As far as I can tell from this thread, it means that conservatives are poopy-pants.
Well, you may not have accurately characterized the position of the “right.” Part of the problem with your approach, so far in this post, is your aggrandization of a philosophy possessed by some on the right as a philosophy “of the right”. This makes as much sense as equivocating some on the left’s desire of a Marxist state as the left-wing’s goal. But, I digress, as we can assume, arguendo, some of the the “right’s hobbies” include their incessant “ranting about 'excessive entitlements and ‘welfare queens’…” I stopped here because I want to address these two points.
I think you have confused obsessively criticizing “exessive entitlements and welfare queens” with absolutely being opposed to any and all social welfare programs. This equivocation you commit is part of the problem. You should not confuse condemnation of “welfare queens” and excessive entitlements with opposed to any and all social welfare programs.
The remarks of “welfare queen” and “excessive entitlements” are criticisms of a system, not demands for its dissolution. The right-wing looks at the social welfare programs and in its estimation perceives abuse, corruption, inefficiency, and promotion of lethargy, at the expense of taxpayers. They are demanding revision of those programs to address these issues.
I think most of the right-wing realize some social welfare is inevitable, indeed necessary, if not practical. Where they disagree with Democrats and others on the left, however, is with the size of these programs, and the ostensible inexorable expanding number of people in these programs. The right-wing wants the programs as minimal as possible, whereas the left-wing wants them to expand.
This is a reference to another group of people on the right. To be sure, there are some on the right aspiring for a government completely devoid of social welfare programs, and any redistribution of the wealth, what some may call a “libertarian” position, or a Robert Nozick utopia.
It is this group, those advocating for a Robert Nozick “night watchman state” I think is the probably the proper focus of your post. However, do not confuse this group within he right-wing as “The right-wing.” Now, here is where your argument makes a rather intriguing point in regards to these people.
The problem with this reasoning is the fact it suggests there is no other direction but the “other way” of a “property-owning democracy,” where such a phrase is defined, not surprisingly, in a manner people in this group will find objectionable.
“By contrast, in a property-owning democracy the aim is to carry out
the idea of society as a fair system of cooperation over time among
citizens as free and equal persons. Thus, basic institutions must from the
outset put in the hands of citizens generally, and not only of a few, the
productive means to be fully cooperating members of a society.”
Of course this reasoning rests upon a very contentious assumptions. One assumption is “productive means” cannot be in the “hands of a few” for citizens to fully be cooperating members of society.
Another assumption is a “fair” system of cooperation is one which “basic institutions…put in the hands of citizens generally, and not only of a few, the productive means to be fully cooperating members of society.”
Of course certain right-wing members are going to denounce this perception of “property-owning democracy,” in part becaus they reject these assumptions as true, and more importantly, because the scheme, as defined above, is redistribution of the wealth, something they are opposed to at all. You have conveniently set them up for failure by giving them two options, and only two options, both of which they find objectionable. You were remissed to ignore a third possibility, which is their philosophy, a Nozick “night watchman state.”
Emphasis mine.
The difference principle is one of Rawls distributive approaches, essentially one method for redistributing the wealth. Rawls, in his work, examines a few distributive methods, strict egalitarianism being one, and the Difference Principle being another. The Difference Principle allocates material goods, wealth, money, etcetera, in an unequal manner so long as the inequality does not produce the effect of the least advantaged in society would not be inferior to their position under strict equality, i.e. strict egalitarianism.
Of course they are going to reject this notion of “property owning democracy” since it is conveniently conceptualized as a redistribution of the wealth scheme, and their philosophy results in them having an aversion to governmental redistribution of the wealth.
Well, they are not in favor of “YOUR” understanding of “property-owning democracy,” or Rawls notion of “property-owning democracy.” What are they tyring to accomplish? Perhaps they want a smaller government, a government constrained by the U.S. Constitution, which arguably does not permit federal efforts to redistribute the wealth, labor laws, etcetera.
Perhaps they want a Nozick style of government articulated in the book, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” of a “night watchman state.” Maybe they are sick and tired of having what they labored for taken from them and given to someone else to pay for diapers, food, etcetera.
Have you considered these options, are did you actually think your false dilemma was the only game in town?
He provides the answer but the answer itself requires explication.
Emphasis mine…I have italicized and bolded the most important parts.
Essentially, in a “property owning democracy” the “productive means” are to be in the “hands of citizens generally” and not only of a few and the Difference Principle plays a very important role in achieving this goal. It is a regime relying upon a redistributive method, in which the productive means are redistributed from a few to citizens generally. Translation, in the crudest understanding, we are talking about redistribution of wealth, with the Difference Principle operating as Northern Star to guide this redistribution.
Right.
I can’t count the number of posters above who are making the most basic political errors - such as counting every bit of public spending or public works as socialism. This is a broadening of the term so wide as to make it meaningless - and is a mistake whether libertarians or liberals make it.
Socialism has always been properly understood as public ownership of productive works. This does not include schools or bridges.
Also - Republicans and Democrats alike will from time to time cut education budgets. See here or here.
As for what conservatives want, well, we want what anyone else wants - what Ronald Reagan described as, “the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order.” I have never found a better description than that.
Perhaps it takes a Canadian (and a very leftish one at that) to give the answer:
I think it is easiest to understand in relation to some other examples. An oligarchy will concentrate most of the capital in just a few hands. In this case a welfare state is just because it provides people with at least the minimum standard of life. Most people can’t really be responsible for themselves under such conditions.
You could have a socialist (democracy) economy and distribute the capital to society itself. In this case Rawls is going to be more concerned with political justice, as other systems obviously aren’t as even-steven as socialism. btw Rawls is neutral on the capitalism/socialism question. He lets the citizens decide that for themselves, and devises a theory of justice applicable to all cases.
In property owning democracies the capital (or ‘productive means’) is also more widely distributed, but it is owned and to a point earned by individuals.
The real point is to notice how conservatives seem to agree with none of this. At a time when the concentration of capital is reaching aristocratic levels, they full-throatedly denounce the welfare state. Their actions could be considered to be undermining education too, and ‘institutions’ generally- so long as they are government institutions. It doesn’t look like conservatives want economic justice.
Or consider this bit from section 36:
It may not be clear what conservatives want, but whatever it is, considering the numerous voter-restriction laws passed in conservative parts, the participation principle ain’t it.
Nonsense, I already demonstrated at length that they agree with it exactly s much as Leftists do.
Just as Leftists do.
I proved to you at great length that this is bollocks, and you repeat the same old nonsense.
You clearly do not want a debate on this. You just want to rubbish people you don’t agree with. You are making no attempt at constructing an argument or addressing the arguments of other posters.
All you want to do is sling baseless ad hominems. Good luck with that.
I will know better than to waste my time addressing your posts in future. :rolleyes:
Tacit assumptions of the welfare system, at least when originally conceived, are that most people are responsible, and of fairly equivalent abilities. Bad things might happen to good people, but good people have the desire and the ability to become self supporting as soon as possible.
This assumption was disappointed during the late 1960s when welfare rolls increased, even though unemployment declined. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of the working poor decided that because the good life was out of reach for them, they would opt for the easy life of leisure and welfare checks. There was even a welfare rights movement that encouraged this.
This was not politically sustainable. It helped to destroy the New Deal coalition. Blue collar workers had been an essential part of that coalition. The great majority of these earn fairly small incomes doing work that is not intrinsically enjoyable. Nevertheless, they get up every morning and go to work.
Although most blue collar workers exaggerate the cost and provisions of welfare, it is true that most getting the checks could have performed the work illegal Hispanic immigrants perform, and choose not to.
Wealthy conservatives want what they have received since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980: government provisions that make it easy for them to grow and preserve their wealth for future generations.
Populist conservatives - who better might be called “reactionaries” - are motivated by various angers, some of which seem unfocused. They do not like directions the United States is moving in, and wish a restoration of a previous time when life really was better for people like them.
The teabaggers recognize that economic growth is coming to an end in the United States, and that the United States has probably entered a period of economic decline that has no obvious stopping point. With few exceptions they have reasonably secure jobs or retirements. They know that millions of Americans face long term unemployment. They do not want their taxes to be raised to help them.
You get off the track right here. Grover Norquist, to name a conservative, seems to be saying that taxes should drop to zero and there should be no entitlements of any kind. I’d say ‘drowning the government in a bathtub’ pretty much spells the end of taxes and entitlements, because it is the end of government.
I don’t think I imply the opposite in the case of ‘Leftists’. (As an aside I don’t know what you mean when you use the term ‘Leftists’- it makes me think of South American socialists in a thread where I want to talk about American conservatives. Yes, Rawls’ theory of justice can be applied to those systems too- not much point asking questions about a welfare state when you’re a socialist, no?- but we aren’t going to have socialism here, and I think you’ll see that viewed in Rawls’ terms, it is unreasonable for the right to cast accusations of ‘socialism’ at the current administration.) The goals of ‘the left’ in America I think align much more closely with Rawls’ goal of satisfying the conditions of justice that conservatives’ demonstrated goals, which to me appear to starkly contrast the theory of justice. The left isn’t shooting for the horizon, simply seeking to satisfy the requirements of justice.
At least that’s how I’m arguing. I hope you’ll have a little bit of a sense of humor- it is a debate where we can explore these ideas. This isn’t Congress if you see what I mean.
You just don’t understand what I’m saying. The welfare state is just in conditions where you see an aristocratic-style distribution of capital. The right certainly seems to be supporting that, and so it is unjust for them to also oppose the welfare state.
The left doesn’t support the welfare state because it would rather have a property-owning democracy, which if the right succeeds in dismantling, will create conditions under which the left will have to support a welfare state (unless they want to join the party of unjust intentions). The welfare state has nothing to do with nose jobs, that is welfare-queen bullshit and you know it. The welfare state provides for a minimum lifestyle and not much more.
Right. Another choice is an aristocratic-style distribution of capital, only without any support for the disenfranchised.
Hmm, there’s Scott Walker, there is Chris Christie, and Gov what’s-his-name from Ohio share the motive of trying to destroy teacher unions in order to cut education spending. All of it? Well again Grover Norquist- government can’t be floating in your tub And funding education at the same time now can it?
What an absurd assumption.
Nope. The right wants an aristocratic-style distribution of capital while at the same time reducing education- an unjust choice of questionable motive. OTOH, when the results of education satisfy the conditions of justice, why then you can stop. There is no need to go to infinity.
First of all it isn’t clear at all that the Libertarian view satisfies the conditions of justice. Handing everything to the wealthy and cutting off the rest hardly seems likely to result in a just society. But look, there is more to this theory that would make this point easier to understand. Rawls’ original edition of the theory of justice received plenty of criticism, the main reason a revised edition exists at all. But he went on to clarify and refine his views further in Political Liberalism. Wiki provides a nice summary of the overall goals of the theory:
See how the overlapping consensus in a pluralistic society works? Under Rawls’ system, even groups with incompatible views can nonetheless arrive at political compromises which all can agree are just. This is how I got interested in Rawls in the first place- the Tea Party position of ‘give in to our demands or we’ll crash the economy’ simply weren’t reasonable. It seems impossible that the Tea Party can be acting from the foundation of a reasonable, comprehensive doctrine (see the wiki article), or else how could they not notice that they are effectively racketeering? Their behavior really isn’t appropriate for any system.
Meanwhile, whether or not the left really agrees with views on gun control or campaign finance, they have not mounted a campaign to establish the logical extreme of their views. Nope, in a compromise with the rest of society both firearm ownership laws and campaign finance laws are more liberal than ever. Hardly the destruction of any institution.
What institutions has the left destroyed? And how are the conditions of justice met with an increasingly aristocratic-style distribution of capital and simultaneously decreasing public aid? You are engaging in a false equivalency methinks.
I’ll find you some cites later if others don’t beat me to it. There are a number of initiatives either being enacted now or stongly promoted to deny voting rights to specific groups of (statistically) poorer people. The rationale has been clearly stated that ‘they don’t vote right’- again, I’ll find you a cite sometime.
That compares horribly with Citizen’s United. The people who control corporations can express themselves politically just fine. They don’t need a super-sized ability of political expression any more than they already enjoy.
Um- cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations while labeling any form of redistribution or even aid as ‘socialist’? How clear can it get?
Maybe I screwed up. Of course conservatives support inheritance. Rawls doesn’t treat inheritance practices as inherently unjust.
If the right achieves their goals of zero regulations via drowning the government and corporations are among the only institutions remaining, it will create an unjust set of circumstances. Meanwhile I don’t think you can find non-wingnut lefties who promote destroying the institution of the corporation.
I don’t know. The institutions which are the most able to promote economic justice are the ones taking the heat.
The left isn’t out to destroy institutions, the right only portrays it that way, employing false claims. Seriously, “The institution of marriage will be destroyed by gay marriage rights, therefore we must stop the spread of these rights and instead institute right-wing policy X,” isn’t rational. The right, however, clearly expresses the intention of destroying the institutions they target.
The left promotes pluralism. The right is closer to “our group will make all the rules, or else”. Seriously, who humors the evangelicals? Billionaire-friendly libertarian economics- for all? No rights for these, no votes for those?
How so? I don’t think you have made that point at all.
Some of us on the left don’t actually have “goals”, as such. Myself, I’m not at all sure what the ideal society will look like, I concentrate on making what we’ve got better. As it gets better and better, the outlines will become more clear.
And I can see considerable value in consumer choice as a driving force in our economy, it promotes quality. But for such an economy to work, the consumer must be adequately funded, otherwise it fails. This means we lean towards the generous. Regretably, some lazy assholes will benefit unjustly, but, right now, ambitious and greedy assholes are benefiting enormously.
As for property, sure, property is a human right, and deserves its place in the pantheon of gifts we give each other. But it is not the core human right, the gem in the center of rights for which the other human rights are merely grace notes.