"If anyone has material possession­s and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

It was interesting to note that Ron Paul (whom I respect but do not support) seemed very put off by that reaction. In its better form, libertarianism posits that, absent government intervention, communities of people will willingly work together to supply the needs of people such as the one hypothesized in this question. However, under the madness of the tea party, what would have been once an ideal of noble intentions has degenerated into the worst kind of social Darwinism, a social Darwinism prominent among biological creationists, ironically.

Social contract theorists, in their more cynical variations from Glaucon in the Republic to Hobbes in the Enlightenment, believe that human beings are prone to violence and beastly savagery, and that only laws, threats, and social myths can force us to act in a humane way. If any of them had seen the Tea Party debate, they would not have been surprised.

If there is a more optimistic social contract theorist, it might be John Rawls, whose proposed antidote to the tyranny of greed is to think from behind a "veil of ignorance," or to put it more simply, to design public policies by always asking oneself the question "Is there any given person I might be for whom this policy is deterimental?" If I seem to simplify, it is to make the point that he made that laws should be made which extend the most privileges and liberties to the most people without any undue impact on some basic liberties of anyone else.

To cheer for the misfortune of another is to fail to realize it doesn't take much for misfortune to befall oneself.

We might think of Mark Twain's Prince and Pauper. The outcome is the same.

We might think of the Golden Rule or a host of other proclamations from the world's great religions. No religion has ever lasted too long before someone realizes that any universe that has the spiritual dimension is a universe in which all life is interconnected and therefore where we are all our brother's keepers.

Or we might be slightly technical and think of Rawls's own source material: Immanuel Kant, whose first categorical imperative is that we ought to behave in such a way that if everyone acted accordingly there would be no contradiction. Kant himself saw the outcome of this way of thinking and near the end of his life, around 1800, became one of the earliest proponents of what we now call a welfare state: To the Prussian leaders he advocated taxes on the most successful businessmen so that goods could be provided to widows, orphans, and disabled. Kant died a liberal writing tracts with titles like "Perpetual World Peace" fourteen years before Karl Marx was born.

The notion is not foreign in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, either, who has two reasons for not drinking the tea: First, he interpreted a passage in the New Testament to mean that the only reason anyone is ever permitted by God to be wealthy is so that he can give his wealth away to the poor. Second, he wrote that in any economic situation in which property has become concentrated into the hands of a few to the point that it is impossible for the poor to provide a basic sustenance for themselves, the poor have a basic duty: Steal. Just take what you need from the rich. According to Thomas, that isn't theft, that's just what you have to do.

The irony of this is that most tea partiers are not rich. Some of the tea party people I know don't have health insurance. Some of them have been living on credit cards and have been jobless for a long time. When they cheer for the death of the uninsured, it isn't even an act of killing the Other; it's an act of killing the self.

A theologian recently remarked that the falling man on 9/11---the famous photograph of people leaping off the top of the Twin Towers rather than be consumed by flames while suffocating---was the first concrete sign of mankind's despair in the 21st century. That word always accompanies suicide: Despair. What kind of movement is it that thrives on killing itself? These tea party groups would happily destroy the very system which allows them to be who they are; what diabolical architects have managed to convince so many people, people who may have been otherwise genuinely good and compassionate, to cheer at the deaths of their own? Has our political system become so maddening that this despair is now all we have?

If you are thinking about the Koch Brothers, you are thinking of one symbol of a deeper problem. Over a hundred years ago the English writer G K Chesterton suggested that capitalism itself could do nothing in the end but bring people to such despair that they would rely on ever bigger corporations and ever bigger bureaucracies to save them. Capitalism has built within it, he thought, the need to reduce men to materialists, atheists, and hallow shells whose new religion would be the ever more efficient units of utilitarianism and hedonism sold by profiteers. And that could ultimately lead to a generation of despair: With nothing greater to look to we can look only to our own selfishness, our own greed, our own political vengeance, our own wars. But in despair what can man do but seek to escape, even if it means killing himself.

When the tea party cheers for the death of the most vulnerable, I am sad for them because they are only destroying themselves. They are filled with anger at themselves and now have no where left to go but to try to take a whole country down with them. This isn't libertarianism anymore. This is narcissism masquerading as liberty. This is despair pretending to be freedom. This is self-destruction disguised as patriotism.

If there was ever a time for some hope and some change, now is that time. But we've already heard that mantra.

Change is not necessarily something for the better or worse. . though some people hug polarities as a constant - such as expecting change to be consistently bad. . or always for the better, whichever. . . and they actually work for that end.

I referred to Manfred Max-Neef, the Chilean economist, el gigante barbado, on occasion. Most of his work was with the underprivileged under the auspices of the UN or local governments and his writings were usually directed to specific groups, conferences and the like. . . a few papers here and there. His limited number of books, very interesting bearing stinging messages, are not best sellers. To me they're treasures. Apparently, to others, too. Google some of his books on Amazon. The prices of his books, second hand, will stun you!

His work with organizations was a necessity since his outlook was one of questioning whether what he saw was for the betterment of society. Those organizations don't pay well for questioning whether growth was advancing civilization, social development or simply bigger numbers. An economist doesn't harbor such thoughts and end up with a large bank account.

As a matter of fact he was teaching at Berkeley during the early sixties during the fashionable student protests and riots days, and I suspect he couldn't conceal his sympathies for the students' causes. This may have roused an anti-Max-Neef movement among faculty. His next teaching job, to my knowledge, was in Massachusetts about a decade later.

He reports that most of his earlier years were spent trying to find something constant and exclusively a human trait - something to distinguish us from other animal life. He had a running list of failures. Everything he considered eventually lost out when he found other animal life with the same talents.

Finally, in a discussion, his father threw out the suggestion to try Stupidity. And he has been following that human trait ever since with quite some success! No other animal life displays the characteristic as prominently as do humans.

In one of his books, "Human Scale Development", the last Chapter is entitled "A Stupid Way of Life". At this point inhis career, he may be devoted to that subject's prospects.

He makes the point that we have extensive studies in specialized fields dealing with human life, habits and endeavours which point out the wrong way to go about doing something. And, every time we run into a problem we solve it by doing something intellect dictates we should not!

So, there's one studious outlook on what change will bring about.

I don't believe we can predict what change will be brought on next except to say that the dominant types will try their best to see to it - if they retain power - that the new system will not deprive them of the opportunity to continue their dominance and continue enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of society. To date, except for some setbacks during the Depression, they have not lost a full point at once. The score must be millions to zero. Perhaps the lower social strata may have gained a tie for half or quarter point on occasion. That might have added up to something. But, whatever the advantage that little bit might have provided, it's soon given back.

Do you recall one of the world's richest men, Warren Buffet, declared at the beginning of the current crisis, "If this is class warfare, we're winning." Which means that back then three and a half or four years ago, the groundwork was being set for the next round. . in their favor, of course, without anyone even knowing precisely what the next adventure would bring.

We go back again to the human flaw of the selective memory painted by the fantasy beliefs we cherish. . . characterized by the dream that this time it will be different. Maybe. . but,the odds are against it.

So which among your groups would you favor to prevail or to bring on change?

Who will change the world? No one.

WHAT will change the world? Inevitability.

Indeed, control freaks have us quite suppressed but... what fun will it be when we stop struggling and perhaps-- conform or submit? The rush is in the fight, not the mundane existence of black and white. A zillion dollar bet says-- as soon as complacency rears up, they in-fight to the death.

The Dow had a great day today. Nothing that occurred today was great, good, fair, mediocre, tepid, even lackluster. Nothing occurred today. No job creation. No sales boon. No gold rush. No invention worth crowing over. It has to make sense to you... we are only about "financial" now. That means the rest of us are losers and can settle into a sub-economy and let them have their way.

I don't give it til the end of October with self-destruction.