An interesting conversation...

[armor99]

For anyone that has read my postings I would think it is fairly obvious that I am more conservative in my ideas than liberal. On the other hand I always like to listen to other points of view. I do not have to agree, but if I can understand the other persons point of view, then I feel I have a least learned something, and rarely is that a bad thing.
The other day I found myself having a conversation with my uncle who is admittedly VERY liberal, and I asked him what he thought about certain topics, and we batted it around for a few. I may disagree with my uncle, but he is certainly an eloquent speaker, and not likely to start getting nutty, or start the name calling that typically ends such conversations. It was interesting to hear it from his point of view, and I learned a bit of why I probably find such thinking uncomprehendible.

We started talking about poverty in america, and what should be done about it. So I asked if he believed it was possible to eliminate poverty entirely in the US. As in... no one here is poor anymore.

He steadfastly believes that eliminating poverty IS in fact possible, and should be a goal. According to him we are a prosperous enough nation that NO ONE should be living in poverty in the US. He also had a really hard time defining what poverty was, because he insisted it has nothing to do with money, but just having “enough” (whatever that means). So I asked how we should go about eliminating poverty. I got back a rambling speech sprinkled with terms like “social justice”, “societal responsibilities”, etc. And he never really did explain what should actually be DONE to help fix the problem, but he was CERTAIN our goal should be to fix it.

Another person in the room actually made the very astute observation that I tend to believe that people who are getting welfare (in one form or another) are “freeloaders”, and that my uncle viewed such people as being in an “unfortunate position” that was no fault of their own. And that neither of us would ever really know which percentage was which. My uncle actually admitted that even if he found out that 95% of these people were “freeloaders” (able to work but choose not to) he would still feel the same way, that these people need to be “helped” anyway.

His main thrust was that facts were sort of irrelevant to him. That he thought it was important to help everyone, even if they arrived at their situation due to their own laziness or stupidity. Even if the fact had been, it is impossible to eliminate poverty, he felt you should do all that you can to reach that goal anyway. From my point of view, tilting at windmills is sort of pointless. If you told me to play a game that was impossible to win, my inclination would be not to play, I would see no point in it.

To him, the act was the important thing, not the result. For me…. the result is what justifies the action in the first place. I think I also now understand the “tax the rich” rally cry that most liberals and he share. You can tell that he really “hates” rich people. It came through whenever he spoke of it. He believes that no one really should be able to become that wealthy, because if you are, it means that according to his world view, you have not “helped” nearly enough people. He believes that those that have more “owe” it to those who have less. So if you are wealthy, that means you really do not need all of the stuff you have, and you would have been much better off helping so many more people who have nothing. So according to my Uncle’s world view, you should only have “enough” (whatever that actually means, I could not get a real defination of it), and the rest should be given to anyone that is suffering (by their own hand or not). I could not really follow the logic of it, but of course it is not even close to a logical thought process. But the one thing that seemed to drive the whole thing was the certainty of being “right”, and the use of terms that sound good, but cannot be quantified or measured in any way. Terms like “enough”, “rich”, “society”, etc. He was not really sure how you would even go about measuring it if you were making an impact on the goal of curing “poverty”, and to him it was also irrelevant, the act of trying was most important to him.

So there in a nutshell is why I miss the liberal arguement most of the time. It seems to be a system about "feeling" rather than "knowing". I can never tell somone that what they are "feeling" is right or wrong, that is different for everyone, and certainly not a measurable quantity. The best I can ever do is show various facts, and try to base my decisions on what those facts reveal about the reality of the situation. In my uncles mind it seems not to work that way at all. He spoke alot of our obligation to help "society". A word he could not define for me, but was certain it included everyone... but somehow not me or him.... just these nameless faceless "others" that he or I would never know, but people we owe things to.


I may get flamed over this... or not... it was not my intention to be inflamitory to anyone, I just found it interesting and eye opening to see what he believed. At least I did learn something about what he believes...

[BoutDone]

armor99,

Like you, I am also conservatively minded but try very hard to understand the more liberal point of view. It is very difficult to find someone who can remain calm and collected and be objective when these conversations arise. It usually ends up in name calling and something or other about Bush.

Anyway, I have a friend who I would call an ultra liberal. Strong union affiliation, anti-war, global warming must be stopped regardless of its damage to our standard of living, business in general and profit in specific is bad, the US is to blame for most of the ills in the world, Bush - well you know. He has even gone so far to say that Fidel Castro must be doing something right or he would have been taken out of power by now.

Fortunately, he is my very good friend so we have had more than a few conversations. Admittedly, we have stayed away from hard politics lately as the election cycle progresses. He is a strong Hillary supporter so he is feeling kind of down as of late.

What struck me most about your post is the commonality between your Uncle and my good friend. Kind of like an epiphany for me. The commonality is the lack of objectivity or quantification of progress towards a goal. Maybe us conservatives are too analytical but, it seems the liberals are always striving for some kind of idyllic state. Not quite sure how to get there and not quite sure how they will know if and when they get there. Still, they march on.

When trying to decide something, anything, my good friend often says he needs to feel gestalt first. Which can defined as

"a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts".

For him, it is not the end result that is important - it is the process that satisfies him. This may well explain the Obama phenomenon where lofty ideals carry the day. No need to actually have a plan. Not important.

I feel you may have hit upon a distinguishing feature of the liberal mindset. Something that conservatives have a hard time understanding. Why actually accomplish anything when simply striving for something is all that matters.

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoutDone armor99, Like you, I am also conservatively minded but try very hard to understand the more liberal point of view. It is very difficult to find someone who can remain calm and collected and be objective when these conversations arise. It usually ends up in name calling and something or other about Bush. Anyway, I have a friend who I would call an ultra liberal. Strong union affiliation, anti-war, global warming must be stopped regardless of its damage to our standard of living, business in general and profit in specific is bad, the US is to blame for most of the ills in the world, Bush - well you know. He has even gone so far to say that Fidel Castro must be doing something right or he would have been taken out of power by now. Fortunately, he is my very good friend so we have had more than a few conversations. Admittedly, we have stayed away from hard politics lately as the election cycle progresses. He is a strong Hillary supporter so he is feeling kind of down as of late. What struck me most about your post is the commonality between your Uncle and my good friend. Kind of like an epiphany for me. The commonality is the lack of objectivity or quantification of progress towards a goal. Maybe us conservatives are too analytical but, it seems the liberals are always striving for some kind of idyllic state. Not quite sure how to get there and not quite sure how they will know if and when they get there. Still, they march on. When trying to decide something, anything, my good friend often says he needs to feel gestalt first. Which can defined as "a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts". For him, it is not the end result that is important - it is the process that satisfies him. This may well explain the Obama phenomenon where lofty ideals carry the day. No need to actually have a plan. Not important. I feel you may have hit upon a distinguishing feature of the liberal mindset. Something that conservatives have a hard time understanding. Why actually accomplish anything when simply striving for something is all that matters.

Well thank you so much for your kind words BoutDone. The thing with me has always been... not that I disagree most of the time with liberal type ideas (I disagree with lots of folks on many different issues), but that I could not understand it from their point of view. It actually bothered me a lot. I felt that if I could not understand, at least from their point of view, why they thought as they did, I felt I was missing something. Possibly something very important, important enough that not understanding it, I was doing myself a dis-service. One of the reasons I became an engineer was simply because I wanted to know. How do things work? Why do things happen the way they do? So when confronted by a mindset that I could not explain in any objective rational way, I am completely dis-armed.

Emotions and feelings are neither logical nor questionable. No one can ever argue that you do, or do not "feel" a certan way about something. If someone tried to argue with me that I should "like" strawberry ice cream when I did not, then they would be hard pressed to find any "logical" reason that I was incorrect. Maybe this is the piece that has escaped me for such a long time. Like I said I found the conversation very educational.

[Marquette]

I strongly dislike liberals and conservatives.

[dex]

To paraprase a quote from "As good as it gets"

How do you write liberals well? Take away reason and accountability.
++++++++++++++
The actual quote:
Woman: How do you write women so well?
Melvin: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

[bssc]

Well, you could make the same comments about conservatives.

In discussions with self proclaimed conservatives there seem to be several different types that I find I cannot have a discussion with. The first is the religious conservative where their ultimate appeal is to their interpretation of the Bible. This is especially interesting when you try to discuss things like evolution or astronomy with them. My old boss even admitted that he had to sell his telescope when he became born-again because what it was showing him, that there were stars more than 6000 years ago. In fairness, the liberal religious that I know sound a lot like your uncle, quoting the passages about it impossible for a rich man to get into heaven and Jesus throwing the money lenders out of the temples.

Then there are the social conservatives who would take us back to their version of Mayberry and cried about keeping traditional values. And some of the ones I knew were even more conservative, talking about the good old days antebellum. I have no problems with them wanting to live that way behind their doors but I don't really care for it when they try to push it on me.

Finally, I find it interesting that there are all these pro-business conservatives who don't want government to intervene except to bail them out. They were the ones who didn't want liar loans prohibited because they were so profitable in the short term yet expect the tax payers to bail them out with low interest rates, loan guarantees and higher inflation. They also come up with such laws as making it illegal for some to order a car directly from a manufacturer because it would cut out their $3000 take from the middle of the transaction. Do those laws make sense otherwise?

[armor99]

Very well said bssc! I have long believed that the "true" enemy of all people is not extreme liberalism, or religious folks, etc. The real enemy I have always believed is zealotry. The idea that when your convictions are strong enough, facts cease to matter to you any more. When reason and facts no longer guide your decisions and actions, then literally we become capable of anything. That zealotry comes in many flavors, and can take on lots of different forms. Religious, political, ideological, race or gender based, and many others I am sure I am probably forgetting. But at the core of all of them, is the monster known as zealotry. In a very real way, I fear these folks more than anyone else. I once got into an argument with a man at work about the definition of a certian word. So rather than argue all day about it, I suggested letting the dictionary be the final impartial arbiter. Upon reading the definition that was almost verbatim what I had said, he merely replyed, "Well then.... obviously the dictionary is wrong!" Rather than admit that he was clearly in error, he chose to fight on. And the arguements he used just got more and more irrational as time went by, trying to twist things around somehow, so he could still be "right". Needless to say I no longer argue with him about anything, what would be the point in doing that? There is nothing more that I can learn from him.

[mb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 We started talking about poverty in america, and what should be done about it. So I asked if he believed it was possible to eliminate poverty entirely in the US. As in... no one here is poor anymore. He steadfastly believes that eliminating poverty IS in fact possible, and should be a goal. According to him we are a prosperous enough nation that NO ONE should be living in poverty in the US. He also had a really hard time defining what poverty was, because he insisted it has nothing to do with money, but just having “enough” (whatever that means). ...

How about this:

(1) Food
(2) Shelter
(3) Medical care
(4) Opportunity

I don't think that anyone in this country should be hungry or cold or have to worry about not having basic medical care. Furthermore I think that everyone should have opportunity to "improve themselves" through for example equal access to quality K-12 education.

I don't put these things in the same category as life, liberty and property and believe that society is "required" to provide them (and more) as some of my more liberal friends do. But I do think that a just society would choose to provide them to its more disadvantaged members through the democratic process.

For the most part I think that the US does a fair job of this but we could do better.

MB

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mb (1) Food (2) Shelter (3) Medical care (4) Opportunity I don't think that anyone in this country should be hungry or cold or have to worry about not having basic medical care. Furthermore I think that everyone should have opportunity to "improve themselves" through for example equal access to quality K-12 education.

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. As in.... no one has the right in America to prevent you from finding work, or starting your own business to achieve all of the things in your life that you might want or need for yourself.
By the same token, the government is not required to provide any of these neccessities for you. They are required to stop others from attempting to stop you from trying. 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. When the govt provides for someone that has not provided for themselves, the only way they can do that, is via all of our taxes that we pay. The govt has no money of it's own. My taxes should be used for things that I can at least in part derive benefit from. Schools, roads, libraries all qualify. What can I gain from my money going into another mans pocket? It makes me feel good that I can help someone who truly needs it. But that gets back to the whole charity thing again. Taking money from me for charity in my opinion goes against the whole point of the charitable donation, and that point is that it is voluntary. Once it is no longer a voluntary act the value of it is lost.

[Texas Proud]

Interesting on both sides.... and I will add a few post because my ideas etc are on different posts...

My thinking is that liberals are in the group of people who think 'society' owes things to people (like no poverty or hunger)

Conservatives (there is another kind except bible thumpers and business people).... think that it is the individual that owes it to himself to get ahead... but if someone is in TRUE need, we will help...

I am the latter... and it might be a bit 'libertarian'.... because I don't want the government to bail out people for making stupid decisions.... maybe have something in place so they can start over (bankruptcy etc.)... and maybe even some help to get them over a hump (unemployment)... but this should be a short term help..

[Texas Proud]

Here is where the problem is to 'eliminate poverty'....

There is a certain percent of society that has drug, alcohol or mental problems that do NOT want to be 'helped'..

I remember reading many years ago (can't remember enough 'facts'... sorry).... where this city up north had a bunch of liberals who spent a huge amount of money to build homeless shelters because there was such a big need in their city..... so they built them... Well, the homeless did not want to go to them... so they had to go out and bribe them to move into them... but STILL they did not want to stay, so they moved back out....

So, they wasted a lot of money and had a lot of empty housing units...

Never heard what they did with them all... would be interesting to find out more on this since it was so long ago....

[FIREdreamer]

I am a centrist. There are many arguments on both sides of the aisle that I just don't understand or agree with.

I just would like to point out that poor people exist even in socialist countries. They are given opportunities to rise up yet it's still not enough. They are being provided with cheap healthcare, cheap education, cheap lodging, cheap food, minimum living wages and yet they are still barely scrapping by. In some European countries, the poor are now asking for free vacations, "bonus" Xmas checks, etc... It's never enough, and the limit which defines "what is enough" keeps moving. At some point you have to stop propping people up. They have to pull themselves out of poverty. That being said I support social programs for people who cannot support themselves (because of disability for example). If socialism (or social justice or whatever you want to call it) truly worked, there would be no poor people in Europe...

[bright eyed]

I think the terms liberal and conservative are very limiting and prevent us from seeing where we all find things in common.

I find it is more helpful to see "problems" and "solutions." Many years ago most people would not agree that climate change was a "problem" - now that more people agree many more of us of any persuasion are seeking solutions.

You could go down a long list of issues and find where people will eventually come to find consensus because the problems become beyond the point of argument - they are just more obviously bad and recognized by everyone and impact beyond a small or fringe group of people.

Of course this falls into the problem of the "tyranny of the majority" - and why marginalized groups have resorted to more "visible" tactics like marches or such to gain visibility - but if done well, once educated, the public will become educated and even marginalized issues can become resolved.

i think the bigger problem is whether you are open or closed minded - willing to hear out people's arguments/reasoning and think through your logic -

and most importantly be willing to shake your own views to new or different information. the challenge is also to learn how to listen "beyond your personal experience" - that is often a roadblock in these types of conversation where one person says "but i don't understand (because it hasn't happened to me)" or "but it's not how it works (for me)" etc...while you may not understand what it is like to be a minority, a woman or whatever you are not, if you "listen" and not measure what someone is sharing against your own experience (what people see as the "truth") then the conversation will go a lot further. If both people are just defending their position to be "heard" not much will be gained.

[donheff]

Armor. That post almost seemed designed to elicit the name-calling that you say ends most arguments with liberals. Your uncle either doesn't really exist or is simply an example of a moron. He sounds nothing like any of the liberals I know.

[BoutDone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Armor. That post almost seemed designed to elicit the name-calling that you say ends most arguments with liberals. Your uncle either doesn't really exist or is simply an example of a moron. He sounds nothing like any of the liberals I know.

No donheff,

Armor's post did not name call, nor have any of the subsequent posts. That is until you raised the possibility.

Actually, Armor's description of his uncle reminded me of many of the more articulate liberals I have known. You remind me of many of the other kind of liberals I have known.

Case in point: "Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler."

Idler defined:
a. Not employed or busy: idle carpenters.
b. Avoiding work or employment; lazy: shiftless, idle youth.
c. Not in use or operation: idle hands.

A perfect example of the mindset under discussion.

Now, let us return to a civil conversation.

[dex]

Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------
Although the definitions of the terms are different there really isn't much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans in the USA. "Two parties without a nickles worth of difference between them.:

I am getting to the point where I think neither party represents the the general populatioin of the USA. And, both parties attempt to keep their followers in line with fear instead of leadership

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed I i think the bigger problem is whether you are open or closed minded - willing to hear out people's arguments/reasoning and think through your logic - and most importantly be willing to shake your own views to new or different information. the challenge is also to learn how to listen "beyond your personal experience" - that is often a roadblock in these types of conversation where one person says "but i don't understand (because it hasn't happened to me)" or "but it's not how it works (for me)" etc...while you may not understand what it is like to be a minority, a woman or whatever you are not, if you "listen" and not measure what someone is sharing against your own experience (what people see as the "truth") then the conversation will go a lot further. If both people are just defending their position to be "heard" not much will be gained.

.Good point.

[brewer12345]

If you right wingers want [moderator edit] in public, there is a board at the motley fool that has already descended from er-related content to RWCJ ([moderator edit]). Don't ruin this board with this drivel, too.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Armor. That post almost seemed designed to elicit the name-calling that you say ends most arguments with liberals. Your uncle either doesn't really exist or is simply an example of a moron. He sounds nothing like any of the liberals I know.

I also (respectfully) disagree with your characterization donheff. I know people like Armor's uncle myself. I am (in order) a fiscal conservative, environmental progressive and social moderate.

I am in a heated debate with a young, passionate extreme left winger now about high gas prices. He blames big oil solely, I think it's a combination of many factors, many that have nothing to do with big oil (ie, if big oil was non-profit, we'd still be experiencing relatively high gas prices by US standards). From my (engineer) perspective, he seems to have a don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up POV. He provided almost no facts, when I did, he told me outright, "that doesn't mean anything to me" and the topic switched to the war in Iraq!!!

I agree with Armor and others here who believe it's important to listen to other POV's. I've voted for 2 Democrats and all the rest Republicans in my life. But I've listened to almost all the Republican and Democratic debates to see what I could learn. I think Churchill said (paraphrasing) 'If you're 20 and you aren't a liberal you don't have a heart. If you're 40 and you aren't a conservative, you don't have a brain.' I think there is some truth to that, although I would add when you're 60 you may fall somewhere in between. When I was 20 I thought poverty was unacceptable too. Now that I am over 50, as much as I think we are obligated to help those who truly can't help themselves (there but for the grace of God go I) - I realize that a lot of undeserving people will take advantage of the safety net. I'd like to provide more than just basic needs to those who can't help themselves but if we make welfare et al too appealing we just attract more of the undeserving. It has to be a LCD benefit to provide an incentive for those who can to do for themselves. The administrative costs (Govt employees) that would be required to separate the deserving from the undeserving are unfortunately prohibitively high. And unfortunately, those who can't help themselves, suffer the consequences. If welfare could solve the poverty issue, you would think it would have been solved a long time ago we've been throwing money at the problem for at least 40 years. Money can't fix human nature. Incidentally, it's the same reason communism/socialism have not led to higher standards of living than free market/capitalism - and never will. If people were selfless, socialism might be the best system, but I'm not holding my breath.

My views on environmental protection and UHC have changed too.

I agree with Armor and the others who think this is a fascinating topic, I could go on with this topic endlessly, but I won't. I am willing to discuss my POV with anyone, but 'I don't learn anything with my mouth open' so I seek out other POV's. I realize I am constantly learning and I will never have all the answers. And if I find myself debating with an extreme right or left winger, I walk away 'never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.'

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoutDone No donheff, Armor's post did not name call, nor have any of the subsequent posts. That is until you raised the possibility. Actually, Armor's description of his uncle reminded me of many of the more articulate liberals I have known. You remind me of many of the other kind of liberals I have known.

I didn't say Armor was name-calling, I said his post seemed designed to provoke it - maybe in me. I grant that idiots like the uncle are out there - as are idiots like the ditto-heads. But to use them to portray a generic liberal (or with ditto-heads, a generic conservative) is inaccurate and provocative.

Quote:

Case in point: "Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler." Idler defined: a. Not employed or busy: idle carpenters. b. Avoiding work or employment; lazy: shiftless, idle youth. c. Not in use or operation: idle hands. A perfect example of the mindset under discussion. Now, let us return to a civil conversation.

Do you forget what forum you are on? My quote was intended to be a humorous reference to the desire for ER. You are reading in a liberal mindset onto the entire ER group -- or do you agree with the poster some time back who asked if "ER is selfish?"

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 He steadfastly believes that eliminating poverty IS in fact possible, and should be a goal. According to him we are a prosperous enough nation that NO ONE should be living in poverty in the US. He also had a really hard time defining what poverty was, because he insisted it has nothing to do with money, but just having “enough” (whatever that means). So I asked how we should go about eliminating poverty. I got back a rambling speech sprinkled with terms like “social justice”, “societal responsibilities”, etc. And he never really did explain what should actually be DONE to help fix the problem, but he was CERTAIN our goal should be to fix it.

It sounds like your uncle may in fact not be an eloquent speaker . In my mind poverty is not having enough resources to provide for your basic needs: food, shelter, medical care, basic necessities. You can also have people who are poor, who might have food, shelter or medical care but not much else.

Now, can we eliminate poverty? We could guaranty (though we do not) that everyone will be clothed and have food, shelter, medical care. However, not everyone will want the help. They may be mentally ill or an addict or otherwise dysfunctional and not want help. Currently, we do guaranty that certain groups will have some cash assistance to purchase necessities. But only certain groups who are deemed worthy. The disabled. The elderly poor. And for a limited period of time, a parent with young children. If you are simply without any resources you are not entitled to any cash assistance and in most places, not entitled to medical assistance.

Does failing to provide them assistance help them "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and become successful? If they are young, mentally healthy and smart, they can get loans and grants and go to college or tech school. But I know too many who are struggling. They have mental health problems, but not to the point of disability. They have poor social skills. They end up living marginal lives, maybe homeless at times, selling blood, committing petty crimes, maybe having children when they should not have children because they want to be loved and have someone to love.


I believe cutting people off from assistance is a mistake and does not help people help themselves. We need to work on education delivery systems. We can insure health care is available to everyone. Healthy people are more likely to be able to participate as productive members of society. Higher education is becoming more and more expensive, far out pacing inflation. We can do more here. We can have a reasonable minimum wage. We can work on figuring out ways to help dysfunctional families which do not do a good job of helping their children learn the skills necessary to succeed. This is a tough job and likely never will fully be solved.

Quote:

Another person in the room actually made the very astute observation that I tend to believe that people who are getting welfare (in one form or another) are “freeloaders”, and that my uncle viewed such people as being in an “unfortunate position” that was no fault of their own. And that neither of us would ever really know which percentage was which. My uncle actually admitted that even if he found out that 95% of these people were “freeloaders” (able to work but choose not to) he would still feel the same way, that these people need to be “helped” anyway.

This is the moral hazard argument. Providing assistance will encourage freeloading and freeloading is a slippery slope. But, cash assistance currently is not available to healthy people without children. Food stamp eligibility is limited. Subsidized housing is limited, often with long waiting lists and priority lists. Disability standards are so tough that it would be rare for any freeloaders to get through. I have seen disability claims denied for many who are disabled. We go too far the wrong way. Arguably, healthy parents who get assistance because they have children are freeloaders. Solution? Take the kids away? Currently the solution is to provide assistance for a limited period of time. Some still cannot get their lives in order after their 5 years and live in poverty, unable to meet all their families needs.

To label the elderly poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, the abused, as freeloaders is why me, and maybe Donheff and Brewer, got our backs up a bit at your post. Freeloaders is a disparaging term and there is no need to disparage everyone who gets assistance. Have you figured out if your contributions to government, to insurance companies, to your parents, exceeded your benefits? If not, you got something for free.

Quote:

His main thrust was that facts were sort of irrelevant to him. That he thought it was important to help everyone, even if they arrived at their situation due to their own laziness or stupidity.

Well, we don't do much of anything to help the lazy and the "stupid." These words are not too helpful. Stupid? Is it a case where a person does not have a lot of intellectual capability and poor educational background so they make poor decisions? Or are we talking about someone who lives a middle class life on credit and then ends up in bankruptcy because they did not think ahead? Two totally different situations of "stupidity."

Quote:

Even if the fact had been, it is impossible to eliminate poverty, he felt you should do all that you can to reach that goal anyway. From my point of view, tilting at windmills is sort of pointless. If you told me to play a game that was impossible to win, my inclination would be not to play, I would see no point in it.

I like noble goals but I spend my time worrying about specifics. I also don't like tilting at windmills, though that is probably what both of us are doing here.

Quote:

To him, the act was the important thing, not the result.

Are you sure? That doesn't sound very liberal to me. I am a staunch liberal and results are everything.

Quote:

For me…. the result is what justifies the action in the first place.

Agreed.

Quote:

I think I also now understand the “tax the rich” rally cry that most liberals and he share. You can tell that he really “hates” rich people. It came through whenever he spoke of it. He believes that no one really should be able to become that wealthy, because if you are, it means that according to his world view, you have not “helped” nearly enough people. He believes that those that have more “owe” it to those who have less. So if you are wealthy, that means you really do not need all of the stuff you have, and you would have been much better off helping so many more people who have nothing. So according to my Uncle’s world view, you should only have “enough” (whatever that actually means, I could not get a real defination of it), and the rest should be given to anyone that is suffering (by their own hand or not). I could not really follow the logic of it, but of course it is not even close to a logical thought process. But the one thing that seemed to drive the whole thing was the certainty of being “right”, and the use of terms that sound good, but cannot be quantified or measured in any way. Terms like “enough”, “rich”, “society”, etc. He was not really sure how you would even go about measuring it if you were making an impact on the goal of curing “poverty”, and to him it was also irrelevant, the act of trying was most important to him.

I believe in progressive income taxes because the richer are more able to pay. I paid taxes at the highest bracket for a number of years without resentment. I don't hate the rich. My liberal friends don't hate the rich. I am not happy about the evidence which shows social mobility in our country has decreased and if your family is poor you are likely to remain poor and if your family is rich you are likely to remain rich. I also am not thrilled with high executive compensation with poor company performance but that isn't a tax issue, that is a shareholder power issue.

These things cannot be summarized in a nutshell of what liberals are about or what conservatives are about. The world is a complicated place with complicated issues.

Quote:

So there in a nutshell is why I miss the liberal arguement most of the time. It seems to be a system about "feeling" rather than "knowing". I can never tell somone that what they are "feeling" is right or wrong, that is different for everyone, and certainly not a measurable quantity. The best I can ever do is show various facts, and try to base my decisions on what those facts reveal about the reality of the situation. In my uncles mind it seems not to work that way at all. He spoke alot of our obligation to help "society". A word he could not define for me, but was certain it included everyone... but somehow not me or him.... just these nameless faceless "others" that he or I would never know, but people we owe things to.

Right back at yah. What facts are in your post?