iiandyiiii didn’t mention any of those specific mistakes as examples.
It does appear that you consider teenage pregnancy, not completing school and a criminal record to be equal.
In a previous, similar thread, I quoted a passage from William Poundstone’s book Prisoner’s Dilemma in which he theorizes that, in game theory terms, liberals are “cooperators” while conservatives are “defectors.”
Probably in general, though ‘even more so’ for the chronically poor.
I didn’t mean top .001% overall – I meant something like the top .001% in a skill (i.e. one of the very tip-top athletes, one of the very tip-top musical performers, very tip-top math skill, etc.) – that, unless someone is extremely talented at something, it may be a very difficult road out.
[quote]
If one is poor, and that person
[ul][li]Graduates from high school[/li][li]Gets married and stays married[/li][li]Does not have children until they can support those children without government subsidies[/li][li]Gets a job - almost any job - and stick to it for at least a year, and don’t quit until you have a better job[/ul]after five years, on average, they will no longer be poor. And to conservatives, or at least to this conservative, none of these things are unreasonable expectations. To me, this is what adults do.[/li][/quote]
I think your list is likely (mostly) true. But I think that, often due to circumstances mostly beyond their control, a poor person is much less likely to get married and stay married, not have children too early, be able to get a job (and keep a job), etc., and that we can do a better job of making this things relatively easy to achieve for almost everyone.
On this we probably just disagree on the relative proportions.
The condom stuff is certainly silly, but it’s the kind of silly mistake that is incredibly common regardless of class, and yet for those born disadvantaged it can almost guarantee an incredibly difficult path out of poverty, while for those born with some little advantage it’s no big deal at all (much easier access to the pill, abortion, support for an unexpected child, etc.).
To me, the biggest differences seem to be centered around the obligation of the state to the citizenry, and the obligations of the citizenry to the state.
The Left seems to espouse a position of high obligation in both directions - i.e. the state is obligated to provide almost all necessities for its citizens, and the citizens are obligated to provide this to the state (usu. in taxes). Not quite “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, but not really all that far off. The citizens are expected to have a certain trust/faith in the state that it’s a good steward of this sort of thing.
The Right seems to have a more limited conception of those obligations- the state has a limited obligation to provide for its citizens - usually basic things like policing, infrastructure, defense, etc… and not food, housing, etc… And in return, the citizens aren’t expected to foot the bill for more than that either. A skeptic view/critical eye toward government is acceptable as well, as they’re assumed to be poor stewards of that money. Kind of a theory of “We’ll provide you these minimum things, and we’ll stay out of your hair otherwise” concept.
In a really broad sense, the two come down to trust in government; the Left trusts and expects government to do good things, while the Right expects government to do the opposite.
This is probably true for the most part, but I think we can go deeper, into why they disagree – and I think it may come down to different assumptions on the motivations of poor people, in addition to different assumptions on the efficacy of government assistance.
Sucks to be them, but it doesn’t affect most people one bit, so why should they be compelled to provide for knuckleheaded decisions like not using birth control?
That’s another Left/Right difference- the Right would say “Stew in the fetid soup of your own poor decision making”, while the Left would argue that the rest of us should be compelled through taxation give up some portion of our own resources to bail this person out, as they are poor and apparently can’t say no, or to wear a condom or whatever.
I think the Left also argues that it’s more expensive for society, in the long run, to not assist this person early in their life, than to provide (the right kind of) assistance.
Here are four underlying assumptions I hold:
People generally are in the best position to make choices for themselves.
Different people value different outcomes at greatly varying levels of utility.
Poor choices should have consequences - the worse the choice the worse the consequence.
Punishment is a much higher priority than rehabilitation.
Of course, that doesn’t apply to the banking industry or large companies. Hell, we even give money to profitable companies.
Thanks. I generally agree with the first two.
I’d modify the third to say that “poor choices should have consequences, and the worse the choice the worse they should be, but the consequences should not be wildly different in magnitude based on the economic status (or other categories such as race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) of the individual, when action is possible by society to ‘equalize’ these consequences to some degree”. Maybe there’s a way to say that more simply with fewer words.
And for the fourth I believe the opposite – that rehabilitation should be a higher priority than punishment.
I think it comes down to two basic philosophies.
Liberals: The government is the safety net. You don’t get paid enough by an employer making millions off of your work? We help you. The economy is not strong enough (and no economy is ever strong enough)? We stimulate it. You’re life is fucked up because you make bad choices? We make sure the consequences are not as bad as they could be.
Conservatives: Believe that as long as opportunities are available, people are free to make their own choices but are also responsible for the consequences of those decisions.
And sub-groups:
Tea Parties: The only correct choices are the ones good Christians make. And the definition of good is those that agree with the parts I agree with (like faggery) and ignore the parts I choose to ignore (like adultery or stealing)
Keynesians: I know Keynes said to save in good times to spend in bad times BUT we spend in good times to spend MORE in bad times. The problem with the deficit is it isn’t big enough.
Progressives: Big = bad (and not in a good way).
I am not so sure about this. There are many liberals who are OK with life being unfair in certain respects. For instance, there are many liberals who argue that it is perfectly fine, in the area of dating and relationships, to discriminate against someone on the basis of height, race, income, intelligence, outward appearance, etc. I also don’t know of many liberals who argue in favor of racial affirmative action in the NBA or NFL.
Conversely -there are many conservatives involved in the International Justice Mission and who speak out against human trafficking, etc., and figures like William Wilberforce are heroes in the eyes of many conservatives. Many Christian conservatives in America, especially, speak out against human trafficking.
These seem like caricatures – at least for the groups that you don’t seem to agree with.
I agree with the first two. The third one I only agree with up to a point. But the fourth one I can’t agree with in any way, and do not understand how it makes sense. Punishment is a consequence given for a bad action. If it does not prevent subsequent bad actions, what is the point of the consequence?
These two also seem in direct contraction to the religious conservatism with which I am most accustomed. So I assume you are the other kind–the kind I never even knew existed until I joined this board.
I think some of the different assumptions are just a matter of where in the spectrum one’s assumption lies: for example, I believe both liberals and conservatives believe that harder work (or greater innovation) should result in greater rewards, but may differ on how much greater the rewards should be for harder work or better innovation (or, perhaps more consequently, how much greater the ‘punishment’ should be for less-hard work).
I have noticed also a liberal tendency to think that traits that they consider acceptable or good - i.e., homosexuality - are traits that people are born with, whereas traits that are bad - i.e., racism or sexism - are learned, not born.
I’d be interested to know what your family was like. Did you learn these values at home, or somewhere else?
I think that is the way that poverty perpetuates itself - people who are poor because they made bad decisions teach (by example or explicitly) those values to their children, who then make the same mistakes themselves, and so on down the generations. The hard-working poor (those who have two or three jobs just to make ends meet) tend not to perpetuate their own poverty because they have good values (even in bad circumstances), and their children learn to take responsibility for their own lives.
To the extent that the above observation is accurate, then we could say that the hard-working poor don’t need (much) help, and the rest don’t deserve it. What I would like to see is some way to interrupt the poverty perpetuation process of such families, but the only ways I can think of would involve such interference with families as to not be practical. But it seems not right to penalize these children for being born into such families and to have little opportunity to learn the kinds of life lessons that will encourage them to improve themselves.
I’m not really conservative or liberal. I think of myself as a social libertarian with a conscience.
How about traits that don’t cause harm to others are good, and traits that can cause harm to others are bad. Racism and sexism will cause the person to treat others badly based on having the first kind of traits, and therefore bad.
Is this a controversial way to think? Do conservatives view racism and sexism as good? Not exactly sure how this delineates liberals from conservatives unless you’re saying that this is what conservatives believe.
Do you believe that?: 1. there is a level of benefits where almost all people would rather receive the benefits than work 2. that there is a level of benefits where no people would rather receive the benefits than work. 3. In between these levels are levels that would induce different numbers of people to receive benefits depending on the generosity of the benefits.
Punishment is to serve as a warning to others as well.
And I’m not religious.