posted
I was getting upset yesterday by something someone said. Worse, I wasn't upset by what he said, but by what he believed.
When something like that happens I take a step back and look at the argument from many sides. In doing so, I think I've come up with the true difference between a Liberal world view and a Conservative one.
I consider myself Liberal, so I warn you this may contain some Liberal bias. However, I am trying to make this as unbiased as possible.
Liberals care for everyone. Conservatives care more for those close to them than for strangers.
Both are honorable world views. Neither will be easily changed by arguments made by the other.
Liberals percieve Conservatives as greedy, caring more about themselves than the world in general.
Conservatives percieve Liberals as dangerous, a Group A who strives to help Group B using Group C's money.
Liberals see suffering and want to help everyone. They have neither the time nor the money to help everyone, so they look to people with more time and more money, and demand they help.
They do not do this for votes or for over-pious applause. They do it to serve humanity as a whole, and this is a noble cause.
Conservatives are not greedy ogres or sadistic villians. They do not want other people to go hungry or ill or suffer in any way. However, their first loyalties are to their family, friends, church and community. Anything that attacks their loved ones to help others must be stopped. Hence, taxation is an attack on their families resources, and to have it spent on strangers is a waste. Homosexual Marriage is an attack on their religion, thier church, and to allow it anywhere can not be condoned.
They are not doing this out of greed, but out of the defence of friend, family, etc. It is a noble cause.
This definition of Conservative and Liberal does not define Republican and Democrat.
There are a lot of Conservative minorities in the Democratic party. They want to fight anyone who threatens them or their resources. However, since these minorities are often the weak and desparate that the liberals reach out to, an alliance is formed.
So what.
If my bleeding heart will not change a conservative's mind from defending his family and his call for united brother hood against the enemies of our people will not change my mind in demanding equality for all people, what good is this new definition?
It is rhetorical. I don't mean that it has no value. I meant that it is the key to convincing both sides to agree.
Take a random issue.
The War in Iraq.
President Bush, a conservative, has been pushing for this. He brought out many conservative arguments, of defending our selves, our families, our home.
Liberal's still fought him.
He brings out a liberal argument--We are freeing the downtrodden people of Iraq.
Now, hardly an opposing argument can be made that doesn't begin, "I am glad that Sadaam is gone and the people of Iraq are freer...."
Once you know how your enemy thinks, you have two choices. You can attack thier thoughts, entrenching your enemy against you, or you can co-op their thoughts, and turn your enemy into your ally.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can agree with most of those definitions. Does that make me a liberal?
I do know that many of my opinions have been dismissed with "once you have kids, you'll think differently." I'd hate to think that once I have kids, I'll stop caring about anyone else. At the very least, I hope I won't count it as a virtue that I don't care about anyone else.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to that, I'm a liberal with conservative tendencies.
Ok, I knew that.
kat, your views and priorities may shift somewhat when you have kids. But you will still be you. And you have so much love in you to give, I doubt you'll ever be able to "stop caring about anyone else."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what about all the special interest groups that make up a large base of the liberal population? They seem to be liberal because they want laws to be passed to help their particular group, at the expense of society at large. For instance, steel workers want steel tariffs to protect their own group's jobs at the expense of the larger economy. Shouldn't this be a conservative view under this definition, since it is being concerned with one's own group more than everyone?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the Democrats are filled with conservative sub-groups.
The Steel Workers are a conservative group. They want to protect themselves at the expense of society at large, and steel mill owners in particular. Then again the Steel Mill Owners are a conservative group, wanting to protect themselves at the expense of society at large, and steel workers in particular.
The steel workers used to be a greatly suppressed and down trodden minority. Liberal's helped them unionize and gain. Now, even though they have taken the gains the liberal's helped them get, and defend them with a conservative vigor, they stay democratic because the Owners are all Republican, and would take back those gains if they could.
This is one of the reasons "Liberal" democrats do not gain giant followings. Moderates are conservative enough to conserve for their allies while still being more liberal than their conservative Republican opponents.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven Liberals care for everyone. Conservatives care more for those close to them than for strangers.
Not even close. First, everyone cares more for those they know than those they don’t. The differences don’t come from “who cares about whom” but rather from “what works best”.
Most conservatives I know believe that the job of the government is to provide those things that are necessary and cannot be provided by other means, and to stay out of the way otherwise. Within the “conservative” camp, there is a wide set of views as to what things are necessary and only able to be provided by government, which leads to a wide set of opinions as to what should be funded by the government.
There are conservatives who honestly believe that the Great Society has created a permanent underclass, and that the best way to help the poor is not to give them money but to find ways to help and encourage people to be able to
There are conservatives who think that the transaction costs associated with paternalistic social programs make them the least efficient way to accomplish things.
There are conservatives who think that the huge resources consumed by the government’s bureaucratic approach prevents resource allocation decisions from taking into account individual, local, and regional differences.
There are conservatives (even those who strongly favor the Establishment Clause) who fear that the continuing expanding reach of government is driving the traditionally strong, religious movers of social reform and charity to the fringes.
There are conservatives who believe that the inherently coercive power of the state should be limited for the good of all.
quote: The Steel Workers are a conservative group. They want to protect themselves at the expense of society at large, and steel mill owners in particular.
This example exposes your bias and the weakness of your point – you redefine groups to support your definition. Since those who oppose steel tariffs can be said to be protecting there own interests in doing so, they would conservative by your definition.
We already have words that mean “likes to help others” and “likes to help themselves”: “altruistic” and “selfish.” Neither liberals nor conservatives have sole claim to either word.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Make a statement and stick by it, screechowl. Passive-aggressive whiny posts are not becoming.
If you don't have an opinion, think for a minute and come up with one. If you do believe something, spit it out and take a stand.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't think Liberals are Altruistic. Sure, they are willing to give to help others, but they also demand that everyone gives. I am not altruistic to force you to give to my cause.
I don't think Conservatives are Selfish. That implies that all they care about is themselves. That isn't right. They care and want to defend their way of life for their families and friends, people they know and understand. Since when is protection of home and heath, of your friends, family, church and community selfish?
Your description of a modern conservative, one who wants the Government to only do what individuals cannot, is not historically accurate.
A conservative in 1777 saw his family threatened by the revolutionary rebels and fought against them.
However, if you see the ever growing Government as a threat to your families way of life, then limiting it and down grading it is an appropriate reaction.
The rest of your list of Conservative theories strikes me as a list of rationalizations to cut government spending and protect their friends and families assets.
Names are tricky things. What politicians call Conservative or Liberal are various and ever changing. Perhaps two new words here would be better. Altruism and Selfish just are not the right two words.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to define Liberals' and Conservatives' broader views on the role of government because both attempt to use or excuse the government in different ways to accomplish their very specific agendas.
For example (and in these examples, I'm describing the hardest-line conservatives and liberals, not the common man, who probably disagrees with the most extreme positions) ...
A Conservative believes that the government should stay out of the way when it comes to business and market regulation, and has no right to redistribute wealth. But it should step in and establish the dominance of religion, and enforce social mores.
Liberals believe that the government should offer comprehensive aid to the poor and needy, funding them primarily through heavy taxes on the rich and on big business. But the government has no right to tell people what they can or cannot do in their personal lives.
Seems like they both basically want the freedom to do the things they care about, but they want to government to step in and stop other people from doing things they don't like. Pretty similar, if you ask me.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the split as being so vicious. I think of conservatives as people who look at successful historical models in order to address the problems today.
The two problems I find with the my father did this, and his father did this, and his father did this, et. al., approach is that we choose approaches that may have marginally worked in the past without weighing a new approach which could be optimal, and the second problem I have is that the world changes by the moment. The solutions of the past may have been tolerable in the past, but now we have the means and the knowledge to do better. _____
That and I think that there is an underlying trend of conservativism to attract clannish, pessimist people who are so worried that their worst dreams are true about man's evil nature that they run half way to bring it about, just to prove that they were right.
Hence more prisons instead of treatment facilities. More gated communities instead of better public schools. More guns to protect their stuff. In addition to a punitive streak that I find disturbing to the point of dehumanizing, which pervades too many policies.
quote:The rest of your list of Conservative theories strikes me as a list of rationalizations to cut government spending and protect their friends and families assets.
Although to many conservatives they are not just rationalizations but also the truth. I know many conservatives who do actually believe the best way to help everyone is to put the economic pressure on by cutting gov't benefits, forcing them to work harder, thereby sspurring economic growth. I think most fiscal conservatives think along these lines.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was getting upset yesterday by something someone said. Worse, I wasn't upset by what he said, but by what he believed.
I hope this is me.
I understand your point with this thread, I think.
I do not consider myself a conservative. Objectivist is closest to describing my views, with libertarian being less close.
My biggest difference with conservatism is my atheist beliefs. I think there is no place for religion in government.
I believe that the government's most iportant duty is to protect private property rights. I think all domestic policy can flow from this principle. A person owns one's self. Thus, rape would be a criminal act because it involves violating the personal property of another. Most laws can be derived from this idea.
quote: Liberals percieve Conservatives as greedy, caring more about themselves than the world in general.
This sentiment is one I both understand, and loath. I would point out, as dagonee has already, that everyone cares more about themselves than others. If this were not so, society would not function properly. The problem starts when you characterize conservatives as wanting to benefit themselves at the expense of others. To me, this idea is precisely what liberalism is all about. Just like you said, take from group B, and give to group C. I would propose that the Great Society approach to "helping people" is a dismal failure and has increased the # of poor in this country. I do not see this as compassion or wanting to help people, but creating a class of vote slaves. These people are barely getting by becuase they don't think they can do any better. So they vote with liberals to keep these programs alive.
Conservatism, or capitalism, is all about freedom. Freedom to succeed and freedom to fail. I may catch hell for this, but I look at economics as a similar system to evolution. The stongest companies survive, and the weakest fail. This is how capitalism must be structured to work properly. I believe that this is the only way to achieve true economic strength, and history backs me on this. State planned economies have a notorious history of failure.
I would characterize my view of the general public in america as very positive. I am of the opinion that all american's are capable of great things. This is demonstrated by the wide variety of people who have made fortunes in the last 10 years. These people were not given a gift from the gov, they used their intelligence and did something productive. The liberal point of view seems to be that many people are too stupid to handle their own lives, and that the government should be handling personal matters like housing, health care, and other family issues. The liberal view seems to be that those who are rich much have cheated, and they got rich my oppressing others.
I have the same set of beliefs when dealing with foreign countries. I think aide to third world countries is keeping them below the poverty line by supporting regimes that would otherwise fail, and force a more reasonable government.
I am of the opinion that each country must look out for its own interests. This is how most large complex systems such as economics work. Each individual must be concerned with its own wellbeing, to achieve greatness. As before, this does not mean AT THE EXPENSE of others. I do not say that imperialism is justified. That being said, I believe that the US was perfectly justified in what it did in Iraq, based on the points I have enumerated multiple times recently.
I am not posting this to start a big flame war, just though I would add something to this good idea here, explain where my ideas are coming from a bit.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Conservatism, or capitalism, is all about freedom. Freedom to succeed and freedom to fail. I may catch hell for this, but I look at economics as a similar system to evolution. The stongest companies survive, and the weakest fail. This is how capitalism must be structured to work properly. I believe that this is the only way to achieve true economic strength, and history backs me on this. State planned economies have a notorious history of failure.
There is a quote from Adlai Stevenson, and I hope I don't butcher it, but it goes like this:
"From our fertile farms, or possibly our less fertile minds, we seem to have produced two types of economies. One is a highly refined, triple distilled, roughly 200 proof Laissez Faire product. This is bottled strictly for import. For our own consumption, we have a much milder drink, whose ingredients are not so easily described but whose shock to the system is much much less than the brew we prescribe to others, whose systems are weaker."
----------------
quote:I am of the opinion that all american's are capable of great things. This is demonstrated by the wide variety of people who have made fortunes in the last 10 years.
And another thing, the idea that money is the measure of man is more than a little disturbing.
quote: For our own consumption, we have a much milder drink,
I agree with this observation. Obviously I would prefer the 200 proof stuff for our own consumption.
quote: the idea that money is the measure of man is more than a little disturbing.
I would have a problem saying that money is ONLY measure of man. Is that what you got from my comments? I specifically spoke about issues with which politics is concerned in a primary way. I did not say that science is a noble persuit and that it should be one of our ultimate goals, but I do think this. I did not speak about art or other forms of creative expression. However, I appreciate them no less. Do not miscontrue my statements as promoting money over all other concerns in life.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The good man in society. The teacher, the father, the guy who donates time to read to kids at the library, and encourages others to do the same. The man who brings hope and sparkle with his words and deeds. And a lot of other things, but in short, the Good man is the measure of man.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question for the liberals in this thread. And its not ment as an attack, just a question.
Would actions would you have taken to help the economy in 01 and 02, even now?
I have heard a lot of liberal opinions about what was done wrong. I disagree of course, but what steps would you, as a liberal have taken?
I have also been hearing a lot of trade protectionism talk from Dean, Gephardt, and the like. I would just say that this is the exact opposite of the classic definition of liberal trade. I would guess the the democrat party's close relationship with labor over the years has influenced this. But I would point out that economists look down upon protectionism is a tool of 18th and 19th century colonialsm.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm really an economic conservative, but I would have done a huge amount different. First of all, I would have not done all the trade protectionism Bush has done, which is also seen as idiocy by pretty much every economist. Second of all, I would not have tackled tax cuts without tackling spending cuts first. Spending is what causes government taxes to influence monetary flow far more than the amount of taxes. The government could tax exactly 50% of what everyone made, and so long as it did not spend it exactly zero impact would be had upon the economy (assuming a perfect tax gathering apparatus, but even without one the impact would be minimal).
Spending is where the government has real economic influence, and interest rates. Cutting taxes without corresponding spending cuts will, in most situations, result in AT BEST no harm.
Also, I would have been far more careful with the nature of my tax cuts (there would have been some, just with corresponding spending cuts), making some effort to prevent them from impacting so directly on state revenues, which has been one of the major causes of our current economic plight. Bush's plan seemed practically targetted to decrease state revenues, something fiscally idiotic given how the states had essentially no reserves (their own darn fault, but the impact could have been lessened considerably).
That's a few remarks, I have a good number more.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The liberal view seems to be that those who are rich much have cheated, and they got rich my oppressing others.
A converse statement would be that the conservative view seems to be that those who are poor must be failures, and they should be left to their just rewards.
Or maybe these are just liberal and conservative views as seen from the opposite side. I think Dan's initial hope here, apart from how successful his definitions are on their own terms--and before he started explaining to people how their own definitions were merely rationalizations of what he was telling them they believed --was to talk about ways of defining these terms that didn't have as their premise that one or the other of these philosophies was wrong.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The government could tax exactly 50% of what everyone made, and so long as it did not spend it exactly zero impact would be had upon the economy (assuming a perfect tax gathering apparatus, but even without one the impact would be minimal).
Right now, the top marginal rate is about 40%. However, those who most liberals claim to idealize, those who make very little, pay 0% in taxes, and usually get a thousand or two from the earned income tax credit, would be the hardest hit by this idea. I do support a flat tax, but something like 10-15% is little more reasonable than 50%. Really, I don't like the idea of income taxes at all, but they are a fact of life now.
Also, you say that if this money were not spent, it would not have an effect on the economy. This is a monumental error. If the government took 50% of the income in the country, and sat on it, the government would destroy the country economically. The popes did this to italy, they taxed it so heavily that there was no money left in the economy and caused massive inflation. The US economy would go from 12 Trillion to 6 trillion with the movement of a pen. Thats a pretty severe impact.
To say that a flat 50% income tax would have no impact on the economy is beyond untrue. I can tell you right here and now that if I had to pay 50% of my income in taxes, I would be forced to sell my house. I don't think anyone would honestly say that a 50% income tax would NOT impact the economy in a big way.
quote:Bush's plan seemed practically targetted to decrease state revenues, something fiscally idiotic
I would also like to know how lowering federal taxes, that is leaving more money in the states, could have an adverse effect on state's incomes.
posted
You really don't understand economics, Robespierre. Money is has no inherent worth, except as a representation of value. The reason the government impacts the economy is because it alters the distribution of value, not because it alters the distribution of money.
If the government were to tax everyone at 50% and burn all it got in taxes, the economy would be exactly the same as if it were taxed at 0%. The reason is because no redistribution of value is taking place. Every after tax dollar would be worth twice as much in goods as a dollar in the economy without taxes, but that doesn't matter, as everyone would have the same proportional amount of money, and thus value, both before and after taxes.
Your house example is completely missing the point that in the current economy the government spends your taxes. It is government spending that alters the balance of value, not government taxation. When the government spends money it dilutes the value of your money, unlike when it holds onto it. Basically, if everyone were taxed at 50% and the government burnt the money, every dollar could suddenly purchase twice the number of eggs, or hourses, that it could before. But if the goverment were to spend the money, every dollar could only purchase as much as it could before taxes, and suddenly everyone is 50% poorer (this is, in fact, incorrect, because it assumes a closed system, but the basic point is there).
Also, you didn't seem to udnerstand that I wasn't proposing such as system, but using it as an example. One of the things that should trigger this understanding is the use of the word could in that sentence.
As to why lowering federal taxes makes states poorer, it's rather simple. States receive money from the federal government, which the federal government is more reluctant to give when it has less income. States receive loans for various purposes from the federal government, which it is more reluctant to give when it has less income. And the big one: a lot of states have tax rates tied to various federal tax rates. This is the particular idiocy of the Bush plan, lowering many of the very rates states base taxes on.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by screechowl You mean like using the government to further their religious preferences?
I could respond to that with “You mean like liberals caring about others such as the unborn or the terminally ill?” We can either have an intelligent debate about our political ideas or we can trade sound bites. Just let me know which you prefer and I’ll be happy to play along.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven[/b] The rest of your list of Conservative theories strikes me as a list of rationalizations to cut government spending and protect their friends and families assets.
Dan, if you’re going to dismiss a statement of principles as rationalizations that support your original proposition, it makes it impossible to debate the initial issue.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven[/b]
Your description of a modern conservative, one who wants the Government to only do what individuals cannot, is not historically accurate.
My description was based on contemporary usage, which dates back to the mid-1950’s. I won’t go into the intellectual history of the conservative, neo-conservative, libertarian backlash, etc. here. If you’re going to lock the terms chronologically, then contemporary conservatives are more properly called Classical Liberals (Locke, Rousseau, Paine, etc.).
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven[/b]
A conservative in 1777 saw his family threatened by the revolutionary rebels and fought against them.
But a revolutionist saw his family threatened by Britain’s oppression and fought against it. So both sides of the war were fought by conservatives? If that’s what you’re getting at, then you have created a distinction without a difference and destroyed the usefulness of the terms.
I’m not entirely happy being called a conservative, given the wide breadth of opinions (some of them downright scary) that exist within the conservative camp. However, it’s certainly more accurate than calling me a liberal, and contemporary political discussion does not provide other terms in a consistent manner.
To be accurate, I’d probably have to be called a strict-constructionist social-libertarian laize-faire-leaning-but-not-fanatical-about-it limited-federalist low-tax-low-spend fiscal frugalist free-speech absolutist with a strong presumption of individual responsibility.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13 As to why lowering federal taxes makes states poorer, it's rather simple. States receive money from the federal government, which the federal government is more reluctant to give when it has less income. States receive loans for various purposes from the federal government, which it is more reluctant to give when it has less income. And the big one: a lot of states have tax rates tied to various federal tax rates. This is the particular idiocy of the Bush plan, lowering many of the very rates states base taxes on.
All these reasons are true, but it assumes that the current system can’t be changed. I’d be much happier if Federal taxes were severely cut and state taxes were raised, even if the raise was greater than the cut (within reason). I don’t think the idiocy of the current system should be used to establish the idiocy of changes to it – nothing prevented the states from raising there own taxes in response.
By the way, this is a great topic, Dan.Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You really don't understand economics, Robespierre.
This is a great way to communicate your beliefs.
quote: If the government were to tax everyone at 50% and burn all it got in taxes, the economy would be exactly the same as if it were taxed at 0%.
I really don't have the energy to explain this right now. So go here. When you drastically reduce the money supply, the economy does not go unchanged.
But, back to the point of the thread, I believe it is morally wrong to take 50% of people's earnings. I understand that you were giving an example fugu, but it is a good way to illustrate the point.
I am not rich. Nor are my parents rich. I work very hard to earn the money I have, and am proud of this. If the government decided to take 50% of my money each week, I cannot explain how enraged I would be. Taxes, at that level, would be a huge disincentive for working class people.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me start by admitting that I don't know a whole heck of a lot about economics, beyond standard high school level economic theory, so I'm not coming at this from any position of expertise, and you can explain to me if I'm reading this wrong. But, Robespierre, your link seems to demonstrate fugu's point, not disprove it. Your link seems to me to explain why printing more money does not create more wealth: the money is devalued and inflation ensues. Fugu seems to be making the same point: you cannot destroy wealth by taking money out of circulation: deflation ensues.
quote: your link seems to demonstrate fugu's point, not disprove it. Your link seems to me to explain why printing more money does not create more wealth
It does indeed demonstrate my point. If fugu was correct, then the extra money printed would be EXACTLY devalued by the amount printed. This is obviously false. This is why the yugoslav economy crashed.
From the article:
quote: The uncontrolled creation of money causes a quick decrease in the value of currency and very rapid hyperinflation (in annual price increases of hundreds or thousands of percent), which can destroy an economy.
Just as the uncontrolled creation of money can destroy an economy, so can the uncontrolled destruction of money destroy an economy. Instead of prices being 5 quadrillion times higher, they would be 5 quadrillion times smaller(in this example). When prices deflate, profits drop, and companies follow soon after.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me clarify my statements, Dagonee you mention several conservative arguments for refining or reducing the welfare system and the size of the government. By themselves they may or may not be sound arguments.
Yet you preset each one with the phrase, "There are conservatives who..."
I am not an expert on each of these arguments. I don't know their viability or their problems.
However, a "Conservative" as I defined one, would use these areguments as rationalizations for protecting their property, and the property of their friends and family.
Now a conservative in the modern sense is almost impossible to define. Their beliefs range from religious orthodoxy to social Darwinism. The "Individualist" component of Conservatism is more recent, or perhaps, just more vocal recently. That is my problem. I cannot argue with a conservatist or a liberal with out someone changing the definitions on me.
Or of me not being happy with the definitions I was being fed, usually by their opponents.
If anyone has other terms for the basic ideas I presented, I'll be happy to use them, as long as they fit.
On a different subject, we are arguing around the idea that Welfare is bad. If it is removed, it is argued, people will have to get jobs or starve. This increase in demand for employees will automatically be met by an increase in jobs as more money is available for job creation by companies. More money will also automatically flo into the coffers of the religous and secular charities. Anyone unable to get a job, due to rare shortages of jobs or disabilities will find plenty of help in these newly empowered, corruption free, very efficient charities.
What if they don't?
What if a bubble busts and jobs are lost?
What if China takes more jobs, leaving us a big pool of workers with job skills not good for the modern economy?
What if our 6.1% unemployement rate falls only in half?
How many people are we willing to risk on a theory?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've said this before about objectivism, and I think it applies to this thread:
There are very few philosophies that are more insidiously evil than objectivism. Despotism, sure, is obviously evil; you take from the needy to give to the rich. The opposite -- taking a lot from the rich to give to the needy -- can also be evil, in the extreme.
But only objectivism argues that the best reaction to seeing someone starving in the street is to step over them and let them die.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberals and conservatives are most often defined by the group that stands opposite of them.
Adherents to liberal or conservative doctrines are actually much fewer than either group would like to admit. They've staked out their claims on the big two political parties and have brought a number of disparate groups under their banners.
For example, liberals have co-opted the Democratic party and generally consider minorities to be firmly in their camp. Conservatives have co-opted Christians and believe that they are firmly in their camp. The truth, however, is fairly far from the dividing lines that are so often marked.
Personally, I'd like to see both conservatism and liberalism quietly shuffle off to the dustbin. I believe that there are few pure adherents to either cause anymore, but we hang on to the old titles because it sounds much better than "Us and Them."
It's kind of like Democrats and Republicans. Both run as moderates in the big races, but bow and scrape to the fringe elements in their parties. When it comes to actual representation, their activities aren't really that different. Neither party holds themselves away from special interests and it amazes me how rarely Congressional votes are even close. Usually any measure passed in Congress anymore does so by a landslide.
Just remember that what started Pres. Bush's initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq passed with almost no opposition. As did the big tax refund package.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But only objectivism argues that the best reaction to seeing someone starving in the street is to step over them and let them die.
This is, of course, a deliberate mis-representation of objectivism. It is possible that stepping over a starving person in the street could be the best course of action. It is also possible that it would be beneficial to the person doing the stepping to stop and help the starving person. Objectivism does not take specific situation such as that, and give out specific answers.
You have perfectly demonstrated the exact point of this thread. What I believe, is evil to you. I am, in effect, evil. How could we possibly have a meaningful exchange when you consider me evil?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How could we possibly have a meaningful exchange when you consider me evil?"
Because it is my hope that someday you will stop being evil.
In all seriousness, the mere fact that you admit that an objectivist will stop to help a starving man only if it provides a perceived benefit to himself -- which is pretty much how Rand's defined the philosophy, so at least you're honest -- pretty much makes my point for me.
I can't think of a better definition of "insidious evil." It's a disease of the soul.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
If that’s you’re intent here, then all I can say is I don’t know anyone who is a conservative who would accept your definition of them. Most would say it skews the individual responsibility philosophy that underlies many tenets of “conservatism.” The rest would say it begs the pragmatic question underlying many conservative policies. So I guess your definitions are rhetorically interesting but not useful.
I’ve never thought debates between whole philosophies are interesting – give me a nitty-gritty debate about school vouchers any day. Such a debate will bring in a vast array of philosophical beliefs, but in a more structured way. Fun, fun, fun!
As to your questions about welfare, I’ve not presented a case for or against welfare in this thread, since I brought it up as examples of typically conservative policies that did not meet your definition. By know means would I expect anyone to be swayed by my restatement of them.
Personally, I’m in favor of a minimal safety net and lots of job-training programs. I’m in favor of them being funded and run by states, with minimal federal block grants to help the very poor states. I’m in favor of increased drug rehabilitation as a means of enhancing individual responsibility. But there’s obviously a lot of imprecision in all of this.
Maybe it would make an interesting thread, but I didn’t mean to bring up welfare in an arguable manner, so I’ll decline for now to avoid derailing the thread any more.
quote: Oh yeah. *scowls* I hate that. My middle brother loves it, and that explains a lot.
Thank you for your insightful comment! It would be nice if you could add some reasoning, or ... something.
You were quick to snipe at screechowl for being passive agressive, but this kind of thing is just as useless.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. I think most conservatives honestly care about other people, but think the best way to help them is through private action. Objectivists, though, don't meet even the first criteria.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I guess that’s what was bothering me about the original definition – very objectivist and I’ve always rejected objectivism. I just hadn’t made the jump back to objectivism.
quote: I can't think of a better definition of "insidious evil." It's a disease of the soul.
And of course, I would tell you that there is no "soul."
From my standpoint, your belief system is the direct cause of the starvation.
Now we are getting the meat of this whole issue. I consider your goals to be of the worst possible, destructive and repressive. You consider mine evil. How can their be a sensible political discourse in the environment? It may be impossible.
posted
The problem, as I see it, is that you've failed to explain how objectivism would prevent people from starving. In a best-case scenario, in an objectivist society that was also somehow perfectly efficient, FEWER people would starve -- and no one would care, because the ones who didn't had arranged to have just enough for themselves to be satisfied.
Walk away from Omelas, man.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: In a best-case scenario, in an objectivist society that was also somehow perfectly efficient, FEWER people would starve -- and no one would care, because the ones who didn't had arranged to have just enough for themselves to be satisfied.
So what your saying, is that it would be better for more people to starve, as long as people cared? What good does this caring provide if more people starve?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This caring provides the framework of a society in which people have mutual and abiding respect for each other, as well as the sanctity and value of human life. Objectivism, on the other hand, does NOT; more people may live (an issue, mind you, which I would actually dispute), but their lives would be pathetic, grasping ones.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is self-defeating. Objectivism's highest goal is human happiness, but it prescribes the exactly wrong way to achieve it.
Wickedness never was happiness. That disregard for other human life inherent in objectivism is contrary to the commandments of God. You can't be happy going against the commandments of God.
I realize this goes against your brand of reason, but there it is. I'll put in language that doesn't involve God, if you'd like, but Tom's probably better at that, since he thinks about the same thing for different reasons, as far as I can tell.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: but their lives would be pathetic, grasping ones.
This is the problem right now. People live this way right now. You tell me that I don't care about human life becuase I favor objectivism(i am not an orthodox objectivist). I say the same about you, accept that you pretend to care about people. The social programs our government is running right now are clear failures. You want this situation to continue, and to build upon this foundation of failure. I say that this is the flaw in your beliefs. They have been proven many times over in real world expirience to fail.
It is probable that the answer is in between somewhere, off to the right bit of course.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wickedness never was happiness. That disregard for other human life inherent in objectivism is contrary to the commandments of God. You can't be happy going against the commandments of God.
Yes, please do explain this without using God as a base. I believe there is no God, and if there is, he has absolutely no measurable effect on this planet.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
