Tell me again how anything in your post has anything whatsoever to do with altruism, which is what I was talking about. The claim was made that liberals are more altruistic because they support government programs. If you could prove that liberals give more of themselves to others (which is probably impossible to do), then you could make the claim that they were more altruistic.
John, I was referring to this part of your post, " If liberals are more trusting of human nature, why is it that they tend to want a government program to solve every social ill instead of trusting human nature to deal with the problem without coercion?"
I was attempting to explain my take on the “liberal” point of view concerning government programs vs private, using an event I witnessed and to answer at least that part of your question… apparently I failed.
Almost, but not quite.
To take it from a conservative point of view -
The liberal viewpoint believes that other people are selfish, and so assumes that everyone else must be compelled to be charitable. They do not assume that they are selfish. Therefore the idea that a given government program might driven less by charitable feelings and more by envy or a desire to interfere in the lives of others is rarely admitted. Liberals always insist that their motives are above reproach.
Look at the OP for the nearest example.
Conservatives recognize that people are selfish as well, but insist that all people, including government employees and social reformers, can also be selfish. They rely on the principle of Enlightened Self-Interest to offset this, which accounts for their belief in free-market capitalism. Additionally, conservatives recognize that people are less likely to be selfish when dealing with their own families, friends and neighbors. Which largely accounts for the faith conservatives put into “family values” to deal with social problems, and their preference for limited government.
Liberals trust no one to be altruistic except governments and themselves. Conservatives trust no one to be altruistic except their families and friends.
OK, it’s a cartoonish response. Whaddya expect from an OP like this?
Regards,
Shodan
To me the point isn’t just that there are differences between different people’s beliefs and views of the world; the point is that it is those differences that make the system work. I have a hard time deciding if I’m conservative or liberal. You might think that I’d be promoting this middle-of-the-road position, but I’m not, because that would probably lead to wishy-washy policies. It does however make me realize that we need both sides, not just one.
This is totally my own feelings. I depend on the liberals to keep the religious right from getting prayers back into schools. I also depend on the conservatives to fight to permit December 25th to remain Christmas. On a subject more relevant to this thread, I believe that government should regulate charities much more rigorously. For instance, if a charity practiced racial discrimination then they should be in deep trouble. :eek: [sup]I didn’t know I was that liberal![/sup] However, government does not need to be handing out the money.
So y’all keep fighting about who is right and who is stupid or greedy, etc., etc. I’ll just sit here and hope you never start agreeing. 
I’ve noticed that most people evaluate other’s intelligence based on how closely they match their own opinions. of course, the liberals tend to assign actively evil motives to anyone who opposes them. Conservatives don’t really much care what the liberals do; you are largely beneath our notice.
I don’t particularly mind a moderate (read: small) amount of public charity, but in my view I’d rather everyone take care of their own. I think we have effective proof that by and large the more powerful a state becomes the less vigorous and interesting it becomes. Self-delusion is a powerful force.
That you are wrong. However, since the majority of folks who have responded in this thread have more than adaquately layed out WHY you are FoS, I’ll leave it at that…except to say that my hat is off to the conservative/libertarinans in this thread, who have shown an inhuman amount of restraint to an OP that would have been better suited to The Pit.
Perhaps in future you can actually try and LOOK at the respective positions of both sides before flying off the handle…
-XT
OK. I missed that, as you also copied the part about altruism.
But I still don’t see how that is relevant to the part of the OP I was questioning-- that liberals are more trusting of human nature. In fact, the example you gave seem to imply that one must not trust human nature. So yes, I am confused.
Renob:
That’s the problem: It’s “philosophical” rather than tailored to meet the complex problems of the real world. I’m not up on welfare reform, but there’s got to be more to it these days than indefinitely handing out ample money to keep people mired in multi-generational cycles of dependancy. An ideal welfare program ensures the bsic neccessities of life to those who would otherwise be destitute while moving them from welfare to work as quickly as possible, using a carrot-and-stick. (It bears repeating that most recipents of gov’t aid are on it only a short time.)
It’s not like non-conservatives are breathlessly beholden to all things government and think “private charities bad”. Private charities play an important role, but cannot always be relied upon to be there and to be fully funded. Does any really believe that everyone will give their tax cuts to charities dollar for dollar? And of course, most of what the government does is not take care of the able-bodied poor. Should schools be strictly charitable affairs? How about the military? Can private charities afford to give tens of millions of retireees pensions or pay for their health care? (euthanize 'em all, I say :eek: )
You can give a man a fish, you can teach a man to fish, or you can just tell 'im to “go fish”. I support the middle one, but it has some costs.
Just noting that my replies were almost as stupid as the OP.
This proud conservative supports the occasional use of paragraph breaks.
While this is certainly the source of the opening diatribe, I hope the OP realizes that the nineteenth century political/philosphical movement of Conservatism has little or nothing to do with the political stance of the “conservatives” in the US today. To equate Republican/“Conservative” policies with anything Mill had to say about Conservatives in his day is just ridiculous.
I’ve not read this whole thread. Forgive me. I just want to say, as a liberal, that I repudiate the OP.
While some conservatives (notably those in the white house) are informed primarily by selfish values, there are others who are not. There are plenty of conservatives who are informed by a variant of Hegelian philosophy, who are strident individualists, but not necessarily selfish about it.
Their philosophy is all wet, of course, but it’s going way too far to say that conservatives are all selfish.
Daniel
Y’know what depresses me? That OPs like this are made by people with hundreds of posts and join dates in 2000.
Taking longer than we thought indeed.
And I think that liberal political philosophy is dry (i.e. its discounted and out of gas)…but I still think the majority of liberals are sincere about it. 
What would be funny is to see the reactions if someone started a thread similar to this one but that was stupidly bashing liberal philosophy…I have to wonder how long it would remain in GD before being moved to The Pit…where this thread belonged.
-XT
See, now, this is where I could never figure out the resistance against Bush’s “faith-based initiative” program. I think that a local charitable organization can do a far better job than the feds can using the same amount of money. As long as the grant money is available for any religious organization, I don’t see the problem.
One assumes he means well.
Initially, I thought the same thing. Now, I’d be more comfortable if there was another Admin iin office when the idea gets its due. I just don’t trust the Bush Admin on anything anymore.
(Yes, I remeber voting for them. Just shut up about it already. Sheesh.)
Welfare can not entirely eliminate poverty. Nothing can do that. There simply aren’t enough high-paying jobs for everyone in America to have one. (If there were, there’d be rampant inflation.)
But, welfare has kept a lot of people from going hungry, which is success enough for me to think that it’s worthwhile.
According to this link, charity simply cannot meet the burden.
http://www.keepmedia.com:/Register.do?oliID=225
According to this cite, most do:
(Bolding mine)
I think it vastly unfair to suggest ending a program simply because a few people abuse it. The vast majority of welfare recipients are good, honest people who desperately need help for a relatively short period of time. To penalize those kinds of people just because there are a few bad apples is just plain wrong.
First, let me congatulate you on a thoughtful and citeful reply. Next let me point out that it is pearls before swine (the OP). I’d love to carry on this discussion sometime in a classier place (another thread).
But sincerely, nice post.
I would never try to label all Conservatives or all Liberals. I’ve seen plenty of stupidity to go around and selfishness too.
It is the following kinds of statements and thinking that often lead Liberals to think that Conservatives are sometimes less than realistic about the problems of their fellow human beings:
-
A reference to being without work or being on welfare as “bad” behavior.
-
Failure to acknowledge that one-third of the homeless are children.
-
Failure to acknowledge that one-third of the homeless are mentally ill.
-
A lack of awareness of how long the average welfare recepient receives assistance.
-
Mentioning the “bad” behavior of single motherhood without mentioning the absent father.
-
A reference to " free-market capitalism" with no acknowledgement of the realities of our corporate welfare system.
-
Acknowledging that people are less likely to be selfish when dealing with their own families, friends and neighbors and that this accounts for the faith that Conservatives put into "family values to deal with social problems, and then denying homosexuals the right to set up their own families in the eyes of God and the law.
-
Accusing those who worked for Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Gay Rights, and civil liberties as having the dark motive of wanting to interfere in the lives of others rather than help the underprivileged.
-
Making statements such as