I recently stumbled onto the "box wars" of conservative/liberal world views

Great Debates
1

I noticed a graphic in a youtube video in a Haidt talk, looked up the graphic and saw many more variations.

The video where I got the tip off:

it shows up a bit before the 6 minute mark

Here is the original image:
http://www.ericrettberg.com/dataculta/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/original_Q9ND_7bc700001bcd1190.jpg
The implications are obvious in the world views it tries to convey, but that is not where it ended. Here is a more conservative revision on the box image:

http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Equality-What-Libs-actually-do-about-it.png

With the use of blood to where the blood stump of the taller guy rests where his lower legs used to be and are transported to the shorter kid does seem to perfectly capture the way conservatives view redistribution, actually, this may be more libertarian in the starkness of it all.

Here is the full site post where THAT variant came from.

And it does not stop there, in what I dub the “box wars” we have ever more competing narratives tossed out.

New captions that conveys the message of equality of outcome being the new definition of “Justice” (not my definition by the way, and I consider myself a liberal)

http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/equality-justice.jpg

Here is another potential extreme libertarian/anarchic alteration, tear down the fence/government that “just gets in the way”
http://img.memecdn.com/tearing-down-the-fence-is-equality_o_3258757.jpg

And then there is the grow the pie supply side trickle down argument to create more boxes:

Here is a larger collection along with thought from the progenitor of the original image:

I actually think the ideal graphic that would align with my own personal views might need an animation. My goal is not equality of outcomes, because I believe based on my observations of the world that part of the differences in outcomes are do to the individual variations in human beings. A perfectly equal society that offers identical opportunity to all people will not yield equal outcomes on average for different groups unless the group characteristics are also identical. They are not. All that said, I am still in favor of redistribution to boost people up to basic needs with things like a UBI, not enough to try to make everyone equal in wealth or able to afford whatever they want, but enough so that everyone has access to good healthcare? Absolutely. And none of the box war images I’ve seen so far convey that. But it was a great image that is effective at bringing out the different interpretations of the world people have.

2

I am a moderate libertarian and was going to ask why they didn’t just buy tickets to get regular seats like everyone else but then I saw that one of the brilliant illustrations already covered that. That is one crappy fence. I am pretty sure they are trespassing and it looks like at least two of them stole some wooden crates because they sure didn’t carry them there themselves.

I am inclined to agree with this one the most:

3

I like the original…and I like the “more boxes” and “tear down the fence” alternatives.

The one about cutting off legs is offensive and stupid, a typical anti-liberal screed that has exactly nothing to do with real liberal ideology. Rush Limbaugh crap.

If there are only two options, I’m in the “liberal” camp, where “equality of results” is the end-goal. Fortunately, in real life, there are often intermediate alternatives.

4

Using congas for a fence is kinda different.

5

It is a good metaphor for how liberals see the world. Poor people are children who need a handout and then everything will be fixed. It takes for granted resources, gives no thought to how things are produced, and the well off are that way because they were born that way. If a conservative came up with it they would be accused of constructing a straw man.
To each according to his need and from each according to his ability. I wonder how that would work out in the real world.

6

The bleeding stump one is a good metaphor for how (some) conservatives see the world.

“If I have to give up some of my stuff to someone else, how can you say it’s ‘just’ stuff? This is an existential threat! You are literally ripping pieces out of my very flesh, only to blithely hand them on to an oblivious ingrate who sees them only as a convenient place to stand!”

It would not be a bad thing if both conservatives and liberals spent some time contemplating the graphic of the ‘other side’ and trying to really grasp it.

(Agreement is not necessary, however)

7

The “tear down the fence” approach is going to lead to the baseball team folding.

8

Well, yes, they mostly are. And oddly enough, the well-off who weren’t born that way mostly tend to be liberals.

9

I just found out that I will get to be liberal myself later in life because I will inherit enough money through pure luck to take on any political views that I want just like my ex-wife that grew up in a very wealthy family. I look forward to those $1000 a plate fundraisers to support the homeless because I hear they are exclusive but fun. I couldn’t be very economically liberal at all in my earlier years because I had to work multiple jobs to put myself through high school and college. A change of pace will welcome. The only thing I need now is a limo to drop off a few Thanksgiving turkeys.

10

Which suggests yet another solution: raise the fence high enough that no one can “freeload” a game! It’s both equal and fair!

11

In the real world, that is what would happen. Who puts up a piece of shit fence on one end of an arena? Security is going to kick them all out soon enough because they are moochers and a terrible fence is a security risk to everyone. It doesn’t matter how many boxes they stole and which one is taller. They are crashing a paid event. I assume this was a AA or lower game because they wouldn’t even get that far in a major stadium.

12

ok if you’re trying to slag Oakland Coliseum* I’m gonna…

Cuban league, I believe.

*ok ok technically not so much a piece of shit on one end of an arena as much as a piece of shit, like, all over the arena.

13

The box metaphor is a classic example of the “metaphor with much lower stakes” school of conservative commentary. People are more likely to lean towards the “conservative” picture because the outcome doesn’t really matter.

If the situation was instead, a man with a splinter in his finger, a man with cancer, and a man who has been gut shot, the “conservative equality” would be having all three of them get a band aid on their finger, a bit of chemo, and a bit of whatever they do for gunshot wounds (I don’t know, probably a transfusion at least).

The “liberal equality” would have splinter guy with a band-aid, cancer guy with the chemo, and GSW guy in surgery, and if the splinter guy starts complaining that the doctors should be spending just as much time with him as the other two because that’s “fair” he would be told to STFU.

14

Not true 80% of millionaires did not grow up in wealthy families. One out of three millionaires is either an immigrant of has an immigrant parent. I doubt the second part of your assertion is true but I can’t find any information on that and am skeptical you have any.

15

I don’t have solid stats, but I did hear this recently.

so the liberals are better idea people than conservatives (makes sense with the stolid worship and bending of the knee of whatever is now and came before) even when some new ideas are bad, but the conservatives are better at running things.

So there you go, the liberals are naturally superior at projects like the sciences and moving civilization forward and higher, and conservatives? the managers to help things function better. Grunts. cogs in the wheel and not the steerers of the ship… I would try to come up with more ways to make liberals look better but I have to head out.

16

In my experience as a blue dot, conservatives are constantly in survival mode whereas liberals tend to accept we are in a post-survival world. Meaning, conservatives are more abt to believe that society is fragile and tend to be more selfish in acquiring resources for themselves and family, they see societal change as a threat to an already fragile society, furthering their survival mentality. Evolutionary wise, this makes complete sense. Liberals are more abt to believe society and government is solid and stable, that we don’t necessarily believe we have to worry about our own survival as there are plenty of cheap resources available, or should be available, for everyone, and that the best way to ensure that these resources don’t concentrate into just a few hands (inevitable in a capitalist system) is through a strong government.

17

The usual argument is between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. I’m against both sides. They both fail to get at the root of the problem. Go back to the original box cartoon. Unless we are playing a game called “let’s compete to see who gets to see the baseball game”, there’s no reason that an outcome should result in some people having a bad or nonexistent view of the field. But if we were in fact playing a competitive game, it would be silly to expect or require equality of outcome.

The root of the inequality problem in society (as opposed to inequalities existing as the outcome of sports-like competition which is not a problem) is that too much of life is set up as a competition. Unnecessarily. Most serious high-stakes no-choice-in-the-matter competition isn’t much fun. At least I don’t find it to be so, maybe some folks thrive on it. And in most such cases I don’t want a post-facto evening out of the outcomes (as per Harrison Bergeron) but rather the suspension of competition in those areas of life.

18

The entire analogy is absurd because it doesn’t address the root of the problem:

Where do the boxes come from (did the people make them or find them just lying there)?

How do they get allocated?

What legitimate mechanisms does each individual have to obtain more boxes?

Is there something else that that boxes can be traded for?

Both positions seem to take a world view that the boxes are just there, pre-allocated.

I think conservatives enjoy indulging in a fiction of individualism, where hard work is rewarded and more wealth is an indicator of more work. In reality, we live in a world of complex systems that contain inefficiencies that prevent some people from maximizing their potential while allowing others to coast by. So I think what happens is when you have the conservatives who are out of work because their factories are no longer competitive in the global marketplace, they lose their minds.

19

The allocation of the boxes is the whole point of the metaphor: conservatives would do it one way, and liberals another. It’s simplified – even simplistic – but it parallels such things as the debate over affirmative action. Affirmative Action is real. It isn’t just a metaphor or an ideal: it is actually happening in our world…and there are people who compare it to the second illustration in the box metaphor, saying that it is “unequal.”

Okay, it’s unequal: the only point of the metaphor is, do you care if it is unequal? Do you favor equality or justice? Do you want to alleviate the relicts of past injustices (Jim Crow, segregation, denial of education, slavery) or do you want everyone to compete on a level playing field (even though many have advantages that others do not?)

You don’t need to demand that the metaphor be exact. That’s a waste of time.

(Were there actually deck chairs on the Titanic? Who brought them out of storage? Were they the folding kind, or solid, and did they have cushions or not? Were some of them on higher decks than others? etc. Dead waste of time.)

ETA: this post comes across much more rudely than I intended. I apologize. I was trying for a light tone of voice, but, in print, it just comes across as scolding. mrsmith537 is actually one of the posters here I admire the most, and his point is not as vacant as I made it out to be.

20

Right, but the actual problem in society has more to do with the creation and allocation of wealth (boxes). It’s the creation part that’s missing from the metaphor, and IMHO, the most important part. Because in the conservative mindset, it is the ability to create wealth (boxes) that entitles the wealthy to keep it. In the metaphor, the boxes are just found wealth.

The images also seem to have a rather right-leaning partisan view. A left leaning person might view the conservative image as the tallest, strongest and “most capable” individual keeps all the boxes he wants, then allocates the remaining ones as he sees fit, while the Liberal image would show a more equitable distribution.