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.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 But "forced charity" is a horrible thing. .... My taxes should be used for things that I can at least in part derive benefit from. .... Once it [charity] is no longer a voluntary act the value of it is lost.

I selected some sentences in your post which seemed "key" to me. These appear to be expressions of "feelings" or "values" which are unprovable. Maybe you think the sentences I deleted prove them, but that wasn't clear to me.

The point is that "zealotry" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Yes, I'll believe there is a wide variation in people regarding how willing they are to listen to others and respect their opinions. But we all have unprovable values. You are using yours to justify a certain position on a public policy question. (It appears to me that you think we shouldn't have any tax-supported aid to the poor. Maybe I'm overlooking something you said.) How do you draw the line between using unprovable values to justify a position on gov't actions (presumably an acceptable behavior) and "zealotry" (a bad behavior)?

[Martha]

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. 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.

Well, this sounds high minded but how well does it work? Who is successful at this and who is not? Why? These are important questions.

Quote:

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.

Government is what we want it so be. I want a government that fosters individual success and gives help to those in need. My big issue is health care. A healthy society is a strong society. Working with young homeless people I have seen what poor mental and physical health can do to inhibit the ability of people to care for themselves.

Quote:

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.

Yes.

Quote:

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.

I just do not understand your position. Why is government assistance horrible? Why should you have to benefit?

[youbet]

I'm always amazed by the over simplified stereotypes that pop out in these types of discussions. For example, the assumption that all Dems are liberal thinking on all issues....... hardly! Or all Christian fundamentalists are Bible thumping bigots who want to impose their will on everyone....... Those types get the publicity sure, but I've spent my time with congregations of main stream Christian evangelical denominations whose social views were hardly conservative and whose social actions made their so-called liberal thinking critics appear to be greedy neo-con capitalists. Grouping all together is an act of true ignorance and close-minded thinking.

Stereotyping and stereotypers suck.......... from either side of the political spectrum. JMHO.

[honobob]

Mom forced to live in car with dogs - CNN.com

Did she make bad choices? Maybe she just wasn't lucky enough to get some of the huge farm subsidy payments.

Billionaire Gets Farm Subsidy Handout from Taxpayers!

I know our government can do better "for all the people".

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha I just do not understand your position. Why is government assistance horrible? Why should you have to benefit?

Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself. The government has no money of it's own.... the govt's money is in fact my money, that I pay via taxes. Is it wrong to want some personal benefit with the using of my own money?

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself. The government has no money of it's own.... the govt's money is in fact my money, that I pay via taxes. Is it wrong to want some personal benefit with the using of my own money?

You describe your uncle as a person who is caught up in his own "feelings", and doesn't seem to be able to deal with a rational discussion.

This post seems to be a simple assertion of your feelings (or values). Can anything here be proved or disproved by a rational method? Or do you consider it "self-evident truth"?

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself.

But they have a right to try within certain bounds, right? They can try to sell you something. They can hold you responsibile and liable for something you disagree you should be responsible and liable for and win a settlement in court nonetheless. They can use legal business tactics to compete with you and put you out of business. They can draft you and send you to fight a war that does no good for you personally (with reinactment of conscription legislation). They can take advantage of supply - demand situations and gouge you on prices for items you must have to live. And they can use the political system to create taxes that appear to take from you and redistribute to others........... The list is infinite.

You seem a little naive regarding the distinction between your personal life, your business life and your political life. Despite what we might like, they are not distinct but rather strongly interrelated. In the same way that a business competitor seeks to put you under and acquire what you have on favorable terms, political competitiors seek to create laws and codes which work to support them and their way of thinking rather than yours. You are free to fight against this and to the extent things are not as you would have them, you are losing the battle.

While you may learn from the discussion here, with your uncle and other places, eventually you need to roll up your sleeves and pitch in to make things the way you want them to be. Otherwise you're just stuck on the losing side just like if you fail in your career or in business or in some aspect of your personal life.

So...... yakkity yak here on the subject for a little while, then go get busy. Things are the way they are because you haven't done anything about it. Just like the welfare recipient who won't go get a job, you're guilty of not being active in the political system in a way that causes things to be the way you'd like to see them. Stop whining. Stop waiting for someone else to take care of things for you. Get up out of your desk chair and get to work!

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself. The government has no money of it's own.... the govt's money is in fact my money, that I pay via taxes. Is it wrong to want some personal benefit with the using of my own money?

Well that makes you an anarchist because you refuse to accept the principle that the government is concerned about the "common good" and does not care about your individual circumstance.

I use the term anarchist pointedly because you do not want to pay any taxes and not get a direct benefit in return. I am thinking you are quite young. Most of us have experienced a different path where we contribute to others' benefits. Think of it like insurance. You pay for it every year and, fortunately, you have never had to make a claim. But one day you might have to and then you are really glad you had it.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself. The government has no money of it's own.... the govt's money is in fact my money, that I pay via taxes. Is it wrong to want some personal benefit with the using of my own money?

Most all of us pay taxes for things we do not value. I pay taxes for a war I do not want and believe does not benefit me. You don't get to individually pick and chose what you believe in and what you don't as far as government spending. As a whole, we vote for candidates and programs we believe will help ourselves or help society. I won't vote for McCain because of his weak health policies, his position on the war, and other reasons. Others of you may vote for him. If he wins, I still have to pay my taxes. It is a price we pay to live in our society.

So, I don't buy that it is my money and I get to decide how to use it. We all decide. I may vote for and hope for one thing, you another. We both end up pleased with some things and displeased with other things.

I could also make the argument that government assistance does help you. Some possible examples: No assistance, potential for civil unrest. Or maybe you or a loved one will become seriously ill and need assistance after using up health insurance benefits. Maybe you will have a seriously disabled child that needs special assistance for life.

We all are vulnerable.

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 I agree with you completely. No one in this country should be hungry... 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.

Ideology aside, there are some things that the Government can do significantly better, like fighting hunger in America or throughout the world, than charities. And it makes economic sense, from a purely self-interest perspective (and I know that appeals to you) that Government do this, not charities.I read an article the other day discussing a hunger study by a prominent expert that says it would take the Government $12 billion to eliminate hunger in America, as opposed to the $14.5 billion charities currently expend to fight hunger and the $90 billion in costs in "hunger related problems" paid by all of us. So, it seems that this private charity thing is sometimes inefficient to address some social issues.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisC Ideology aside, there are some things that the Government can do significantly better, like fighting hunger in America or throughout the world, than charities.

"Ideology aside" I'd make three points:
1) Making charitable work a government responsibilty deprives us all of a very important opportunity: The ability to voluntarily help others by giving money to charitable agencies. I think everyone likes to feel good about themselves by giving in this way. I get no feeling of having helped others when my money is forcibly taken by the government.

2) I do not believe that government efficiency in doling out assistance is anywhere close to the efficiency of private charities.

3) Hunger has been eliminated in America, at least as far as it is possible to do so with money. That doesn't mean that there aren't many hungry children with absent fathers and drug-dependent mothers, but this isn't an issue of money/food/resources. I do not believe any person with the mental capacity and will to look after himself/herself/their dependents need ever be hungry given the present safety net(s). What is today considered "poverty" in America bears no resemblance to poverty in most of the world. That's a good thing.