An interesting conversation...

[unclemick]

Yellow Dogs and Democrats, kayaks and bacon(although I suspect bacon may be a closet Independant).

And take my Sister (please!) who claims Independant(but usually votes Republican) who deserted the Pats in the stretch(a good football team) cause Brett looked cute.

heh heh heh - Sooo is modern Target Retirement liberal and pssst Wellesley consevative and does the Norwegian widow really care?

Ya gotta love these controversial threads .

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem -- Under the strictest interpretation, libertarianism would not permit a country to engage in military force against another country unless the action was clearly in self-defense to their armed action first (not as a means to prevent their armed action, not a means to save lives in other countries, not as means to enforce agreements, etc).

And under my brand of Libertarianism folks would never be required to serve in the military against their will. They could serve for their country or join the invaders and serve against their country depending on the best deal and outlook for the future.

Quote:

if everyone's vote counts the same, the poor will eventually vote themselves a share

And why not? Why shouldn't they vote themselves everything? If the "haves" don't like it, let them get out the votes or pick up arms and defend their "stuff". Everyday folks need to act in their own best interest.

The current period of general civil obdience in this country has been lengthly and is outside of historical norms. I bet there is going to be a revision to the mean!

[ERD50]

OK, I won't get into the L-R debate, I just want to comment on the OP conversation with his uncle.

I see the issue this way:

A) armor99 is analytical, his uncle is not. It's like two people who don't speak the same language.

B) Social injustices and their solutions are a complex, very complex topic.

C) Tough to try to come together on complex issues, nearly impossible when you can't really communicate.

D) You probably both want to see less social injustice, but are not able to express this in terms the other can understand.

Here is one approach that *might* work - but it is a long process.... like learning a new language. You need to step way back, and find very basic points that you agree on. Back away from any disagreement on anything, just find common points. A little at a time, build on this, and you will build a framework where you are communicating.

At that point, you can start to question how these agreed upon issues might be dealt with. Now, this may not be easy for you to do with a non-analytical type. You need to learn how to frame it in their perspective. The practice you gain in discussing areas of agreement, just might help you do this.

For example, I'll assume your uncle is comfortably middle-class. So point out a house that is likely 10X the worth of his house. Ask him if those people should need to give up something to others. He'll probably say yes, indeed. So then, drive to an area where homes are 1/10th the value if his house.

Now, since none of us know the real numbers, ask him what he would think if it turned out that to help those people all across the country with less status than him, he would need to give up 1/2 the value of his home? It is a hypothetical question, because we don't know the numbers, but it should make him think.

If he is as willing to give up his own possessions as he is the possessions of others, it adds a lot of weight to his position. Let us know if you are able to get that far with him. I'd be interested in the answer. Typically, it seems that people who like the 'tax the rich' plans always define 'rich' as somebody with more than they have. Maybe your uncle is an exception.

-ERD50

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 OK, I won't get into the L-R debate, I just want to comment on the OP conversation with his uncle. I see the issue this way: ...

Seems reasonable.

When discussing (and thinking about) these complex issues... I think people tend to get stuck on one small aspect that is a sore spot and cannot step back and look at the bigger picture.

For example: Health care. Why should we (who have resources) pay for others? There are many reasons... not the least of which is that you or a family member may wind up being "one of those others" and in a life situation that could ruin you through no real fault of your own (or lack of trying). Health problems are one of the few things that can ruin most people who worked hard and contributed their entire life... but the system locks them out (insurance companies redline you and will cancel your policy or jack the premiums sky high after you become ill).

Then what complicates the issue is when political professional plan to cloud the issue by throwing in scare tactics about Universal health care... by highlighting some negatives. There may be a few negatives that need to be worked out... but look at the current situation, it is full of negatives also.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR In the interest of being fair and balanced (heh), how about those who consider themselves conservative enunciate some ideas espoused by conservatives that they consider equally inane. And those who are liberal, do the same.

No one willing to turn the critical thinking spotlight on their own kind?

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR No one willing to turn the critical thinking spotlight on their own kind?

Hey, not me honey.

I know a lot of liberals and a lot of conservatives. They all are different. A few are even kooky.

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent It seems to me all you're saying is 'It feels wrong to me' I don't see any facts to back up your notion that tax supported charity is 'extortion'.

Ok independant... that is a valid point, so let me try to address that better. My view on taxes is fairly simple. This is money that goes to the govt to pay for things that are too expensive to be funded by the private sector. Usually these are things that can benefit everyone to one degree or another. I do not think it would be wise or possible to have several private armies in the US for example. Libraries, a police force, roads, and public schools are other great examples. And these are all things that everyone, reguardless of how rich or poor they may be derive some benefit from. Weathy and poor alike will need a police force, army, need to use the roads etc. Now granted there are some things that taxes go for that some people might be against. The war in Iraq might be the largest clearest current example of this. But even in that, some might might argue that it helps promote democracy in a part of the world that has little of it, that it is a security thing (fighting over there so they do not come here). Some may agree, and others may not. Definately valid points of view on both sides of that one.
But in my opinion, it is not right to take money from those that have it and redistribute it to those who "need" it more, just because they have less than you. I would also like to point out here that you and many others here have some very valid points, and perhaps we are just arguing about degrees. I fully understand that there are those who through no fault of their own fall on tough times. Maybe you get ill, were born with a mental or physical disability etc. I am definately not suggesting there should be no safety net for them. I think that would be a decent use of charitable funds. I think the abuses of the system are what give me such strong feelings about it. For every case of someone who through no fault of their own came upon hard times, there are probably just as many stories about people that are able of body and mind, and choose to live off of govt largess. Who knows... maybe if the govt got better about finding ways to cut off people that are abusing the system, we might actually be in complete agreement.
I am trying hard to step back and look at this one from other perspectives (and thank you for helping me to see this in another way). Maybe this is a glass half full vs. half empty thing. In which I am seeing it as bad because all I can see are the people who choose not to work, but somehow have big sceen TV's in their homes. Whereas all you are seeing are the multitudes of people that are in real need of help, and got dealt a bad hand in life. It might be that we are both correct, just looking at it differently.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Hey, not me honey. I know a lot of liberals and a lot of conservatives. They all are different. A few are even kooky.

Only a few...

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 It might be that we are both correct, just looking at it differently.

Now we're getting somewhere...

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR No one willing to turn the critical thinking spotlight on their own kind?

If I attempted it, it would just be promoting stereotypes, and I don't see the value of that. Issues should be debated on their own merit, not who they are associated with.

I could debate someone if they told me they don't believe in evolution. It wouldn't even cross my mind to try to find out if they consider themselves 'liberal' or 'conservative'. It would not impact how I present my case.

I'll go so far as to say there are some people of all walks who hold on to some ignorant ideas. Fair enough?

Example - one of the guys credited with inventing the transistor was later involved in some controversy over some racist statements he made. Transistors still work though, just like he said.

-ERD50

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR No one willing to turn the critical thinking spotlight on their own kind?

This thread has already been so all over the place, why make it worse?

[HFWR]

Was the OP about lack of critical thinking by liberals, or lack of critical thinking in general?

That was the point I was trying to make...

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR Was the OP about lack of critical thinking by liberals, or lack of critical thinking in general? That was the point I was trying to make...

The OP has drifted from bridging POV's between conservatives and liberals (which I thought was worthwhile, I find myself in a similar situation) to a libertarian view of taxation and to his POV on poverty, another reason this thread has run it's course for many IMHO...

[Marquette]

By all accounts, I'm pretty sure I grew up poor. Even in the military, living on-base, my parents used WIC for assistance. After my dad punched out (put in 20, retired as an E-6), we moved to a pretty depressed part of the country. The cost of living was cheap but there weren't many jobs. He had a job, for a while, as an airframe mechanic but that airline folded and he was then unemployed for a while before landing a job at the local bakery and then Wal-Mart.

We used the government foodshelf for assistance. I know well the 'horrors' of powdered milk. We had to cash in my savings bonds to help make ends meet. We didn't have cable or eat out. Meat was a rare luxury.

I couldn't have gone to college without government assistance. I was able to get a Pell grant and a Michigan Competitive scholarship (the first for income need and the second for my ACT score and income need).

The bottom line is, even though my parents are some of the most hardcore LYBM'ers I know, we still needed help to get by... and I don't mean get by like 'how am I going to afford this cable bill' get by.

I now pay my fair 35% and wouldn't mind paying more if I thought it would help. Although, in my case, that would probably cause me to decrease my domestic charitable giving.

At a macro level, I think we've moved more towards socialism and being a welfare state over the last 80 years. It's been gradual and it's been directed by the will of the public. If we want to reverse it, then it's either going to have to be gradual or quick and violent, but it's still going to have to be directed by the will of the people.

As far as my personal views, I think they're complicated but no more complicated than anyone else. I'm probably too conservative on many issues for 'liberal' or even 'moderate' and I'm probably too liberal and progressive on other fronts for even a RINO.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR Was the OP about lack of critical thinking by liberals, or lack of critical thinking in general? That was the point I was trying to make...

I wasn't sure myself. Is he trying to make a connection between liberals and lack of critical (or analytical) thinking? There might be something to that, maybe not. But I think it needs it's own thread if it is worth discussion, too many ideas converging in this one to make sense of it, IMO.

I suspect we would just end up with examples on both sides, with no way to determine if they are representative or not.

-ERD50

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I wasn't sure myself. Is he trying to make a connection between liberals and lack of critical (or analytical) thinking? There might be something to that, maybe not. But I think it needs it's own thread if it is worth discussion, too many ideas converging in this one to make sense of it, IMO. I suspect we would just end up with examples on both sides, with no way to determine if they are representative or not. -ERD50

Laugh... Yes... this topic has taken many twists and turns along the way. But in general, the point was differences in thinking, and how most of the time I miss the liberal type argument, and perhaps why. Now I understand that it might be somewhat unfair of me to lump my uncle in with every other liberal type thinker on earth, but I definatley saw some similarities at the root of it, so that was my take on it.

I see the world as a place where you should only be rewarded through the results of your own labor. And that no one should have a claim on your posessions, money or otherwise, just because they have less than you. I do not see things like food, clothing, medicine, or heathcare as a right. I see them as commodities, to be bought and sold just like anything else. I do believe that people in dire need through no fault of their own, should be able to get a small amount of assistance. I believe in the idea of charity, and that for charity to be useful, it must always be voluntary. I also take a VERY dim view of people that try to fleece a system for money, when they are mentally and physically able to provide for themselves, but just choose not to.

My uncle tended to have the opinion, that no one in an island, that any one of us is just as likely to have something bad happen to us. And for that reason, we should always seek to help anyone and everyone we can, because it could very well be us tomorrow. For my uncle, there was very little personal responsibility in play. He believes that people that get into trouble of their own doing, are just as deserving of help from everyone, as folks who have random bad things occur in their lives. He believes it should be everyones goal in life to help as many people as possible, and to not help someone in need for any reason, is just not acceptable. He also seems to think that no one should ever be allowed to become too wealthy. In his mind, if you are too wealthy, it means you obviously did not help out enough people in life, because you now have more than your fair share.


And this are the basic differences in the way that we think. I found it interesting to compare and contrast the two, and since I tend to think so divergently from the way my uncle does, we batted it around for a few to see if I could find a way to understand his point of view, because in doing so I could learn something from him. I thought it was interesting, wrote about it in the forum.... and now here we are... And yes.... I certainly did learn from the comments in this discussion. Thanks to everyone that attempted to constructively add to the conversation no matter which side of the argument you might have found yourself on...

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Ok independant... that is a valid point, so let me try to address that better. My view on taxes is fairly simple. This is money that goes to the govt to pay for things that are too expensive to be funded by the private sector. Usually these are things that can benefit everyone to one degree or another. I do not think it would be wise or possible to have several private armies in the US for example. Libraries, a police force, roads, and public schools are other great examples. And these are all things that everyone, reguardless of how rich or poor they may be derive some benefit from. Weathy and poor alike will need a police force, army, need to use the roads etc. Now granted there are some things that taxes go for that some people might be against. The war in Iraq might be the largest clearest current example of this. But even in that, some might might argue that it helps promote democracy in a part of the world that has little of it, that it is a security thing (fighting over there so they do not come here). Some may agree, and others may not. Definately valid points of view on both sides of that one. But in my opinion, it is not right to take money from those that have it and redistribute it to those who "need" it more, just because they have less than you. I would also like to point out here that you and many others here have some very valid points, and perhaps we are just arguing about degrees. I fully understand that there are those who through no fault of their own fall on tough times. Maybe you get ill, were born with a mental or physical disability etc. I am definately not suggesting there should be no safety net for them. I think that would be a decent use of charitable funds. I think the abuses of the system are what give me such strong feelings about it. For every case of someone who through no fault of their own came upon hard times, there are probably just as many stories about people that are able of body and mind, and choose to live off of govt largess. Who knows... maybe if the govt got better about finding ways to cut off people that are abusing the system, we might actually be in complete agreement. I am trying hard to step back and look at this one from other perspectives (and thank you for helping me to see this in another way). Maybe this is a glass half full vs. half empty thing. In which I am seeing it as bad because all I can see are the people who choose not to work, but somehow have big sceen TV's in their homes. Whereas all you are seeing are the multitudes of people that are in real need of help, and got dealt a bad hand in life. It might be that we are both correct, just looking at it differently.

I can see that you're looking for common ground, and I appreciate that.

I'm pretty much with you on the first paragraph (I could quibble on "too expensive", and replace it with "non excludable", but that's not important here).

I want to highlight this sentence "But in my opinion, it is not right to take money from those that have it and redistribute it to those who "need" it more, just because they have less than you."

As it stands, that looks like a pure "value judgement" to me. You have every right to have your own set of values, we all do. (I'm using "values" here to mean "what people think is right and wrong, good and bad".) Fortunately, most of us in the US share a lot of values. It sounds like you and your uncle have different values on charity and taxes.

Later you say "Who knows... maybe if the govt got better about finding ways to cut off people that are abusing the system, we might actually be in complete agreement."

This looks quite a bit different. It's more like a suggestion that we have the same values, but we're operating with different facts. Maybe we both think it's a fine idea to use tax money to help people who truly can't help themselves, and we both think it's a bad idea to give money to people who should be taking care of themselves. We only differ in that one of us thinks a certain program is actually spending money 90/10 between the "can't / can" and the other thinks the same program is 10/90. In that case, we could reach an agreement by going out and getting a set of facts that we can agree on.

I got the impression from your first post that you thought your uncle works entirely from feelings ("values", in my vocabulary), while you work from facts. But your next post seemed to show that you have your own set of values, and that the difference wasn't so much that you were more fact oriented, as that you and your uncle simply had different values. Specifically, he believes "It's always right to use tax money to try to help the poor, even if we know that most of it is going to waste", and you believe "Nobody should be compelled to pay taxes for something that cannot benefit them. Therefore, it's always wrong to use taxes to help the poor."

Again, you both have a right to your values, I'm not disagreeing with yours. I was saying that it appeared to me that you were under-estimating the role of your values, and over-estimating the role of facts, when you described your reasoning in the first post.

That's a pretty fine line to try to draw in an online discussion without any face-to-face opportunities. I hope it makes at least some sense.

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent I can see that you're looking for common ground, and I appreciate that. I'm pretty much with you on the first paragraph (I could quibble on "too expensive", and replace it with "non excludable", but that's not important here). I want to highlight this sentence "But in my opinion, it is not right to take money from those that have it and redistribute it to those who "need" it more, just because they have less than you." As it stands, that looks like a pure "value judgement" to me. You have every right to have your own set of values, we all do. (I'm using "values" here to mean "what people think is right and wrong, good and bad".) Fortunately, most of us in the US share a lot of values. It sounds like you and your uncle have different values on charity and taxes. Later you say "Who knows... maybe if the govt got better about finding ways to cut off people that are abusing the system, we might actually be in complete agreement." This looks quite a bit different. It's more like a suggestion that we have the same values, but we're operating with different facts. Maybe we both think it's a fine idea to use tax money to help people who truly can't help themselves, and we both think it's a bad idea to give money to people who should be taking care of themselves. We only differ in that one of us thinks a certain program is actually spending money 90/10 between the "can't / can" and the other thinks the same program is 10/90. In that case, we could reach an agreement by going out and getting a set of facts that we can agree on. I got the impression from your first post that you thought your uncle works entirely from feelings ("values", in my vocabulary), while you work from facts. But your next post seemed to show that you have your own set of values, and that the difference wasn't so much that you were more fact oriented, as that you and your uncle simply had different values. Specifically, he believes "It's always right to use tax money to try to help the poor, even if we know that most of it is going to waste", and you believe "Nobody should be compelled to pay taxes for something that cannot benefit them. Therefore, it's always wrong to use taxes to help the poor." Again, you both have a right to your values, I'm not disagreeing with yours. I was saying that it appeared to me that you were under-estimating the role of your values, and over-estimating the role of facts, when you described your reasoning in the first post. That's a pretty fine line to try to draw in an online discussion without any face-to-face opportunities. I hope it makes at least some sense.

And I certainly do appreciate the time you have taken to outline your position, even if I might not agree with it. I also appreciate the fact that there are educated eloquent speakers like you on this board who can actually articulate their point of view well. And do it without having to resort to name calling and other childlike antics of some other posters that will remain nameless, but he knows who he is. (Sort of like bad spirit summoning.... I had better not say his name or he might suddenly appear in a puff of brimstone to hurl insults around randomly...)

[mb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 I agree with you completely. No one in this country should be hungry or cold, or have to worry about not having basic medical care. Everyone in this country IS guaranteed in our Constitution the "right" to aquire those things for themselves, as a result of their own labor. .

So you believe that we (the govenment) should let someone starve to death if they do not make enough money to buy food or freeze to death if they cannot afford shelter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Charity is a wonderful thing. I have given freely of my time and my money on numerous occasions, and will probably continue to do so in the future. But "forced charity" is a horrible thing. .

You think the govenment should let someone go hungry just so that you can get warm-and-fuzzy feelings for giving a couple of dollars to charity?

I disagree with you completely.

MB

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mb So you believe that we (the govenment) should let someone starve to death if they do not make enough money to buy food or freeze to death if they cannot afford shelter? You think the govenment should let someone go hungry just so that you can get warm-and-fuzzy feelings for giving a couple of dollars to charity? I disagree with you completely. MB

I think you are perhaps framing this question in the wrong way. In the first statement I am making the assumption that this fictional person we are takling about is not mentally or physically ill. Because you are in fact correct, and I agree with you that mentally or physically ill people cannot be held to that standard. (Although it might be argued, that a physically ill person was probably not always ill, so they might have planned for this eventuality in the future) Being mentally ill negates your ability to think or act in a rational manner. And a physically ill person has diminshed mental and physical capacity.
So if we are not talkng about those two groups, I would say "Why have these people allowed themselves to starve to death or freeze to death?" Do you really believe that people would just wonder aimlessly about waiting for death to come claim them via hunger or exposure? I would think that a person with even the most limited intelligence could find a way to feed and shelter themselves. I hear the "starve to death / freeze to death" argument alot. Although I certainly cannot prove it in a conclusive way, I think it would be really difficult to starve or freeze to death in america as it is today. Although it would be an interesting experiment to drop off 50 people of average intelligence in random places across america, follow them with a video camera (so they are not in any actual danger) and see how long it would take them with no friends or money to locate a free meal, or a place to get in from the cold. Might make a great investigative report on the truth of how bad or not it is to survive in america. Who knows... might even change my mind about the situation.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Although it would be an interesting experiment to drop off 50 people of average intelligence in random places across america, follow them with a video camera (so they are not in any actual danger) and see how long it would take them with no friends or money to locate a free meal, or a place to get in from the cold. Might make a great investigative report on the truth of how bad or not it is to survive in america. Who knows... might even change my mind about the situation.

Well, not an experiment and only a case of one, but (from the Christian Science Monitor, that bastion of reactionary thought):

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0211/p13s02-wmgn.html