You disingenuously present the following as if it is a quote of my position.
If you want to actually quote my position, in my own words, I’ll consider addressing your objection. I will not defend YOUR words as if they were mine.
In the second place, as this debate was originally framed, andecdotal evidence is all that’s relevant: we were originally discussing how I came to reach the conclusions I have reached. Since it was on such a personal and individual level, the only “proof” that’s relevant is “proof” that I do, indeed, believe what I believe, based on my own observations–i.e., anecdotal evidence–and not any objective proof of the practical veracity of my understanding.
My understanding remains the same; you disagree with it. Since none of us has done anything in this thread outside of the realm of speculation, that’s likely as far as it will get to.
You seem to think that there are concrete facts or statistics or whatever that pertain to my interpretation of the character of someone who choses a philosophy that is inherently selfish and that views the sacrifice of the few for the comfort of the many as an acceptable sacrifice. We agree that the sacrifice is a necessity of the math involved, and we simply disagree on the acceptability of that sacrifice. I take it one step further to say that I do not view YOUR decision to accept that sacrifice as a GOOD THING, but as a selfish thing. There seems to be very little disagreement on this basic level–conservatives, by and large, seem to own their selfishness, but call it a good thing. I call it a bad thing.
Furthermore, in the context of the original question, I say that anyone who tries to sell conservatism as NON SELFISH–specifically, in the original context, editorial pundits and sunday morning talking heads–is not being entirely honest.
Those conservatives who own up to the core selfishness of convervatism are not a target of my original statement. I disagree with their priorities, and I view their character askance, but they are outside the focus of my original statement.
This is false. It is completely wrong. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. Wealth is in fact an infinite sum game. There is not a limit to wealth because wealth is created through net gains of productivity in goods and services which can be leveraged infinitely.
The more wealth there is, the more wealth their potentially is. For a capitalist system to work does not require poor people. In fact, such are contraindicated. What is optimum is a positive curve of wealth distribution versus productivity.
A flat distribution would tend to signify total poverty,
This is very basic economics. In order to be able to participate meaninfully you should know this.
I don’t understand how you can make your statements about how bad conservatives are when you lack the knowledge to evaluate or understand their beleifs?
How do you judge what you don’t understand?
Really, why not simply be reasonable and ask questions rather than making ignorant pronouncements?
I’m not trying to be mean by saying this, but this is my professional specialty. Your ignorance in this is obvious to someone of my level of expertise.
The money comes out of net gains in productivity. New wealth is created all the time and it tends to have mobility in both directions.
100% employment would be a bad thing though as it would tend to indicate a severe shortage of available labor. It would mean that goods and services that were needed were not being produced. Page two of most economic texts will show supply/demand curves.
The situation you suggest requires an extraordinary high demand for workers which would necessarily require that work was being priced very high.
The answer to your question is that workers would be very highly compensated, and the wealth distribution curve would be skewed so that the low end was very high. You might even have a parabola.
What this means is that once again, the opposite of what you imply is the actual fact. Your scenario suggests that the wealthiest would not be as seperated on the curve from the poorest as in most other circumstances.
I would love for you to “show me the math” to support this. I suspect that’s not likely. Since the potential for wealth is infinite, so is the opportunity.
This is why I consider you bigoted. You are falsely ascribing motives that do not exist as an excuse to justify you’re ignorant and unreasoning opinion.
It is neither necessary, nor inevitable, nor desired.
False. Why must there always be poor people? Nobody has argued this. It doesn’t follow from anything I or any other conservative has said.
Poverty is not a necessary component of either capitalism of conservatism. Please demonstrate otherwise or withdraw this ridiculous and indefensible falsehood.
How can you have this opinion when you haven’t bothered to acquire the basic knowledge necessary to actually understand the conservative position?
No. It’s not. That may be your opinion. But it may also be your opinion that the earth is flat. That opinion is a slanderous ignorant lie against people and thinks you haven’t bothered to understand.
It is dismissable on it’s face because the opinion itself demonstrates an ignorance of fact.
Your unwillingness to defend your assertions’ validity beyond the scope of “personal opinion,” is pretty much an open admission that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
In such circumstances when one is ignorant, it is a good idea to ask questions before making pronouncements.
Untrue. I am taking positions based on data, knowledge and fact. Just because you’re tossing out half-assed assertions doesn’t mean I am.
Don’t make me laugh. You mentioned you’ve occasionally seen some generic conservative politicians lie, and say things you didn’t like.
This is hardly the evidentiary basis for any kind of rational stance.
I noticed.
If you are not going to be honest and admit ignorance, than I guess I hiding behind solipsism is all that you have left.
I’m trying my best! But, as you mentioned in the previous quote, you’re doing a fine job of not offering any reason.
I’m responding to a few of these things because I wish to clarify my position. In truth there is only one question which I would really like answered at the bottom of this post prior to continuing this discussion.
I think there may be some concrete facts or statistics which may help indicate whether conservatives are more selfish or greedy when compared with other people. I said nothing regarding whether the existence of the poor was an acceptable sacrifice.
I disagree that the existence of the poor is a ‘sacrifice’ as you seem to be using the term. I believe that there will always be poor people regardless of the economic or governmental system being used. All countries (including the ones with the most liberal policies) have poor people. The difference between countries is in the rates of poverty NOT whether poverty exists at all. Poverty, IMO, is certainly something worth fighting to reduce (not end entirely since that is a practical impossibility), I simply disagree with you regarding the best way to reduce it. I do not call poverty a ‘good thing’
This is really the only question I would like you to answer before I continue. Is it possible, IYO, for a conservative to honestly and sincerely believe that conservative principles are the best way to assist the poor?
It is possible for someone to hold that opinion honestly. It would stem from ignorance, it seems to me, which goes back to my original statement: as far as my understanding goes, to hold that opinion would suggest either stupidity or dishonesty. Since stupidity is not readily apparent in people in question–sunday morning talking heads–then it must be dishonesty.
I believe–as Scylla and you believe otherwise–that the rose-coloring of self interest is necessary in order to promulgate Selfishness and Darwinism as the only salvation of the poor.
Since you do not allow for the possibility that an intelligent, informed conservative may have any other motive than dishonesty I have nothing further to add. You have either just accused me of ignorance or dishonesty. I’m done here.
-The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one’s own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
Yeah, I read that, Scylla, but it doesn’t apply: I take from that definition that a bigot is one who reaches conclusions without consideration of the relevant information; “unreasoning.” Since I have reached my conclusions after MUCH deliberation, the definition does not describe me.
You need to look harder to find the definition you want:[ul]*
Bigot: someone, despite all the tricks Scylla can pull out of his hat to change his mind, still disagrees with Scylla’s view of the world.*[/ul]
Yes, you have reached your conclusions after much deliberation. So what? There are a few crucial things that have to go into said deliberation. Among these are the relevant information, some basic understanding of logical fallacies, and some basic understanding that, barring complete information, your conclusions are of necessity not definitive and must be reassessed when further information is presented.
Well, since basically your worldview on conservatism has as it’s basis that wealth is a finite resource, one might think that the relevations that this was completely wrong might call for a reconsideration.
Similarly, the twin concepts that conservatism requires poverty, and is designed to leave people behind appears to have been entirely pulled out of your ass, as you’ve offered no support for this contention, and it certainly doesn’t follow from anything anybody else has said.
One wonders how you expect to float this egregious little huckleberry out there with nothing to recommend it.
I know you claim to have arrived at your conclusions re: the dirty selfish little conservatives after “careful consideration,” but I’d really like to know if you intend to take the time and effort to think up a better lie to justify your hate after the fact, or if you just intend to stick with this one.
Since the beginning of the 1980’s, the total wealth in the United States has grown by 500%.
So, lissener, is it your belief that the U.S. became five times richer by empoverishing the rest of the world? After all, it had to come from somewhere, right?
Nope. The non-US world economy has grown by about the same rate. The entire world is about five times richer today than it was in 1980.
Wealth creation isn’t just a tiny part of capitalism. It is a huge factor. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Government, however, IS a zero-sum game. Governments do not create wealth. All they can do is move it from one place to another. And when government does this, it distorts the market place, moves money from the most productive to the least productive, and makes us all a little poorer. Capital wants to flow to the places where it is most useful. Government impedes that.
So you have two choices for organizing your world - a redistributive model where everyone is a little poorer, but the gap between the poorest and the richest is smaller, or a dynamic, richer world, in which those with the greatest advantage get richer faster than the poorest people, but in which everyone gets wealthier.
Go read Marx, and see what his ideal life was for a woker in the socialist utopia. Today, even the poorest workers in the U.S. live better than anything Marx could have imagined. And it wasn’t socialism that brought them their riches - it was the rising tide of a dynamic, capitalist society. And make no mistake, even the poorest in the U.S. today are MUCH richer than even the middle class of 100 years ago, let alone the poor working class of the middle 1800’s.
You’re right. I don’t know who made tha quote you respond to, but I suspect it was just poorly phrased and only wild hyperbole by accident.
One understands that a relatively unaffluent person today lives in a splendor of miracles, opportunity, and quality of life that even the Pharohs could only aspire to.
Wealth is really nothing more than power opportunity and choice.
A man in a cave with 100 tons of gold isn’t wealthy. A man with moderate standard of life in America today is wealthy beyond compare to even the wealthiest of men 100 years ago.
The ‘middle class’ of 100 years ago consisted of farmers who worked 14 to 16 hour days, did not have electric lights or indoor plumbing, and rode wagons to church and market. Most kids did not graduate from high school, because they were needed on the farms. Health care even by the standards of medicaid today is much, much better than it was then.
This made up the bulk of the population, 90% of which was involved in agriculture and food distribution.
Welfare recipients today typically have color televisions, warm, lit apartments and houses, microwave ovens, sometimes cars. They have access to Medicaid, employment assistance, and other services. And, they receive a monthly income more than twice the world average income.
The reason they have all this is because of capitalism. Yes, the benefits come from the government, but the government’s revenue comes from taxing a population that is so wealthy that it can afford to give the poor these benefits without stalling the economic engines that drive growth. And the population’s wealth is created. Capitalism is the best system we know of for creating wealth.
I should add that the twice-world-average income is for Canadian welfare recipients. The global average income is about $8,000 per year. I’m not sure what welfare recipients in the U.S. get, but I’ll bet it’s more than that.
Government does in fact create wealth.
Highways foster movement of goods.
The post office fosters communication.
Mass transit systems in large cities transport people to where they’re needed, and keep traffic moving for everyone.
And above all, as jshore has pointed out over and over, the fair enforcement of the law allows businessmen to make contracts in the knowledge that there is a third party that will arbitrate disputes if called upon.
All of this creates wealth.
It’s ideological claptrap to claim otherwise.
Sam Stone, you appear to be thinking more of what would later become the mass middle class but there was an urban middle class of that time, bankers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects etc that lived quite comfortably. Call me strange but I’d rather be a Boston or London lawyer in 1903 living in a gas-lit apartment then sleeping under a bridge tonight. The poorest citizens of modern societies still dont have electric lighting let alone warm apartments, cars and colour TVs. That’s because they live on the streets and their possessions amount quite literally to what they can carry.
Purely personal anecdote. I am financially comfortable and I live in a rich suburb that in this city is a byword for yuppiedom. And last night I was meeting some friends on Toorak Road which is a road of restaurants, boutique clothes shops and hairdressers and which is walking distance for me. So there I am walking along, only to be accosted by a foul smelling goblin in rags. The aforementioned goblin was carrying its worldy goods in its plastic bag. It was quite strange as goblins go and had all the appearance of a grimy woman, perhaps in her 50s although it was hard to tell. It was surprisingly well-spoken but most of all it was cringingly apolegetic and embarassed. I am typically hard-hearted but from my own embarassment I gave the goblin some money and it apologised profusely and said it was “so sorry to have to ask” whereupon she shuffled off to her goblin world and me to mine. And this is only one block away from all the neon.
Point being its best we remember how our very poorest citizens really live rather then painting an idealised image of happy welfare recipients sucking on the government teat and surrounded by appliances that previous ages could only dream of.
I have not read the entire thread yet. But just in reading the OP, I wish to make a contribution. Someone else may have already suggested this, if so, my appologies.
I would like to inquire you stance on space exploration. Would a conservative view be “If god wanted us to be in space…”. I present this with the upmost respect. It has not hidden agenda.
… For the sake of limmiting my inquiry to one post, I will assume that you oppose space exploration. I am not stating that you actually take this view, it is merely because I want to present the following scenario. Lets say that, for years, we did not evolve our understanding of space travel and one day we find ourselves facing a giant meteore (Hollywood style). Off the top of my head, I can think of two arguments:
The status quo is that we had the capability to continue evolviving, but we blew-it.
The status quo is that since we don’t have the capability, ah well.
Infrastructure and a government that enforces the law create the conditions that enable private individuals and organizations to create the wealth, part of which government confiscates as taxes and user fees to fulfill the functions you’ve described.
Conservatives want limited government, not no government. We (in the US) agree that the functions of government, as described in the Constitution, are appropriate - interstate commerce, national defense, enforcement of individual rights, etc.
But none of these functions create wealth. Government derives all its revenue from taxes and user fees and so forth. Conservatives think that government should not attempt to create wealth by engaging in business, since that would compete with the private sector. If it did so, the temptation would be that the inherently less efficient government would use its other powers to stifle competition, and this would work against the efficiency of the free market.