My brain must have frozen for minute there.
As many times as I have cited him, I can’t believe that I screwed that up.
To make the story even worse, I just KNEW that it wasn’t right, and sat there debating whether or not the “E” belonged at the end:)
OK, I’m a kind of conservative/libertarian type, and while I’m not sure I can define a liberal accurately, I think I can distinguish them from socialists and communists.
A communist believes in the abolition of private property and absolute rule of the proletariat. This may not be immediate, but is seen as a long-term goal. Many communists are Bolsheviks or Bolshevists who believe this end will be accomplished by violent revolution, but there are also religious communists who believe God will bring this state of affairs about and democratic communists who believe popular vote will achieve this end.
A socialist believes that all important industries and means of production should be owned, or at least controlled, by the state. This is not at odds with the communist view, so I view communists as a subset of socialists. But some, maybe most, socialists believe in private property and enfranchisement for all classes, not just the proletariat, so many socialists are communists.
A liberal stops somewhere short of the socialist view. I think that a quote I once read in the magazine The Nation best exemplifies the liberal view: that the relationship of State to Citizen should be the relationship of parents to children. As you can imagine, this leaves room for a great deal of disagreement, just as there would be much disagreement as to how one should best raise one’s children. Still, the basic outlook is that the State has the same responsibility for the Citizens’ welfare that parents do for children. The difference between a modern liberal and an 18th-century liberal like Jefferson is that Jefferson considered government as instituted to protect rights, while the modern liberal views government as instituted to protect people, along with their rights if possible, at the expense of their rights if necessary. The more extreme the liberal, the more broadly he or she interprets the words “if necessary.”
I wrote some extensive comments about how liberals’ view of States and Citizen mirrors the parent-child relationship, but I’ll hold off on posting that until I see if I can build some agreement about the communist-socialist-liberal boundaries.
Kimstu, you said: “So my answer to Phil’s question is, Both. Yes, we want as many people as possible to be both self-reliant and able to help others, and we need to shape our assistance programs towards making that possible for them”
Do you think our welfare programs (and yes, I do think Social Security and unemployment compensation are welfare programs) are targeted towards doing that as currently implemented?
But we need to take into account the fact that some people at some point in their lives will never be fully self-reliant again, if indeed they ever were.
These aren’t really the people I’m talking about. I’m talking about healthy, intelligent people.
And we need to be committed as a society to alleviating their helplessness so that it doesn’t foster misery, abuse, exploitation, and crime.
Let’s take a completely absurd proposition, because I’m curious as to your and Gad’s answers. Let’s take a “society” consisting of two people: Bill Gates, and my sister. Bill Gates we all know about. My sister has three children (ages 3,5 and 11). She is healthy and reasonably intelligent. However, she specializes, one might even say excels, at making poor decisions. As a result, at the age of 35 she is not making nearly enough to adequately support herself and her kids. She does not have a husband supplementing her income, and she has no medical insurance for her children.
My question is this: To what extent do you think Bill Gates is obligated to help her, and to what extent would you, as an outside observer, require and force Bill Gates to help her?
It may not be very attractive or popular in our selfish and greedy human existence to stand up and say “Some people will always need help, and we must always help them”; but it’s what a liberal ought to do."
That depends on your definitions of “our,” “need,” “must” and “ought.” And I’m not being facetious. I know I should help the less fortunate, but I don’t believe I have the right nor should I have the power to force you to help the less fortunate. That’s a moral decision that you and you alone can make.
Kimstu: Mea culpa. I let my answer to that question fall too much within the bounds of Phil’s parameters. Your view and mine of so-called “emergency” conditions aren’t in conflict, but you did explicate it far more fully. Does what you wrote seem to you to be compatible with the substance of my earlier post, muddiness about emergencies notwithstanding?
Mashie: Where are the Fabian Society footnotes?? 
Necros: Hmm. Reconcile that with Freedom’s statement that conservatives care more about the individuals. I think that your definition is the fairer of the two, but with the caveat that attention is paid to long-term social benefits, as noted earlier.
Ack!! The above should says “so many socialists are not communists.”
Typical, I tell you she is socialist and then you insist that I am arguing she is the most extreme socialist. Sure there is a spectrum.
So where do I draw the line; you want me to say I can’t draw the line. So in that grand spectrum, I will put Freedom on one end and Socialism on the other. Lets draw the line where we are today… anyone who beleives we should be headed in the direction of freedom= conservative; if someone thinks we should be heading in the direction of Socialism= liberal/socialist. Hillary leans toward Socialism. Where she will draw the line to have gone far enough is anyones guess. But it is too far for me?
Gadarene said:
I don’t think it’s one group caring about individuals more than another. Both liberals and conservatives care about each person. They just disagree on the best way for society to function with that as the raison d’etre.
Conservatives believe that the individual will be best served by maintaining a responsibility to himself, and that society is a confederation that serves useful purposes, like providing for the common defense, and other tasks than an individual can effectively perform, but that most tasks are better left to the individual. Because of this, conservatives have a basic comprehension block that anyone, when left to look out for themselves, fails to do it. I mean, why else are you alive? So, from these come most conservative beliefs.
Conservatives are for: Individual maintenance of personal rights, limited government intervention into those rights, consistent only with large common tasks (defense, courts, large-scale land and resource management, etc.), and an emphasis on allowing a person to reach the limits of his or her capabilities.
As with liberals, conservatives seem to have a stumbling block when it comes to religion, but I think that can be attributed to historical developments. True conservatives don’t want anyone messing around with any of their personal freedoms, including their religion.
So, both conservatives and liberals care about individuals and their rights; they just disagree about the best way to protect and enhance them. Sort of the same with both sides of any issue.
I think that the conservative view of the Constitution as a document to take very seriously stems from a fear that any tinkering inevitably leads to a diminishing of rights.
Yes, I agree this is consistent with my theory of the society’s reponsibility entending through the individual’s membership in that society (like, until death), and not contingent on the individual actively adding anything to the society. A liberal’s view is that the society is predicated on maintaining, in addition to others, natural rights, which are conferred with life.
Kimstu,
Basically, we draw different lines. I think we have sacrificed too much freedom already… Therefore although you think I am extreme, that is only because you accept the current system and presumably would be for more government redistribution. The only reason I appear to you to be extreme is that you are a Socialist. :wally:
Although you may not be aware of that yet.
Behold the Power of Incrementalism.
This is not what I said.
I said that conservatives see solutions to problems in the independent actions of individuals, while liberals see solutions to problems in the mass shifting of society’s resources.
You could take this a step further and possibly say that conservatives do not see society as having resources, they see individuals with resources. (with certain exceptions)
Conservatives think that forcing people to live within their means and making the right decisions with their resources is the best way to keep all of us succesful.
Liberals feel that society should distribute it’s resources so that all all of us have our “needs” taken care of.
I think that liberals have an equation that they put everyone through.
They ignore everything a person has done in their life(good or bad), and just count up all the goodies that person has.
Then they come out with some magical number that tells them whether or not that person owes society something, or whether society owes that person something.
So, you can be very productive and have a bunch of stuff, yet you OWE society.
Or
You can be a bum and society owes you.
Of course society doesn’t have a thing, so it takes from the people it has determined owe a debt, and gives to those who “deserve” it.
I guess liberals must feel that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of “stuff,” if you have more than your share, then the only reasonable explanation is that you have taken someone else’s stuff. The other side of this being that if you don’t have enough “stuff” then it must be because some rich guy took your share.
I’d like to tackle pldennison’s question regarding sisterdennison and Bill Gates.
This is where discussions typically get a bit mired in semantics, so I will tread as carefully as I can.
As a liberal, I believe Bill Gates is not personally obligated to help your sister. Neither is Mr. Gates personally obligated to help any other beneficiary of the government. He is only obligated to personally help other humans to the extent that his moral beliefs (and specific local laws) compel him to do so.
As a liberal, I also believe that Bill Gates IS obligated to contribute to the operation of the government of his state, and to the federal government of the United States so that they may provide constitutionally mandated services. He is obligated as well to contribute a share of the funds those governments require in order to provide the special assistance programs, administrative agencies and commissions that society has determined (through representation in the governing bodies) to be important. The extent of his monetary contributions should be based on a progressive tax system. His nonmonetary obligations to these governments include those registrations and reports required of all citizens in specific cases, and he should neither receive special treatment nor suffer discrimination because of the size of his bank account.
So, as I see it, liberal philosophy does not consider an individual’s responsibility to other individuals; it considers the individual’s responsibility to society, and society’s responsibility to its members. This is not to say that liberals don’t care about individual responsibility; rather, individual social interaction is simply not held by liberals to be answerable to government policies.
Freedom2 said:
and Mashie said:
It’s the specifics of those exceptions Freedom mentioned that are so important to the differences between conservative and liberal philosophies. To argue against one or the other based on the slippery slope of incrementalism is to engage in infinitely reducible objections until one arrives either at anarchy or totalitarianism.
Or
There could be infinite permutations and variations whereby individuals both contribute to and benefit from social actions.
Ya think?
Freedom: Before I respond to your last coupla posts, could you respond to this?
Phil, I think that hypothetical’s simplistic enough as to be meaningless. Recognize, please, that not everyone who is unable to support themselves is in that situation due to their propensity toward “poor decisions.” Mind giving me your take on my earlier response regarding the necessity and character of welfare programs?
Danimal: Nice analysis. I think I agree, but I reserve the right to change my mind upon further inspection. (The mark of a liberal! grin)
Gadarene
Hmmm…
I think there is a WHOLE differnet way to look at it. I think both the conservatives and the liberals are looking at the ramifications to everyone. However…I think conservatives feel that the best ramifications for the whole of the country come from empowering the indivudual, while liberals feel the whole of society is best served by centrally mandating where all the resources go. I don’t think short Vs. long term enter into the equation.
A couple of questions here…
How does a liberal define where “society” starts and begins? At least the one they are perosnally responsible to/for.
Do you think the most efficient means of progress is through central planning and control?
Is a central gov’t that treats individuals like children a desirable thing?
Mashie: *Lets draw the line where we are today… anyone who beleives we should be headed in the direction of freedom= conservative; if someone thinks we should be heading in the direction of Socialism= liberal/socialist. *
Oh. So the deciding factor is the situation we have now? Anybody who is in favor of even a slightly greater wealth redistribution than we have at present is by definition a “liberal/socialist” (whatever that is)? Well, Gadarene, I hope that answers your question, because I don’t think we’re going to get any better answer here as to why Hillary Clinton (rather than Paul Wellstone, say) should be considered a “socialist”.
Actually, Mashie, this defining social/political philosophies by reference to the current status quo is kind of interesting. Suppose our new President follows through on his proposal of cutting taxes (which will have the biggest impact on the wealthy) and makes up for the revenue loss by cutting social services (which will have the biggest impact on the poor). This will make our governmental system somewhat less “redistributive”, or according to you, more conservative/less socialist. Now suppose somebody then suggests slightly increasing taxes on the wealthy to less than their former level, and restoring services for the poor to less than their former level. In other words, that person would be pushing for a system that’s on the conservative side of what we have right now. Now, is that person a conservative, or a “liberal/socialist”?
See, if you define people’s views simply according to their tendencies in diverging from the status quo rather than according to their actual goals for society, your labels end up being pretty much meaningless. In the example I just gave, if you identified this hypothetical person as a “liberal/socialist” for suggesting the same level of redistribution that you’d now call someone a conservative for suggesting, then what’s the real difference between a liberal and a conservative? If all that matters is the direction you want to move in, and you’re indifferent to identifying the specific point you want to move to, then I think your idea of what passes for a definition of “socialist” or “liberal” or “conservative” is silly and useless.
(And by the way, although by more meaningfully defined and widely accepted definitions of the term “socialist” I am not one, I don’t consider it an insult to be called one. I do, however, consider it an insult to be called a “putz”, and as the mods will tell you if you keep that sort of thing up, direct personal insults are not tolerated in Great Debates.)
On to a more interesting argument…
pldennison replied to me: *“Yes, we want as many people as possible to be both self-reliant and able to help others, and we need to shape our assistance programs towards making that possible for them”
Do you think our welfare programs (and yes, I do think Social Security and unemployment compensation are welfare programs) are targeted towards doing that as currently implemented? *
Depends on the program. Unemployment compensation, with its focus on retraining, job-hunting assistance, and so forth, is clearly intended to encourage the formerly self-reliant to become self-reliant again, as are various welfare-to-work programs. Social Security benefits, on the other hand, are not provided as a temporary boost for the elderly until they can get off their duffs and find a job again, but as an income source that they can expect to draw on till they die. I don’t have a problem with either of those. Our biggest problems, as I see it (and as I think you meant), are those programs which are intended to be just a form of temporary assistance but have the practical effect of encouraging long-term dependency. I don’t happen to think we have as many such programs as many people claim (most welfare recipients, for example, are out of the program within two years), but in some cases yes, the problem is definitely there.
*“And we need to be committed as a society to alleviating their helplessness so that it doesn’t foster misery, abuse, exploitation, and crime.”
Let’s take a completely absurd proposition, because I’m curious as to your and Gad’s answers. Let’s take a “society” consisting of two people: Bill Gates, and my sister. Bill Gates we all know about. My sister has three children (ages 3,5 and 11). She is healthy and reasonably intelligent. However, she specializes, one might even say excels, at making poor decisions. As a result, at the age of 35 she is not making nearly enough to adequately support herself and her kids. She does not have a husband supplementing her income, and she has no medical insurance for her children.
My question is this: To what extent do you think Bill Gates is obligated to help her, and to what extent would you, as an outside observer, require and force Bill Gates to help her? *
Ummm, but where do I come into it at all? You specified that this “society” consisted only of Bill Gates and your sister (and presumably her children). Now I may be highhanded in my insistence on the common and mutual obligations of the members of my society, but I don’t go around “requiring and forcing” members of other societies to take on the same obligations. I certainly feel convinced that Bill Gates ought to provide some assistance to her (or at least to her three pre-teen children who presumably are totally innocent of responsibility for her bad decisions), but I don’t make the rules for their society.
And no, to forestall what I think will probably be your next point, I don’t agree that the obligations of any other two people in my society are equally none of my business. I think that a very large part of any society, from a nuclear family right on up to a nation, is its implied social contract according to which people are possessed of certain common benefits and obligations, even ones they didn’t explicitly sign up for. I know of no society in the whole of human history in which everybody partakes only of the duties or freedoms that they specifically individually agreed to, and I don’t believe that such a society can survive in real life. And if a universally binding implied social contract—binding even upon those who disagree with it, as long as they live in the society—is a social necessity, then I’m entitled to state (and to attempt to implement) my views of what its terms ought to be.
That depends on your definitions of “our,” “need,” “must” and “ought.” And I’m not being facetious.
I know you’re not; it’s a very good point.
*I know I should help the less fortunate, but I don’t believe I have the right nor should I have the power to force you to help the less fortunate. That’s a moral decision that you and you alone can make. *
I agree that you personally shouldn’t be making such decisions at your own whim for me personally. “Kimstu! I’ve decided that this month you’ll contribute the rest of your grocery money to charity! Quit whining to me that you’re hungry—you have a duty to help the less fortunate!” Nuh-uh. But that is not the same thing as the chosen representatives of a society deciding as a group the ways in which everybody shall help the less fortunate. That’s a moral decision that we and we alone can make. Now I agree that collective moral decisions, particularly ones made by elected proxy, are far from perfect or universally satisfying. But I do recognize the basic validity of a collective moral decision, even without requiring that everybody has to sign on the dotted line before anything can be implemented. I think that’s one of the basic differences between a liberal and a libertarian.
(Freedom2: Man, was that ever naive and oversimplistic! This is that same line of reasoning that I call the “$46,374.87 and a 1993 Yugo argument”: i.e., the belief that anyone who supports some redistribution must really be convinced that the ideal distribution is exactly equal, i.e., everybody should get only $46,374.87 and a 1993 Yugo. It’s simply not an accurate description of the way most liberals think: I don’t know anyone who really believes that all wealth ought to be distributed exactly evenly. Believe it or not, there are reasons to support taking money away from people who have lots of it even if you don’t believe that they somehow have more than they deserve! And similarly, there are reasons to support giving money to people who don’t have any even if you don’t believe that they somehow “deserve” more than they have. Money’s not a badge of merit or a ticket to salvation or an indicator of “the good things you’ve done in your life” as far as most liberals are concerned, Freedom2. Money’s just money, some of which you can spend however you want and some of which you have to contribute to the common enterprises of society, which include relieving the distresses of people without money.)
I essentially agree with you, and I think you’ll find that I agree with a great many ideals you (and Kimstu) both hold, while disagreeing with means and implementation. As you know (or should know) the sole reason I self-identify as a libertarian is because I honestly believe in the non-coercion ethic. Aside from that, I’m about as left-leaning, socially speaking, as you’ll find (anti-death penalty, pro-gay, pro-animal, etc.).
Fiscally speaking, it’s another story. I believe there is far too much interference by government in certain markets, whicb has the unintended effect of propping up inefficiencies (like, say, dairy or tobacco). I also believe that agencies and institutions which started out fine, and were in fact instituted at the behest of the potential beneficiaries (like, say, the FCC) have become excuses for inertia and corporate apologetics (witness the recent furor over low-power radio).
(BTW, Freedom, the “naive and oversimplistic” remark was meant to refer just to your comments about liberals thinking that everyone should have the same amount of “stuff”, not to your most recent post. Speaking of which…)
Freedom2: *How does a liberal define where “society” starts and begins? At least the one they are perosnally responsible to/for. *
Far as I’m concerned, it’s every group of people with whom I share obligations via custom or law. I pay my federal taxes: that’s my duty to society. I don’t jostle or curse at other people in line at the supermarket: that’s my duty to society too.
Do you think the most efficient means of progress is through central planning and control?
Depends on what’s intended to progress. Most things that can be counted on to make money progress far better under the operation of markets, depending on the level of regulation. Most things that require expenditure for large-scale results without much direct return on investment, such as putting in a sewer system or a highway network, work a hell of a lot better under central planning than through haphazard individual efforts.
*Is a central gov’t that treats individuals like children a desirable thing? *
Overall I would say no, but then I don’t agree with Danimal that that is an adequate description of “the” liberal view on the relation between the individual and the government, so please don’t regard that as some kind of liberal consensus.
Although I am a loose libertarian (I believe in some environmental legislation) I feel obligated to protect my party from being lumped with those elephant people.
Libertarians believe that their freedom is under assault from BOTH parties albeit in different ways, examples,
Democrats want to take away my guns, Republicans want to take away my pot. Democrats believe that people who are too stupid to take advantage of a free education should recieve a gov supplement, Republicans believe that industries that can’t make a profit should recieve a gov. supplement.
As far as I’m concerned I’m screwed either way.
Give me a reasonably well equiped army, a decent road system, reasonable environmental regs (science based not fear based), free education, and that’s about all anyone should need. Loose Medicare, Welfare (corporate & individual, as well as ag subsidies), and Stupid personal interfernce laws (gun control, drug laws, abortion). If you take all of that away, we’ll all be giving a lot less to the tax man every paycheck. People should have enough personal responsibilty to get there own retirement, health insurance, and freedom to use their body for whatever they deem appropriate.
Enaction of Hillary’s legislative dreams are about as troubling as Jerry Falwell’s.
A registered libertarian
FWIW, there’s a difference between “treating people like children” and approximating the parent-child relationship (which is what Danimal said). I’m not a child, but I still have a parent–if you take my meaning.
Freedom: On the contrary, I believe that short- and long-term considerations do enter into the equation, if for no other reason than that an action taken to sustain the common welfare is much more likely to ensure future social stability than an action taken to further the interests of a particularized cohort of individuals, assuming that the consequences of that action are assessed fairly accurately. This is, of course, a tremendous assumption.
Example: I think resources should be utilized to build a stronger foundation of health care, education, and economic enterprise in such areas where access to these things is severely stratified. My expectation is that this will benefit the whole of society in the long run, even though most of us will see no immediately appreciable gain. Someone thinking in the shorter term would likely eschew such an action, failing to find the material benefit sufficient to justify the cost. (And, of course, those individuals with the private resources to fund such programs likely don’t live in the stratified areas.)
“Is it in my interest (and the interests of those with whom I relate) now?” versus “Is it in our collective interest in the longer term?”
In humanity there is no long term view:)