Seth Rogen's experience addressing the government

[A__]

Youtube featured this video

of Seth Rogan speaking to the Senate. 

 

In reference to the government, "It seems like these people don't care."  The seats were mostly empty and a couple even fell asleep.

 

Considering the violence committed by the US government, this is such a small point but I think it helps publicize how the goverment doesn't care.  

 

 

 

 

[fractional slacker]

The difference between truth and falsehood is sometimes easy to spot. Had he omitted the words "It seems..." that statement flips from rubbish to gold. That would have pointed out the elephant in the room. That requires courage and would have made many folks uncomfortable. Good thing he didn't do that.

[weeb]

Why am i not surprised by his comments?  Sure makes it easier to raise funds with a gun.  I really don't think these statists make the connection.  I was about to be proud of him for organizing a charity on his own, but not if he gets these Washington thugs involved. 

 

Not every cause can be breast cancer.  Old people being forgetful don't have the same lively, healthy, working base that boobs do.  People from Hollywood and sports stars are the only hope for more rare conditions (affecting a smaller percentage of the population, like ms, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, colo-rectal cancer, etc.) raising awareness and possibly getting the public to chip in voluntarily.  The more rare your illness, the fewer choices you have for a support base that doesn't come from the state, or religion  It puts desperate sick people that are in pain in a vulnerable position.  One should not have to sell their soul to the state or sing along with magic spells to get some help.

[SuperAdventurer]

"It seems like these people don't care." I hope they don't, and I wish politicians didn't care about Alzheimer's or any other cause, because this "caring" gets funded with other people's money. The distinction between voluntary donations to a charity to benefit a particular cause and directing tax dollars toward that cause is lost on most people. Organizing a charity, petitioning Congress, it's all for a good cause right? But by speaking before Congress like this he's no longer advocating for a charitable cause, he's advocating that people (taxpayers) be forced to support the cause whether they like it or not.

 

I don't know the statistics on this but I wonder how many charities refuse to accept or advocate for government funding. Those are the only charities that might be worth giving to. In fact I hadn't really thought this through fully before but next time a charity asks for a donation, that's the first question I'm going to ask. "Oh you take tax dollars? Then I guess I've already donated, **** off."

[dsayers]

I appreciate where you're coming from, but that's like holding it against somebody that happens upon a $50 bill and just pockets it. Theft occurs whether any specific charity is a benefactor or not. Somebody who is in charge of a charity would be incompetent if they didn't accept whatever funding they could get.

[SuperAdventurer]

I appreciate where you're coming from, but that's like holding it against somebody that happens upon a $50 bill and just pockets it. Theft occurs whether any specific charity is a benefactor or not. Somebody who is in charge of a charity would be incompetent if they didn't accept whatever funding they could get.

 

Accepting government funding isn't quite the same as picking up a $50 bill from the ground, because we know something about the source of those funds. In particular we know that the government acquires its money through non-voluntary means. In that sense it would be more like watching a mugging take place and then accepting money from the mugger. But lets say the witness / beneficiary did nothing to encourage the mugging, had no way to prevent the mugging from taking place, and by the time they received the money the victim was long gone from the scene so that returning the money to its rightful owner was not an option. Under those conditions (all of which hold in the case of taxation), would it be wrong to accept money from the mugger? The answer to that question isn't clear to me. About all I can say is that I would find it unsavory, but that's not any kind of a moral argument.

 

Here's a thought though. If enough people made it known that they would only donate to charities that refuse government funding, at some point taking government funding would become counterproductive for the charities. Doing my very small part to push things in that direction sounds good to me.

[dsayers]

Accepting government funding isn't quite the same as picking up a $50 bill from the ground, because we know something about the source of those funds.

 

Is this to say that the person pocketing the $50 is unaware that he did not earn it?

 

If enough people made it known that they would only donate to charities that refuse government funding, at some point taking government funding would become counterproductive for the charities.

 

First of all, a $50 bill that was stolen spends the same as a $50 bill that was earned. Nothing in the $50 bill itself indicates where it came from. We do know that since it was printed using machines and a system that came from people without their consent, ALL government money is rooted in theft. The only way what you're describing could be done is if they only accepted Bitcoin for example. Even then, there's no way of knowing if the Bitcoins involved were never used immorally.

 

Doing my very small part to push things in that direction sounds good to me.

 

Except that that's not what your actions are accomplishing. So while you cannot influence what the moral component of charitable acceptance looks like, you do have the power to be honest with yourself. I say this with utmost sympathy because I too remember a time when I thought like that.

 

Can you imagine cancer not getting cured during the lifetime of the one guy with the smarts to do it simply because his funding refused any portion of funds available to it? Not trying to appeal to emotion or make a utilitarian argument. Just pointing out that the accepting of funds is not itself immoral, it is a component of our society right now, and to not accept it only works in opposition to the charity's stated goal.

[LanceD]

Accepting government funding isn't quite the same as picking up a $50 bill from the ground, because we know something about the source of those funds. In particular we know that the government acquires its money through non-voluntary means. In that sense it would be more like watching a mugging take place and then accepting money from the mugger. But lets say the witness / beneficiary did nothing to encourage the mugging, had no way to prevent the mugging from taking place, and by the time they received the money the victim was long gone from the scene so that returning the money to its rightful owner was not an option. Under those conditions (all of which hold in the case of taxation), would it be wrong to accept money from the mugger? The answer to that question isn't clear to me. About all I can say is that I would find it unsavory, but that's not any kind of a moral argument.Here's a thought though. If enough people made it known that they would only donate to charities that refuse government funding, at some point taking government funding would become counterproductive for the charities. Doing my very small part to push things in that direction sounds good to me.

This seems like it could get complicated. Should charities accept donations from public sector workers? The donation is voluntary but those public employees got their money through the same theft. So the same rules apply here I would think. In my mind charities taking money from the government is really a non issue. Not taking the money isn't going to decrease the amount of theft that occurs. It will just mean the stolen money will go somewhere else. At least a charity may take those dollars and hopefully do at least a little good with it.

[LovePrevails]

He should go to his fans to raise money not the government.