Conservatism

Great Debates
161

So the market is not a democratic way to organize human affairs, 2sense patiently explains for those who have forgotten the point of contention.

Sam Stone,

How can a system be “just” without being “fair”? The words are synonyms after all.

And the final decision to go with markets over planned economies was made long ago. During the presidency of FDR, not Bill Clinton, when the near left abandoned their socialist comrades to the tender mercies of the Red baiters. “Big government” is going nowhere. People like the federal programs we have now and will punish those politicians that try to eliminate them. So tinkering will remain limited to the margins rather than the meat of economic policy. And the tinkering right now seems to be in favor of more entitlement programs in the area of medical insurance.

162

Look, the simple and obvious fact that conservatives either don’t get or choose to ignore is that there is a finite amount of wealth. In order for the system to accommodate the imbalance of the wealthy and avoid breaking down entirely, there must be poor people. Pure capitalism grades on the curve: Bill Gates gets the only A+, but there’s an awful lot of people who get F’s.

This is why it seems disingenuous to me when the wealthy few say to the starving masses, “Hey, it’s America. Go get your own wealth; I did”—as if it’s possible for everybody to attain that wealth, all at the same time; as if it were possible for everyone to get an A+. The money doesn’t come out of thin air, it flows upward, and then it tends to stay there.

Think about the breakdown of the system if everybody DID all of a sudden have jobs: 100% employment, nobody below poverty level. What would the top 2% look like then? Even forgetting for a minute that there are more jobless people than there are jobs.

I’m not advocating a total redistribution of wealth; just an acknowledgement from conservatives it’s bullshit, their promises that the American Dream is available to everybody, when surely they must know that the math simply doesn’t work that way.

They’re interested in maintaining the status quo, not for the bullshit reasons of LUC, but because, in the status quo, they’re at the top of their class, and everybody else is at the bottom.

163

My point being, that conservatives wish to maintain a system in which some people necessarily and inevitably “left behind,” while liberals continue to strive for a system that includes everybody.

164

Don’t be insulting. The point I was making is simple, but its not obvious and it directly relates to my theories of government. The government speaks for everyone, or at least claims it does. It also makes decisions for everyone. The principles of freedom demand that the government not abuse this power. Hence we limit that power. The difference between that and a corporation is that a corporation claims no moral/legal authority or status. It is simply a money management and investment group. A corporation represents the financial interests of its investors and nothing more. A government, properly limited, represents the best interests of people as a whole, but does not control them. A governent represents everyone, and must act accordingly. A corporation has no ethical component; it is not obligated to act in anyway except according to the law. This is why people usually try to change laws than corporations.

The point I was refuting was the drawing of an “equals sign” between orporations and government, arguing that governments and corporatiosn should be treated the same (i.e., arguing for greater government control).

165

OK; it seemed to me that you were objecting to government on the grounds that it unjustly claims to represent the people.

The government, when it works, certainly DOES represent the will of the people. Liberals, as I see it, strive to keep it working well, while conservatives claim that it can’t work well (see Scylla, above) and therefore should be reduced, rather than improved.

166

lissener,

I don’t want to presume meaning in this statement. If you are trying to say that wealth is a zero sum game than this is simply not true. Here is a brief, but illustrative example: Imagine two societies, each situated on it’s own island with comparable natural resources. These are ancient societies which do not use money. All exchanges are done through bartering goods and services. In addition they are self contained (they have no communication with people not native to their island). Island 1 hits upon the idea of specialization and over the years the productivity of the island grows in leaps and bounds. Island 2 continues to remain the same (i.e. each islander makes their own clothes, builds their own houses, grows their own food, etc.). After 100 years we compare the two islands. The “poorest” inhabitants of island 1 have a standard of living which far surpasses the “wealthiest” inhabitants of island 2. Is island 1 more wealthy? I think we can categorically state that they are. Though each island likely has imbalances in the distribution of that wealth due to skill, luck, inheritance, etc. island 1 is obviously more wealthy than island 2.

Increases in wealth for one person need not come at the expense of someone else. A person may become more wealthy by simply taking part of the greater wealth that is available due to increases in productivity and efficiency.

Money doesn’t always flow upward. During the 70’s when inflation was running rampant an ironic side effect was the real decline in the wealth of many in the upper class. Lending institutions were losing money because the inflation rate was outpacing the interest rate they were charging on loans. Home owners, in particular, saw real raises in their net value due to increases in the value of their property, all at the expense of the wealthy.

The above quote also seems to ignores economic mobility. The implied statement here is that the poor are unable to change their position. While I would agree that the poor absolutely experience financial difficulties I would not say that their position is unchangeable. Here is a study regarding economic mobility in the U.S. According to it mobility has remained pretty stable over time. During a 10 year period the 44% of the lowest quintile of earners were able to move up to at least the next highest income quintile. Overall 1/4th to 1/3 of wage earners would move into a new quintile in any given year. Now, that isn’t to say that things are peachy keen in the U.S. As the study notes increases in income inequality are not being offset by increases in economic mobility. The working poor, for a variety of factors, have lost shares of the expanding pie. Addressing the underlying causes of that loss is the key to improving the living standard of the poor.

In addition, this quote from Sam Stone is spot on:

Bullseye.

167

Desert islands and ducks aside, if wealth is not a zero sum game, it’s certainly not an “infinity sum” game; all I said was that wealth was finite, and will always–of course–be controlled by the wealthy.

And I never said that the poor were UNABLE to change their position; only that the system, as it exists, makes it impossible for ALL of them to change position; there must always be poor people. Even if there is some osmotic flow between the classes, they will always remain about balanced, in a purely capitalist society.

And saying “money doesn’t ALWAYS flow upwards” doesn’t disprove anything; you’re just saying “there’s an exception to every rule,” which is an extremely lame debating tactic.

168

lissener,

I’m certainly willing to concede that many people are unable to attain the “American Dream” due to misfortune. Do you agree that many people from the lower class, in our current system, are able to attain success despite misfortune?

I object. I never said anything about ducks.

I’m not challenging the idea that wealthy people tend to stay wealthy. I merely brought up the example of inflation during the 70’s to indicate that this tendency is that; A tendency. Not a statement of perpetual truth.

No conservative in this thread that I can see is proposing a move to a purely capitalist society. Sam Stone has explicity indicated some areas where the market can break down and discussed ways that government can, and has, been used to help correct those areas. In addition if you’re condemning the current system because, as it exists, “it’s impossible for ALL of them” to change position, what system are you aware of which DOES allow ALL poor people to become, if not wealthy, at least middle class?

169

I’m not suggesting I have all the answers. My only point in participating in this thread from the beginning, and the thread that spawned it, has been to communicate my belief that conservatives work against the poor while claiming the opposite; and that liberals work toward a more inclusive system. That’s the “thesis” that all of my posts have meant to support, to which my previous post, Grim, is no exception.

My simple point is that conservatism’s agenda is hypocritically designed to “leave” many people “behind,” to the benefit of the wealthy; and that liberalism’s agenda is to continue working toward a system that includes everyone.

170

lissener,

You have explicitly stated in this thread that what you have posted regarding conservatism is your opinion and that your participation in this thread has been for the express purpose of communicating your view. That’s all well and good as far as it goes, however, you have made these posts in such a fashion that they imply that they are the truth. Your posts have taken the form of “In my opinion it’s a FACT that x is true”. This is disingenuous. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is unintentional on your part. In order to make head way in this thread you should either state that it’s your opinion and indefensible, or indicate that you feel it’s true and defend your statements.

171

I’m going to take it that this is intentionally as ludicrous as it sounds, and not bother to respond.

172

I’m going to take it that this is intentionally as ludicrous as it sounds, and not bother to respond.

Please pay attention, as this is the last time I’m going to say this: Every position that’s been taken in this debate has been entirely speculative, and therefore entirely opinion. This is the nature of political debate, on this “which philosophy is better” level.

It’s the flimsiest of strawmen to continue to single me out for “cites” for my opinions, and I hereby give notice that I’m going to entirely ignore them from here on.

173

The problem being that you have restated your position without demonstrating it.

It simply is not true that conservatives desire to keep people poor. Statements to the contrary are simple ad hominems, and demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to address the position without attacking those who hold it.

And your “simple, obvious fact” that wealth is limited is neither simple, obvious, nor a fact.

Consider Bill Gates, the richest man in history. Where does his money come from? The sale of software. Where did that software come from? Somebody made it up from nothing.

Who did Bill Gates steal his money from? If the supply of wealth is limited, he must have gotten from somewhere.

Or else, he made it himself. And, by getting rich himself, he made a whole lot of other people very rich, and almost everyone else a little richer. By creating a market for a product.

In the ideal capitalist transaction, both buyer and seller feel they got the better of the deal. The seller got back enough to make a profit, and is thus encouraged to continue. The buyer got something that he valued more than the money he used to buy it.

Thus, the economy is enriched by the difference each perceives between what he gave and what he got.

It is simply untrue that a capitalist/conservative society requires poverty. Just the opposite - more rich people (in real dollars) means more available capital and more markets and more opportunities.

In 1900, two thirds of the US population lived below the poverty line (in constant dollars). That enormous decrease in poverty has not fueled anything resembling a collapse of capitalism - exactly the opposite has occurred, where communism/socialism has collapsed (in many, welcome cases) and capitalist societies like the US and Western Europe have experienced a huge increase in their standard of living.

As long as we are distorting each others’ positions, how about this - in a conservative society, if you make money, you are allowed to keep it. In a liberal society, after you take all the risks and do all the work, Big Brother steps in, takes it away from you, and gives it to someone who has nothing to deserve it except fail.

Conservatives want to reward success; liberals want to tax it. Conservatives want to discourage failure; liberals want to subsidize it.

Regards,
Shodan

174

For Lissener, and anyone else still churning over the now verboten aspect of this thread, I’ve attemped a civilized discussion on the topic over in the pit. The pit? OK, I’m still a cynic.

175

lissener,

Every position? As in “Every position offered here, by conservatives, liberals, or other, is pure speculation and not based on any sort of facts whatsoever, therefore it’s all opinion and no different in status than my own opinions”? If this is what you are saying (I’m sure you’ll correct me if it’s not) then you are incorrect. Debates on political matters are no different from other types of debates. A position is offered and then facts and reasoning are applied to support or erode that position. All opinions are not equal. If an opinion is supported by logical reasoning and fact it is more valid than a contrary opinion which is not as well suppported.

You have made some positive claims about conservatism. Namely:

Conservatives are hypocrites
Conservatives are selfish
Conservatives are greedy
Conservatives are dishonest

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It is up to you to prove the truth of these statements. Now I will certainly agree that opinions have their place in debates on politics. However, opinions, unsupported by facts do very little in illuminating the issues. You have indicated previously that you are unwilling to attempt to prove that your opinions are true, and you have not provided any supporting evidence. Since it doesn’t seem likely that this will change I believe the reasonable reader must conclude that your claims are unproven.

Noted. Let me reiterate a few questions regarding your opinions then:

Do you agree that many people from the lower class, in our current system, are able to attain success despite misfortune?

In addition if you’re condemning the current system because, as it exists, “it’s impossible for ALL of them” to change position, what system are you aware of which DOES allow ALL poor people to become, if not wealthy, at least middle class?

176

I have repeatedly given examples of observations that have led me to my conclusions. I will give no more, since they are ignored.

I can only repeat myself: I am not offering a cut and dried, foolproof solution to all the problems discussed here. What I AM doing, and all I have ever done, is communicate the opinion that Conservatism is willing to leave behind all but your vaguely named “many people,” while Liberalism takes up the challenge of working toward a solution that includes EVERYBODY.

It’s the striving I’m praising, and I never claim, as you seem to be suggesting, that there is ANY system that will give us a world in which all these problems are FIXED, the end, now we can go home.

The conclusions I have reached regarding the core philosophy of conservatism, versus the core philosophy of liberalism, is all I have ever attempted to address here, and the reasoning that led me to those conclusions has been exhaustively documented.

Since we are not discussing anything as specific as “will the tax cuts stimulate the economy?” (which in itselsf would be entirely speculative), but the far more abstract (and speculative) debate on the respective core philosophy, all I can do is share my reasoning; proof doesn’t come into the discussion in the least.

So screw your “burden of proof”; it’s entirely irrelevant to the original nature of this debate. You and I and Scylla and whoever have read the same newspaper stories, hears each others’ anecdotal experiences, and reached different conclusions. End of story.

177

p.s.

So you don’t understand my reasoning; so be it. This whole brouhaha began simply because I stated that I don’t understand your reasoning.

It followed that I was basically ordered to PROVE your reasoning wrong. Fine. You prove MY reasoning wrong, and I’ll consider playing the game by your and Scylla’s lopsided rules.

178

More or less what I was attempting to with my Bill Gates example.

You claimed that wealth was limited. Where, then, did Bill’s billions come from?

The US economy has grown from five to eleven trillion in GDP over the last few years. It would seem that you claim that we got six trillion dollars from somewhere. Where was that?

You claimed that somehow capitalism could not survive if there were no poor people. I pointed out that this was not the case.

You claimed that every conservative you ever met argued based on selfishness, greed, hypocrisy and corruption. Several have pointed out that this is probably observation bias on your part. Your response seems to be to repeat your assertions, and then simply to declare yourself to be above the necessity of justifying what you say.

Your original posts seem a good example of the cliche.

“Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people.”

You seem to be arguing in a circle. Conservative philosophy is bankrupt, because everyone who advocates it is a bad person. How do you know they are bad people? Because they advocate conservative philosophies.

Your reasoning is wrong. Q.E.D.

Regards,
Shodan

179

My argument IS largely circular, Shodan, thanks for finally understanding. It was only within that limited, semi-circular context that I have ever said anything in regards to the subject at hand. Please read (I would say REread, but that’s obviously giving credit where none is due) my original post, the one that started this thing, for enlightenment.

180

lissener,

Well, I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. In that post it seemed clear to me that you were concerned primarily with the practical reality of the system since you focused on the results (i.e. that the system as it is makes it impossible for all poor to improve their lot) rather than the motives and/or goals of conservatives as it relates to the current system. If you aren’t condemning the conservative philosophy because of the current limits of economic mobility in the U.S. then I won’t pursue this line of discussion further.

I haven’t ignored the examples of your observations which lead to your current conclusions. However your observations have no scientific basis so I am forced to treat them as illustrative but nothing more. Providing multiple anecdotes does very little to enhance your position. I know that you view proof in this debate in a dim light, feeling as you do that proof has very little to do with the debate at hand. I strongly disagree on this point. More on this below.

It is true that we are not discussing a topic as specific as tax cuts. That does not mean that evidence and proof have no place in the discussion. Let’s look at some of those positive claims again:

Conservatives are hypocrites
Conservatives are selfish
Conservatives are greedy
Conservatives are dishonest

I can think of a number of studies which would constitute evidence in determining the truthfulness of these statements. A study which compiles the work and personal habits of a randomly selected large sampling of people could very well provide a factual basis on which to pursue these questions. For instance, a study which asks the number of hours spent volunteering, or a set of questions which determine what percentage of income is donated to charities might help to prove the truthfulness or falseness of the selfish/greedy claims. Likewise, studies which focus on economic games may be able to generate some broad conclusions regarding the honesty (or lack thereof) of people based on political affiliation.

If Joe Citizen’s anecdotal experiences taught him that “Liberal’s just want to coddle lazy people” I would hardly acknowledge his statement of such as any sort of proof whatsoever. He would be pilloried, and rightly so, for making such a broad unsubstantiated claim. When he failed to substantiate his claim with anything more than anecdotes I would conclude (as would any reasonable reader) that his claim was unproven. Not necessarily false. Unproven.

Burden of proof is very pertinent to the nature of this debate. Burden of proof is especially pertinent in debates where facts are least likely found. People claiming that God exists, for instance, have the burden of proof on them to show that it’s the case. In the case of God’s existence there can be no factual evidence presented. That does not alleviate the burden of proof from the person making the claim.