The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. Options
Daemon
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 12:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 28,505
Neurons: 84,693
Location: Inside Farlex computers
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
excaelis
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 2:44:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,981
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Which might explain the Republicans' fondness for deregulation of the financial sector, which worked out so well for everyone. As long as you started off rich.

Sanity is not statistical
MTC
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 4:08:35 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2011
Posts: 2,780
Neurons: 8,606


Interesting, isn't it, Shaw identifies neither Peter nor Paul. Presumably by "robbing Peter" he means taxing the rich; by "pay(ing) Paul," he means benefitting the poor. But he might just as well have meant the reverse; robbing the poor to benefit the rich. Either way the saying rings true.


GreenBanana
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 12:10:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2013
Posts: 345
Neurons: 20,818
MTC wrote:

Interesting, isn't it, Shaw identifies neither Peter nor Paul.


"Peter" and "Paul" aren't people, they're abstract variables.

Make every post as if it was the first one in the thread.
Bully_rus
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 12:23:03 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/26/2013
Posts: 2,921
Neurons: 243,211
Location: Minsk, Minskaya Voblasts', Belarus
As a true middleman a government have its share from transfer, in some cases a considerable sum of money. Why people so liked the ROBin Hood and his band of "merry men", who did the same at large?
PS I suspect that Peter and Paul are equal as in the Bible.
Verbatim
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 3:22:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/3/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 245,594
Daemon wrote:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)


Bernard Shaw put a new twist in an old saying which essentially expressed the futility of taking something from one pocket only to put it into another, of the same coat,
with the hope for a gainful outcome. There was something to gain, said Shaw, so to speak: spending from the richer pocket of Paul will keep the "coat" in good stead with the beneficiaries. We can see the truth of that in the many alterations and enhancements the same old coat has received from "supporters of Paul's disbursements".

For tracing the origins of the original saw, http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/rob-peter-to-pay-paul.html




MTC
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 3:39:40 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2011
Posts: 2,780
Neurons: 8,606
GreenBanana wrote:
MTC wrote:

Interesting, isn't it, Shaw identifies neither Peter nor Paul.


"Peter" and "Paul" aren't people, they're abstract variables.


I didn't say they were "people," GreenBanana. "Peter" and "Paul" are personifications of social classes--at least that's how I interpret Shaw's saying. Perhaps you were thrown off by my use of "identify" which applies to things and people, "2. To ascertain the origin, nature, or definitive characteristics of." Shaw didn't spell out the "definitive characteristics of" the things, social classes, Peter and Paul represent. I merely pointed out the saying makes sense whether Peter represents the rich, and Paul the poor, or vice versa.

P.S. Speaking of "identify," your use of "abstract variables" hints you may be doing scientific research in Antarctica. Is this guess correct?
excaelis
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 5:56:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,981
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Is there anything else to do in Antarctica ?

Sanity is not statistical
jcbarros
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 6:54:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/14/2010
Posts: 2,356
Neurons: 9,052
That´s called "redistribution of wealth" ;)
MTC
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 7:14:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2011
Posts: 2,780
Neurons: 8,606


As it turns out there are other jobs in Antarctica, including "tourism!" See the friendly Australian site. http://www.usap.gov/jobsAndOpportunities/
And come to think of it, "GreenBanana" works better with tourism...
Americans give a more chilly reception. http://www.usap.gov/jobsAndOpportunities/ Fun seekers need not apply.
excaelis
Posted: Saturday, November 9, 2013 7:40:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,981
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
"Look, honey ! Penguins !"

Sanity is not statistical
Verbatim
Posted: Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:27:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/3/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 245,594
Daemon wrote:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)


To do justice to Bernard Shaw, one would first have to disregard his socialist tendencies and some contradictions in his views, over the many years he advocated
for the working class. Perhaps he referred interchangeably to rich and poor alike when he observed that support of government is in exchange for favor.

But as I searched his biography I found a few references to Shaw's displeasure with unproductive people who live at the expense of society.
These people could also be rich and poor alike, and both kinds like nothing better than a good mooch.

We should be reminded of this opinion of "government":

Frederic Bastiat, 1801-1850: "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
( middle class be damned for providing the means )

dusty
Posted: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:33:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,770
Neurons: 5,765
exactly, and anyone who mixes up the story so badly that Peter/Paul is not the betrayer and seriously believes the crock story of Judah/Jesus ratting himself out or even funnier accept money to do it

is as blind def and dumb as the person who reads the NT story story and hears Peter ask Chirst,

tell me who betrays you

and Christ answer as *almost* as if it's funny, though it's not

"dumbass, you'll do it three times before cock crows"

and if you don't hear the splicing in of edited words as obvious as a record scratching as the needles is pushed off and then returned after an emergency broadcast when the laughable claim is made the Judah -- who is Christ -- betrays himself for money, if it wasn't so sad, it would be just as funny as after Christ tells the soldiers -- as himself, where to find himself -- and they are so taken back when they realize Christ turned himself in, they fall down to the ground, and they still don't hear the truth is the story that only a Dead person, wouldn't understand

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
pedro
Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:12:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,060
Neurons: 63,022
excaelis wrote:
Is there anything else to do in Antarctica ?


watch the sunset?

All good ideas arrive by chance- Max Ernst
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.