrichment through non-material inputs than those who follow socialism and are blind to that which is not “material”.

“The more 'freedom' we allow a tiny few, the less 'freedom' is left for everyone else.”

Ah yes typical Lenin perversion actually Lenin said

“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

Lenin also wrote

“Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”

And that is because he will indoctrinated to slavishly believe what Lenin also described

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

So I suppose Grim would see us rationed of “freedom”, just like Lenin.

Lenin, who oversaw the mass starvations of millions and his efforts at genocide were exceeded only by Hitler and of course the biggest killer of them all, Stalin.

All by operating everything through a soulless and heartless "government", which destroys personal and individual freedom.

Yes, I can think of many things a hell of alot worse than "unequal distribution" of resources.