Differing assumptions that are the basis of liberal and conservative positions

Here’s a question. Why do Conservatives seem to come across as, or at least attract a significant number of (for lack of a better term) “angry jerks”? Don’t get me wrong. There are jerky Liberals too. But I feel like at least Liberals seem to have good intentions.

What I mean by “angry jerks” is:
-Intolerant to anyone who doesn’t fall into their narrow definition of “normal”
-Indifference to those who are less fortunate (e.g. go pull yourself up by your bootstraps)
-Belittling, insulting, petty (e.g watch Fox News for any length of time)
-Angry
-Loud
-Undertone of threatened violence (e.g. Trump wanting to punch protesters, Military worship, 2nd Amendment in general)
-Boorish / unsophisticated
Like when my wife watches Fox News, I feel like I’m watching grown up versions of a “cool rich jock fraternity/sorority” arguing economics and geopolitics.
In the interest of bipartisanship, Liberals can be as big of jerks in different ways:
-Intolerant to anyone who doesn’t fall into THEIR narrow definition of “normal”
-Parasitic
-Spoiled
-Hypersensitive
-Passive aggressive
-Hypocritical
-Act like bitches (e.g. makes people want to punch them)
-Elitist and pretentious
When I used to walk past the OWS protesters in Zuccotti Park, all I saw was a bunch of dirty, smelly wannabe hippies with iPads banging bongos while the rest of us are at work.
Honestly, I can’t decide which “America” I want to hate more.

This is not supposed to be an additional benefit. Its supposed to be a replacement for all other current benefits. It is initially more expensive but in theory it should reduce the number of people who rely solely on the dole.

What’s not clear to me is whether it really makes sense to be setting up rehabilitation and punishment in opposition to each other to begin with.

If someone is in prison for 10 years, confined, unable to go where they want, see who they want, do what they want, that’s definitely punishment. If during that 10 years they also have opportunities to learn skills that will hopefully be useful to them back in the outside world, I don’t particularly see that as lessening the punishment, but I think it definitely increases the overall benefit to society of the system.

That is, no one would think “well, I have to be in jail for 10 years, but I’ll get to study car repair while I’m there, so really, it’s not that big a deal”.
To me, there is a big difference between a prison sentence which is punitive and non-trivial, but which is short enough that we definitely assume the prisoner will be released and will rejoin society, and it’s in all of our interest to try to encourage him or her to do so as a productive and law-abiding citizen; vs a life sentence where we just want to keep everyone safe by removing a dangerous monster from the world.

So ideally, short(ish) prison sentences would be unpleasant enough, and enough worse than the outside world, that they would act as a strong disincentive, but not so horrible or cruel that they would just reduce people to nonfunctioning welfare cases. I’m also strongly in favor of sentencing which takes into account previous offenses. If someone is wavering between a life of crime and a law-abiding life, and they commit a reasonable serious crime (say, burglary), and are facing the criminal justice system for the first time, the last thing we want to do is something which pushes them irrevocably into crime for the rest of their life, either by embittering them or by leaving them unable to find any other alternative. That’s very different from someone who has already been to prison for burglary twice and now is being sentenced again.

The point is that only a negligible portion of your federal taxes are going to aid to the poor (on the order of 1% if you follow the money all the way through) vs. a much larger percentage to aid the rich and middle class, so the people bitching about “working their asses off to support crack-addicted welfare queens” can STFU. If you paid $8,500 in federal income taxes last year (the national average) around $85 of that went to poor people.

But it you think of taxes as “confiscation” then I don’t think we can have a rational conversation about the topic anyway.

The “unwed” part is not the problem. The “unwanted” part is the problem. The children of educated professional women in their 30’s or 40’s who decide they want to have kids without waiting for Mr. Right do fine.

The problems you describe are overwhelmingly the result of young women, mostly already disadvantaged, who have unexpected, unwanted pregnancies when they are not mentally or financially ready for parenthood; especially for girls in the high school - college age range, early childbirth can completely derail their education and professional development, which does not help with poverty and life stability. (Divorce accounts for much of the rest.)

Forcing these young women to marry young men who are equally mentally and financially unready for parenthood is not a solution. The solution is sex education, contraception access, and abortion access, so that women can choose the time and circumstances of reproduction.

Social Security and Medicare are taken to pay for particular programs. Of course people are going to complain if the government is defrauding them.

And I don’t care strictly about the federal portion. I care about the federal, state and local income tax, sales tax, vehicle tax, property tax, social security tax (personal and employer), medicare tax, payroll tax, mildly inflationary policy tax, utility tax, capital gains tax, gasoline tax, phone tax, and I’m sure I’m missing a few, combined.

Who do you notice? The quiet liberal or quiet conservative minding their business or the jackass?

Some of those are mutually exclusive.

Exactly. It removes some of the disproportionate amount of power between employers and the least marketable of the labor force. It’s actually such a good idea I don’t know why genuine liberals aren’t throwing their weight behind the idea.

Like what?

How do you think opinion divides on this issue, by party (or left/rightishness), among Congressmen? Or opinion-makers? Or Dopers? (I’m not asking about Friedman, who has very little in common with most real-life American conservatives.)

One is reminded of the healthcare debate, where Republicans dragged their feet against the Republican-style Obamacare, but now we hear from right-wing Dopers claiming to like single-payer. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m honestly not sure. I think people hear the idea and think “Oh God, not another entitlement.” So we have opposition I’d imagine from the right on that subject. From the left, I don’t think the left thinks it realistic to have it implemented. It’s easier to keep pushing the ball down the slippery slope of higher minimum wages.

My acceptance of it comes from seeing a gradual disconnect of labor from the outputs of production. Eventually the value of energy to maintain a human of low economic value will be greater than the labor value. Those people in a very advanced technological world won’t have a chance to participate. I recognize technology, especially AI, is going to be extraordinarily disruptive. Why not recognize the trend and adopt policy so that the whole populace benefits to some degree via income?

Yes, the poor have a better standard of living especially in the West than ever before. But having the opportunity to participate in the generation of wealth by exchanging labor freely while at the same time receiving basically a societal dividend seems like it would create a superior economic environment than the current one. The current one which ignores the reality of container ships, the Internet, and the rest of the globe.

I guess to answer your question I think opinion divides between those who see automation and artificial intelligence displacing billions of workers globally and those who either think humans are always going to be the dominant intelligence or those who don’t consider the issue of automation at all.

And the funny thing is, a universal basic income properly implemented in a society like ours where we are nowhere near peak productivity wealth inequality would probably increase. It’s not like the money isn’t going to flow right back to the owners of capital. It’s that those at the bottom are going to be able to stimulate demand and production. And just as importantly actively participate in that production. At least for several more decades.

Than we all get credits like Star Trek.:smiley:

Payroll taxes, which are the same as social security taxes and medicare taxes.

Capital gains or income taxes. For the same dollar, pick one, not both.

My basic philosophy is to start with the Declaration of Independence. Each of us should be free to generally be left alone and structure our own lives as we see fit. We should be free to speak our minds, gather, bear arms, worship our own concept of God and be able to acquire wealth through the fruits of our own labor.

Now, in a perfect world, that would be the end of it. Some people are incapable or unwilling to provide for themselves basic necessities. Others would interfere with my quiet enjoyment of life by murdering me, or stealing things that I have acquired. There are certain other things (like a highway system) that no one individual can do; it must be done with collective effort.

To solve the problems of an imperfect world, we establish a government. Okay, but whoa there, a government is the very thing that may put in jeopardy the novel (240 years ago) idea that we can do what we want. To have an entity in a free society that can force an individual to comply with directives is a dangerous threat to that freedom. A government that can tax people can interfere with their pursuit of happiness because they now have a lesser portion of their wealth to devote to that pursuit.

So, this government that we create should be very, very limited and only do things that most individuals in general cannot do for themselves, and is something bordering on necessary to effectuate the idea.

In order to keep this influence to a minimum, and if it will ever stay at a minimum, the people themselves must have a sense of morality to police themselves. Most of us were taught these basic things. Get up and go to work! Treat people kindly. Help your neighbors. Save your money. Don’t buy those toys you don’t need. Don’t drink excessively and use drugs. Don’t have pre-marital sex! Marry a nice girl! Divorce is wrong. Love your children. Stay in school. Go to bed at a decent time. Don’t smoke cigarettes, those things will kill you.

Those are all ideals. We don’t always follow them. But anytime there is an issue, go back to them. If you are too hungover to go to work, then stop drinking so damned much. Don’t ask for others who went to bed and got eight hours of sleep to pay for you.

So what do we look for in this new government?

First, then, we have a police power and outlaw certain things: no murdering, raping, stealing, and the like: things we can all agree on.

Next, we have to solve the problem of people who are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves. In many ways, this helps solve the first problem. Keeping first principles in mind, we must be mindful that any assistance will come at the expense of others in their pursuit of happiness. We need to recognize the obvious moral hazard that handing a man a loaf of bread saps his incentive to go out and work for that same loaf if he will be handed it anyways.

In order to stop this from happening, what about voluntary contributions to churches and charities? We did it this way from the dawn of civilization until the 1930s and moreso in the 1960s. These programs have created an underclass of people who have a sense of entitlement, are granted access to things, free of charge, that were once considered luxuries. Many of these people live better than those who are paying the taxes to provide these things. We have a new generation of people who see nothing wrong with the taxpayers paying for a free four year college education.

We cannot be both free and dependent on government. Even from the payee side, government will condition acceptance of benefits on certain restrictions of your freedom.

Further, we cannot remain free from dependence on government if we discard the basic moral values that we have learned for centuries, casting them aside as outdated relics. If we do those things, we will be harmed, not be as productive as we can, not happy, and in need of that assistance from government.

In order to remain free, we must remain committed to these moral principles. The government solution to the poverty problem has been an abject failure in all respects. The poverty problem has increased dramatically, and trillions have been spent on programs to simply justify their own existence and create a culture of dependence, and not one of freedom.

So that is where I start from in analyzing almost any issue.

In addition to that philosophy, government social services cannot work because the issues facing any person in need of assistance is unique. Maybe this person is physically and/or intellectually incapable of ever supporting himself and must be provided for life. Maybe the next person is so far in debt that he needs to file for bankruptcy and take a budgeting course. Maybe the third person needs a swift kick in the ass to get him motivated or visit the doctor for untreated depression.

Was anarchy ever on the table in the heady post-Revolution days?

And outlaw those who make products that endanger the health of others, or create working conditions that endanger their employees. We can all agree on that.

SUTA, FUTA, SDI are payroll taxes that are not medicare or OASDI.

Of course not.

It depends on what you are talking about. Are these deliberate, hidden defects? I mean, cigarettes and pork rinds are “products that endanger the health of others” but the risks are known and people make a free choice about whether or not to consume them.

Are we talking about gasoline cans without flame arresters on the theory that surely to god people know not to try to dump gasoline on their grills?

They are hidden defects, but they could be due to negligence, such as tainted food or poor manufacturing that result in injury or death when used as intended. I am not including known health risks such as pork rinds or cigarettes, though I have no problem with requiring warning labels on tobacco or alcohol, which have much higher rate of injury than any other food product, even when used as intended.

Yes. Any product that presents a statistically high risk (happens a lot) should be subject to federal consumer safety legislation. Consumers should be able to expect their gas cans won’t explode while they are using them as intended. Flame arrestors are not just for morons who use gas cans irresponsibly.

Well, it just seemed from your musing that the colonists broke away from the British government and only then grudgingly realized they’d need something to replace it and isn’t that kind of a shame.

Well, then let me help. The closest things to basic income or negative income tax that actually come up in Congress are progressive income tax, earned income tax credit, and child tax credit. This article might help you learn how GOP Congressmen voted on those matters.

All correct. But it’s always frustrating to hear conservatives pay lip-service to rational thought … and then turn and support the very political forces pushing in the wrong direction.