At the risk of repeating myself, with a spectrum of liberal on the left and conservative on the right, there exists a vertical axis that delineates, authoritarian on one end and laissez fair-ian on the other.
All socio-economic metrics should not be mapped on one dimension of measurement.
Yes to all three, with an asterisk – that I think it’s possible that benefits can be structured in a way that they don’t discourage work.
Feel free to discuss what you think are the different assumptions that folks on different sides of these axes have that underlie their beliefs.
That is not at all what I said; read again.
I am saying that liberals tend to believe that “good” traits are born and “bad” traits are learned. Conservatives are more inclined to believe that some bad traits are born to begin with - for instance, that some serial killers are born already with malicious personality.
That in no way means that racism is good, and I am honestly perplexed as to how that could have been construed that way.
I read it fine the first time, but thanks for the condescension. Really helps further the discussion.
I was perplexed by your original post, hence my questions to you. The questions were an attempt to help me understand your point. This thread is about differences between underlying beliefs between liberals and conservatives. You posted simply about what liberals believe on that topic, so you left it open to assume that you meant that the other side thinks the opposite. This being a compare and contrast thread and all. You left out that part, hence the confusion.
Also I think everyone thinks that the serial killer tendencies are a bad trait. Are you saying that liberals don’t believe this? You seem to be posting things that every rational person should think and then assigning that belief to one side or the other.
You’re saying the OP is wrong. But the things you then say are pretty much the same things he said.
Despite what Lumpy said, I believe the central conservative tenet is that life is fair. Conservatives believe that if an individual makes the right choices and does the right things then that individual will generally achieve a reasonable degree of success in life. So being successful is the responsibility of the individual.
Liberals believe otherwise. They feel that an individual can make the right choices and do the right things but still often fail because of circumstances beyond that individual’s control. So liberals feel society should do something about those circumstances so it becomes possible for the individual to succeed.
You are missing the point again. Nobody in this thread disputes that racism or serial-killer tendencies are bad. What is being discussed is whether those traits are naturally born, or learned after birth.
Society and culture teaches values as much as parents do. Certain choices that helped people survive poverty at one time end up perpetuated poverty. Shielding people from the consequences of those choices can end up perpetuating a culture of poverty.
For example education. If your group is systematically excluded from the best jobs and opportunities it makes little sense to invest your time and effort in educating yourself because an educated ditch digger is not going to be anymore productive than an uneducated one. However, once this is taught by your culture and your people are no longer systematically excluded from the benefits of education than the lack of interest in education goes from being helpful to very harmful. The way to change this is not for education authorities to have separate standards of behavior and achievement or to blame others for the lack of education, but to let everyone know the benefits of education and celebrate those role models who do achieve great things in education.
So by your definition, doesn’t that make you a conservative?
I’m as liberal as they come and do believe homosexuality is something you’re born with, yet I don’t view it as “good.” It just is. Like hair color, the fact you have a liver and you breathe.
Are you saying someone is born a racist? If so, I’d love to see a cite for that.
Even with the death penalty on the table over a lot of crimes, it seems as if it often deters very few.
Your tone is coming across as very insulting fyi. I’m not sure if that’s the intent, but can we start by stipulating that we both are literate and are able to comprehend what we read? I simply am trying to understand your point better by asking you questions.
So who is it that thinks that racism is a naturally born trait? Can we start there? I’ve never heard of anyone that think that babies can be born racist. If nobody actually thinks that, then how is it something that can differentiate liberals from conservatives?
I don’t see how.
I don’t believe there’s a real difference. The apparent differences are the result of defining particular issues in a devisive manner and the common traits among people just apply to their choices based on more particular reasons. There may be types of extremists drawn more to one side to the other, but then they are just played for pawns in the narrow scope of their views. There are plenty of Cons and Libs who want to use government to impose their morality on people, they just differ on the particular aspect of morality, and plenty of both who are libertarian on different issues. The different sides are like two drunken men in greatcoats who engage in a brawl and manage only to fight their way into each other’s coats in the end.
The OP is exactly right, although I would agree with those who want to broaden the scope beyond simply liberal/conservative. And this is why we have the same argument here over and over again. We argue about the details when we have a disagreement on the fundamentals.
This post made me realize something that’s always been sort of implicit in these sorts of arguments- the fact that governments and almost all people are always working in conditions of limited resources.
I think that’s the real crux of a lot of the issues here- I kind of feel like the Right might not have such a problem with a lot of the poverty alleviation programs, if resources weren’t so tight, or if they came from without, rather than from income taxes.
By that, I mean that in some sense, most every dollar given to a poverty alleviation program has been received in taxes from other people. And we don’t necessarily know what sort of hardship a family or person might have to undergo in order to pay their taxes. Just because we have a progressive tax code doesn’t mean that it’s a comfortable tax code for everyone. So it seems very unjust to essentially take money from people who are presumably doing things “right”, or at least not that wrong, and give it to people who are presumed to have done things wrong, either through stupidity, bad decisions, laziness, or what have you.
And on top of it, the Left seems to have a certain smug/patronizing attitude about it all, like we should be grateful to have the opportunity to help these people and we’re assholes if we don’t. As if, somehow, we don’t know the best uses for our own money.
Those things are, at least in my experience, the main oppositional points to a lot of social programs and poverty alleviation programs. It’s not a punitive feeling, but rather an idea that if not for the stupid decisions (or whatever), then we’d have more money that we worked for ourselves in our own pockets to spend as we see fit.
That’s also why the word “entitlements” is spoken with such venom; the idea that someone’s “entitled” to anything like that is particularly offensive when viewed through this particular prism that I described above, as it’s not *their *money, so it’s highly arrogant and presumptive for anyone to act like they are entitled to welfare or whatever else.
I think liberals look at problems at the societal level, and assume people don’t change, while conservatives look at problems from an individual level, and assume that people can change, and if they don’t, that’s their fault. For example, when looking at the obesity problem, liberals may say that our jobs are more sedentary, and poor people have food access issues, and we need to address those problems to address the obesity problem. Conservative may say that it isn’t impossible to lose weight with a sedentary lifestyle and a low budget, it’s just calories in/calories out. Abstinence only education is another example where conservatives say that abstinence is the most reliable individual solution, while liberals will point out that on a societal level that a large chunk of people given abstinence only education won’t stay abstinent.
I think the difference also accounts for the different attitudes toward poverty, voter ID, and drug testing welfare recipients.
This seems to be an accurate view. It also closely mirrors the “Individuals are responsible for themselves” vs “Society is responsible for helping the downtrodden” view.
This is a very good question. Fundamental assumptions are part of it.
Look at the whole basis of law. Look at the rationale in the US Constitution for the strong attempts at providing balances of power. Not just between branches of government but between the government as an institution composed of ambitious, ruthless, Machiavellian people and other institutions such as religious, states and municipalities, businesses, and the people. The idea was that due to human nature itself strong constraints and boundaries were necessary for and between differing power sources.
I agree with this and one of the fundamentals that I apply when discussing law or societal change is the mechanism in which change is enacted and what are the consequences of that. For example, I dislike police and state sanctioned brutality. I sympathize with the Black Lives Matter movement. I sympathize with many of their tactics. What I don’t sympathize with is when those tactics, here comes a real life slippery slope!, are used to demand organic local sourced turnip greens at State U.
Mob rule needs to be reserved for the most serious and egregious abuses of state power that have been failed to be corrected via any other mechanism. Not for a pet social project.
I’m against minimum wage because of these fundamental reasons. People should be free to associate more or less how they wish. And I don’t believe the “right to regulate interstate commerce clause” extends down to the intrastate level. Much less the person to person level. Or the level where a man can be sanctioned by the state for planting wheat for personal consumption.
If one is under the assumption we live in a pure democracy with no constraints on the government and a simple majority can subject any minority to anything they are wrong. We do have a constrained government and redefining or ignoring constraints for a politically palatable outcome at this point in time is setting a precedent for another majority or shrill enough minority to pervert the process in the future.
So I operate under the assumption that human nature in the aggregate and at the individual level is not angelic. Humans aren’t at all periods in time and across the entire populace looking to improve themselves or live peaceful and productive lives. And it’s innate. We have evolved in the jungle to be survivors. We have instincts and drives that in some people and in some ways are incompatible with modern society. We wouldn’t have so many murderers, rapists, and other assorted violent criminals otherwise.
So about the poor. I’ve been poor. I grew up on welfare and in foster homes. Not my whole childhood, but for several years. I grew up living in the country with a country foster home. I spent over a year living in the inner city in a foster home provided by a black family. I went to a black church for over a year. I’ve lived in a trailer park for several years and with no power for several seasons. I’ve had to beg for food. Then ask for a place to cook it.
The poor are not some homogeneous group that all due to circumstance are down on their luck and just waiting to be the next huge contributor to society. MANY are there through their own choice. Many of the children have no chance. That’s the true problem. Democrats think if only the poor had a bit more they’d be able to crawl their way out of the bottom. Wrong! Some poor will. Some poor will buy more crack, meth, Pabst Blue Ribbon, or spend it on a hooker.
Democrats also think that empowering the government to do as it wishes to solves problems will solve problems. That’s more pure ignorance on the nature of people. Those tendencies to want to help are just one additional mode to be exploited by ambitious people. And those ambitious people are excused because of the (D) by their name on the ballot. It’s quite funny in addition to being tragic. What empowering government does is attract those who want power and transfers that power to them. To those people that compose the government. Government isn’t like a desk. It’s not a tangible object. It’s a collection of people. That’s all government is. A collection of people with power. But let’s be afraid of PepsiCo.
So yeah there are fundamental differences. Realists recognize that people and power need constraints because people and power aren’t fundamentally good.
The subsidizing employer argument/meme is deliberately disingenuous. What’s being subsidized are the people with low market value who also make bad choices.