At least with many “moral” issues driven by religion, I have long been of the opinion that it had nothing to do with the wishes of any hypothetical diety and everything about growth of the religion as a business.
Prohibitions on abortion, prohibitions on birth control, prohibitions on non-procreative couplings and sexual practices.
Long haul, this tends to make the membership grow without the need to recruit or convert. More followers = more money, more power, more influence.
On the issue of large vs small government I think the underlying disagreement is on which people in authority are trustworthy. For some reason Republicans seem to think that the leaders in the private sector (CEOs of powerful companies) have their interests in mind, but that elected officials don’t. As a Democrat I don’t understand that mindset. For example, even though I’m not a West Virginian, I trust Joe Manchin to look after the interests of the average person way more than I trust Don Blankenship to do so. To pick a less loaded example, compare the politicians that have voted in favor of net neutrality vs the CEOs of the big telecoms. I trust that the politicians who voted in favor of net neutrality have the interests of the average person in mind more than the CEOs do. In general, it also seems that Republicans are less likely to trust establishment Republicans than Democrats are to trust establishment Democrats. Why else would folks like Roy Moore, Don Blankenship, Sharon Angle, etc. even get off the ground?
In fantasy land, maybe. In fact, gun control in the past has often been motivated by, “If we allow anyone to have guns, those uppity black people will shoot us!” Gun control laws against ‘saturday night specials’ were designed to keep guns out of the hands of poor people. Just as the Davis-Bacon act was originally all about keeping down those upstart black people willing to work for less than union wages (unions they couldn’t join) in order to get food for their family.
I like to think of this as one side bases their decision on knowledge (what is the latest and greatest), the other on wisdom (things known and proven throughout time) . Though the vast majority base their decision on group think.
And teachings? Where do you think those who claim logic and fact get their logic and facts? Answer: from teachers. Please don’t discredit teachers or what they do teaching.
The Qur’an, 51:47.
والسماء بنينها بأيد وإنا لموسعون
And it is We who have built the universe with power, and verily it is We who are steadily expanding it.
(Translation by Muhammad Asad.)
Asad remarks: “The phrase innā la-mūsi‘ūn clearly foreshadows the modern notion of the ‘expanding universe’—that is, the fact that the cosmos, though finite in extent, is continually expanding in space.”
The key verb there is awsa‘a, literally ‘to expand’, the causative form derived from the basic verb wasi‘a ‘to be wide’.
In modern US society pretty much all of politics seems to be a proxy for multiculturalism. Some people feel threatened by multiculturalism while others embrace it.
Even gun control is a proxy for multiculturalism.
For the most part, it is white men with conservative views who feel threatened by multiculturalism who are the ones buying guns and getting CCW permits.
On the left, gun control is about accidental and intentional deaths. On the right gun control is about leaving them defenseless in a dangerous world full of crime, terrorism and multiculturalism.
But either way, at root there are 2 groups in US politics.
-People whose demographics enjoy special benefits and power due to those demographics. Men, whites, christians, native born Americans, heterosexuals, etc. They want to keep the system that gives them special powers and benefits. Of our 45 presidents, 44 have been white men. All at least pretended to be christian and heterosexual.
-People who reject that hierarchy because it under represents them in positions of power and influence, and want a more egalitarian society. Pretty much anyone who doesn’t fit into the list of demographics above is more left leaning than those who fit into them.
Of course the first group is mostly used by plutocrats to get votes to push a plutocratic economic agenda. But that has always happened
I agree with Wesley.
To elaborate on my earlier point (which nobody responded to anyway), I think the sense of self is one of those invisible, subconscious things that forms opinions… EG when people say “I’m not racist, I don’t care if you’re white, black, purple…” (they always throw purple in there to show how open minded they are), they are revealing that they see the world as themselves as individuals, judging/not-judging other individuals, all independent of any history, social stratification, privilege, etc. They don’t see people as groups or subject to social dynamics. It looms large in the mythmaking of the right, Horatio Alger-style stories of people proving anyone can succeed, despite whatever deck is stacked against them. The liberal mindset can have tunnel vision where everything is about sociopolitical inequity, and since that language will always feel like cheating to the right (playing the race card, etc.) we talk past each other. If everyone accepted that life is complex we could probably get along better but there is so much resistance and resentment on either side of the other’s central story I’m not sure that’s possible.
I think the underlying issue of abortion is that conservatives want to make women suffer the consequences of sex outside marriage.
I agree with the premise that there are deep unspoken beliefs and ideas which are not the same as the ones we argue with. But I do not think the OP is accurate about delineating them.
*"IMHO, with most political disputes, there is a stated, official reason for something - which is often just window-dressing - and underneath that, there is the un-stated, real motive or point of friction that causes the rub. And although there may be a hundred points of disagreement in a debate, it often really just boils down to one or two “irreconcilable differences” - the one or two things that the disputing parties cannot compromise or agree on.
For instance, with regards to creationism vs. evolution, I think this is very often not about the science of it - just window dressing - but rather, in fact a proxy “Does God exist?” debate raging underneath the surface, with creationists overwhelmingly on the side of “God exists” and evolutionists overwhelmingly on the side of “He does not exist.” (Notably, it is easier for a Christian to be an evolutionist than it is for an atheist to be a creationist.)"*
Since the majority of people who accept evolution believe in God, at least in the US, this can’t be the right dialectic. The origin of creationism was a reaction to the success of the scientific method, and to a sense that the role of the Bible as an explainer of the world was being displaced. Thus it really gained momentum in the 19th century. I believe that the emotion propelling creationism is fear. Fear that the old hierarchies are being upended, and fear of the world as a place filled with unbearably complex uncertainties, such vast unknowns, so utterly changeable.
“With regards to abortion, the true point of friction seems to be, “Does the mother’s right to do what she wants with her body surpass the fetuses’ life?” I do not think this is about “Does life begin at conception?” or “Is a fetus a person?” because many pro-choicers would still support abortion rights even if a fetus is a person. <snip>The talk about whether a fetus is alive, viable, a person, etc. is really just window dressing and not the true point at hand.”
The true point of friction is that those opposed to abortion see it as infanticide – murder of innocents. This is a pretty damn immovable place, you must admit. Pro choice people see abortion as a health care option for women. There is a lot of social baggage around these things, admittedly.
“The gay-wedding-cake baker issue is largely one of “Should the baker obey God or man?” The baker - assuming that he/she believes that it would be a violation in the eyes of God to support/endorse a gay wedding by providing his business services for it - which is a long train of assumptions - is essentially saying “I must obey God rather than man.” The gay couple - regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, or other factors - are essentially saying, “Man’s law trump’s God’s.” Of course, there are Christian bakers who would have no qualms about catering to a gay wedding whatsoever and don’t see it as a violation against God, and there are no doubt some bakers who don’t want to serve a gay couple for reasons having nothing to do with religion at all, but by and large this seems to be a “Obey God (or, at least, my beliefs or assumptions about God) or man?””
I think you are close but not on it. The crux of the matter is, what are the exact rights of believers in a secular society? The US does not outlaw religious practices but neither does it enshrine them in law. Thus the dilemma.
“Gun control - not sure about this one - seems to be a twofold, “Does the Constitution outweigh numerous gun deaths,” and also, “Do guns do more good than harm?””
First, the constitution has zero to do with gun laws, the 2nd amendment is the artificial club gun owners use to defend themselves with. Also, of course guns do more harm than good – the entire POINT of guns is to harm, so how can that not be true? Here I believe that the crux of the matter is the non-acceptance of the role of government. Jared Diamond in The World Until Yesterday makes a very convincing argument that the sole original role of government was simply to keep males from killing each other and raping women at will.
“Taxation - seems to be, “How much is one’s fair share to pay in taxes?”, with much of the disagreement all stemming from just what one considers to be fair or unfair, especially with regards to taxing the rich.”
The underlying question here is more about seeing the benefits of your taxes directly. The suspicion that your money is going to help strangers – strangers that you yourself would never help personally even if you knew them – seems to be a deep part of anti-taxation emotion. Anti-taxation is also a result of an ancient belief, one of those at the root of conservative thought, that money and good fortune are gifts from God, and poverty and misfortune are punishments for sins. Therefore taking from those who have and giving to those who have not is subverting God’s will.
“Voter-ID: Multiple points of disagreement, but one seems to be, “Is voter fraud a significant threat, or could it be?” Those who support voter ID would probably strongly align with “yes” and those who oppose it would align with “no.””
Voter ID is about racism. Sorry. That’s all that’s about.
Pretty sure my opinion isn’t going to be popular, but:
On the first part: I think it’s more values that the OP is perceiving that are going past each other, and I think it’s what we call the liberal-conservative split stateside. My 2 cents on it- and I’m at work so I’m not going to dig up sites, this is my opinion after much reflection- is that most people identifying as liberal in America don’t trust people but do trust institutions, and most conservatives are the opposite. Everything else follows.
For liberal-minded people, I don’t know if it’s an authority fallacy or what, but there’s a desire I see to use social and legal force to compel people to behave in what they see as an acceptable manner. Inherent in this is the idea that they can’t trust individuals to step up or actually control their behavior acceptably on their own.
For conservative-minded people, you can trust individuals, but institutions tend toward corruption and/or bureaucratic waste, and are not effective. Since there is not the inherent trust in the instruments and institutions that are trying to compel behavior, conservatives react with hostility to feeling forced instead of persuaded.
Rough example:
Take gun control. Liberals believe guns are too dangerous in the hands of individuals, because individuals in the collective are inherently untrustworthy. Therefore, they need to be impartially banned, to prevent anyone not formally and strictly controlled having access.
Conservatives believe that if the bulk of individuals are armed or allowed to be so, it is irrelevant if a rogue individual attempts to say, shoot up a restaurant, because “someone will step up.” There’s trust in individual action in the collective there; that someone in the crowd will respond.
More broadly, I’ve toyed with the idea that liberals are more concerned that in the crowd, there’s a madman that needs to be contained, and conservatives are confident that someone in the crowd will choose to step up if that happens. Very broadly speaking.
Consider the arguments about social welfare programs. Liberals accuse conservatives of being heartless, conservatives accuse liberals of being enablers. Parse their arguments. Conservatives typically seem to believe a voluntary, private safety net will exist (ie, voluntary charity) and that the only reason for desiring a centrally controlled safety net in addition to this is to be dependent, causing suspicion of motive; liberals believe that no such private net can exist (or it’s too insecure) and that it must be centrally provided for the good of all, and since it’s the only safety net they trust, any attempt to restrict it is heartless.
An interesting parallel is in studies I’ve seen that conservatives are more comfortable taking business risks. There’s an inherent trust/lack of fear for security that might be a truer description of the divide I see, a “someone will catch me” surety that one group has while the other group thinks “someone has to be assigned or no one will be there when I need to be caught”.
Another rough example: Creationism
As many have noted, there’s nothing inherently anti-evolutionary in Christianity unless you mandate that creationism must be YEC, that’s forcing a collapsing tautology and is dishonest debating.
I’d put forward what’s actually being discussed isn’t “Does God exist” but more fundamentally “Churches aren’t centrally controlled and are too-powerful independent institutions, so they need to be eliminated. Disempower the churches!”
You watch, the anti-creationism side nearly always devolves into identifying the institution of churches, and their bureaucratic actions, with inherent association with the belief structures. I’m not catholic, I don’t give a damn about the Crusades or the Popes, yet if I say anything in a debate historic political mistakes or outright heinous acts committed by the Catholic church are brought up. Show me where Christianity, as a religion, inherently calls for the existence of the Inquisition, and using the Inquisition as tarring the underlying religion can make sense. It’s about the political institution not being centrally controlled, so it doesn’t have to respond to societal changes and in fact can act as a bastion against shifts in societal norms. Plus, sometimes honestly atheism. If you like, it’s a-democratic, which is why Christianity is targeted in western nations and Islamic churches aren’t. Not powerful enough politically to be seen as defiant of the will of the majority.
Sidebar:
I think somewhere in there is the idea that conservatives care more about guilt and liberals about shame, which is to me the whole core of the current “coastal elites” language being spoken of with “the media”, etc. It frequently comes up in the values implied in the arguments tossed back and forth. Liberals talk about “being like Europe” and conservatives are confused or nonplussed; conservatives talk about personal accountability and liberals look for it to be some form of dog-whistling because the value structure required is obviously not in play.
To my second point: This is where you get into virtue-signaling, etc. Concisely: People argue for different reasons. Some people debate not to honestly debate, but to either dehumanize their opposition as personal fulfillment/validation and/or to virtue signal their group belonging and/or to gain status for their group. That’s also something the OP needs to consider.
Final generic thought:
The whole issue with white America today is Europe, not lingering “white identity politics.” The Europeans that didn’t care for socialism, escaping to the US was a relief valve. The whole wars of religion and enlightenment didn’t scar African and Asian nations the same way, so there wasn’t a rigidly individualistic movement that was sent off to its own isolationist colony. Or, it makes no sense to talk about “white privilege” and “white culture” without questioning what is white culture not socially or structurally, but in a cultural sense of shared beliefs, etc.
I’d say it’s:
If that value set is real, then the rejection of social/community oriented solutions by the “old” (non-recent European) white segment of the American population isn’t racial, it’s a rejection of communalism in favor of a very cold, indifferent individualism. Not going to bridge that gap by labeling them “deplorable” and racist. It also neatly explains the appeal of Trump and what points he’s most popular on, for those still baffled.
I say this as a man with mixed racial background who doesn’t consider himself white or not white- I consider myself a mongrel who belongs to my native regional culture first, American second, and think the whole raging left-right divide today is stupidly divisive. We’re quibbling over the font the solution is submitted in, dammit.
That’s misleading and peculiar wording and comes across as an attempt to cast those sympathetic to transgender issues as irrational. A more accurate statement is that one side recognizes that a conflict between birth gender and self-identified gender is a genuine condition worthy of accommodation, while the other side doesn’t.
I would not consider creationism arguments to be either about the existence of God or about the origin of the universe, though creationists will obviously have strong views about both. In my view the crux of creationism arguments is to discredit evolution, and specifically to deny that humans evolved from more primitive life forms and that life itself arose spontaneously. I would cite, for example, the idiot Ken Hamm and his “creation museum”. The question about whether God may be said to have been the motive power behind the Big Bang is not something can be fairly described as “creationism” because it’s really more philosophy than science, and is not scientifically controversial because it is not – and cannot be – either supported or contradicted by science.
The teaching of creationism in schools may be the hot-button political issue on this topic, but the core of the logical argument is whether or not Darwinian evolution is true. It’s just that the nutbars who believe in Biblican creationism want it taught in schools as fact, either alongside actual science or instead of actual science. They feel the same way about banning the teaching of climate change, or demanding that it be taught as an unresolved controversy.
That seems strangely at odds with this (emphasis mine):
By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. When Lemaître and Daniel O’Connell, the Pope’s science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion, though he also was of the opinion that these two fields of human experience were not in conflict.
Lemaitre was both a priest and a genuine and accomplished scientist. The Big Bang singularity and its chronological evolution has since been considerably developed by new findings in quantum physics and cosmology.
Wow, I’ve never heard gun control maligned as racist before! That’s a new one. You might note that many places with the strongest gun control – Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia – are not America and don’t particularly have a lot of black people. Or paranoia of poor people.
There’s some truth to the fact that in the US in the 19th century some laws had the effect of (initially) banning gun ownership by blacks and later discouraging ownership by blacks and the lower economic classes, but to equate this in any way with the purpose and necessity of modern gun control laws is utterly ludicrous.
This isn’t too bad, but I do see more than a bit of assumptions that are at best, incorrect.
Liberals don’t really trust institutions. But, they do trust institutions that are answerable to the voters more than to institutions that are not answerable to the voters. Less a matter of trust, and more a matter of seeing that there are particular institutions that have only their own self interests at heart, and that there needs to be larger institutions that have the needs of the constituency at heart in order to prevent the selfish institutions from causing too great a harm.
Other way around, really. Individuals can change. Social institutions require more effort.
This is neither a good example of a liberal position, nor the thinking behind it.
They may step up, sure. After people have been shot.
Over in positive gun news of the day, there is a discussion about a man who walked into a restaurant, shot a few people, walked out, and only then was confronted by a person with a gun who shot him dead. Fortunately, the shooting victims survived, but it was not due to the actions of anyone “stepping up”.
I don’t disagree that you’ve caught the conservative position, but you missed the liberal position by a fair bit.
But liberals see that such voluntary private safety net does not exist, and so see the need to fill in a gap that is not being filled. Liberals also see that charity goes to causes that are favored by those providing the charity, and therefore does not go to those that are unfavored by those providing the charity, leaving the unfavored falling through the cracks.
Conservatives can believe that private charity is superior to tax dollars being used to ensure a social safety net, but that belief needs to be held onto in the face of contradictory evidence.
As a liberal business owner, I fully disagree with this assessment.
Creationism is YEC. What you re thinking of is intelligent design.
Yeah, that idea has no support whatsoever. There are many, many, many christian liberals. It is not that churches need to be eliminated, it is only that churches should not be setting public policy. If that is “empowering”, so be it, but they were supposed to be disempowered long ago with the separation of church and state.
I disagree with the premise that anti-creation devolves into any such thing. Anti-creation is simply science. Creationism, even intelligent design, is trying to shoehorn a god in there somewhere in the ever narrowing gaps.
The rest of the stuff that you talk about does get brought up, sure, but mostly when people try to compare christianity to other religions, and claim that there is something inherent about christians that makes them more peaceful, more generous, less corrupt than either other religions or the secular. If you say that Christianity is a religion of peace, then it is not remiss to point out the inquisitions.
Liberals sometimes talk about things that europe does, because they have solved problems that we are still struggling with, and so is useful to mine for examples.
As far as conservatives and personal accountability, there are two things about that. First, no one has what they have through their own efforts alone. You could be the smartest, most dedicated, bestest at everything, and if you were in a forest by yourself, you wouldn’t amount to much. It is society that even the most self made people are dependent upon. Liberals recognize that, conservatives refuse to.
Throwing “virtue signaling” at someone because they express their opinion is really just a form of trying to rather disingenuously tear down a debate opponent because actual logic has failed. OTOH, claiming to be more moral because they are a christian is actually a pretty massive virtue signal.
The US was not populated by people escaping socialism. It was populated by people escaping religious tyranny, despotism, monarchy, and feudalism.
That there are those who would like to reinstitute religious rule, and use capitalism to reinstate an effective feudal society is not something that is being pushed by the left.
[quote]
I’d say it’s:
[quote]
That’s where I think things differ. Conservatives do believe that the world is fair. Taht success goes to those who deserve it. It is liberals who realize that things are not fair, and that success often goes to some random person, while those who actually deserve it due to their actual efforts are not rewarded.
Liberals know that life is not fair, but they can try to make it fairer.
Right, it is being conservative in the most basic of definitions, refusing to change.
I think it’s a bit more than that.
So, this is the part I’m choosing to address- there’s quite a bit to get into, and I’m not terribly interested in chasing whether defining intelligent design as inherently something not falling under the umbrella of “creationism” is a collapsing tautology, that’s what happens when you aren’t working on a common usage of terms- because I think it’s the most relevant to the OP. We can chase the other somewhere else if you’d like.
A lot of liberals seem to believe that conservatives think really big success only comes to those who have earned it- we’re talking self-made millionaires, etc.- and that they’re the only ones who see the world isn’t fair.
Here’s the logic point I think isn’t in common, again quick brush strokes.
Conservative belief:
That’s why the pushback against giving a leg up to those who haven’t. You take your chances, pay your dues, and sometimes it pays off big. People that are self-made millionaires have paid their dues, as a rule- the stockbroker who spent their 20s making coffee and sleeping 2 hours/night in their office after giving up their teen years to studying late nights and is now a hedge fund manager. Does this mean that everyone that does those things ended up a hedge fund manager? Nope. It does mean the guy who has it earned it by paying for it.
I think most on the left don’t get this. You do everything in life “right”- ie, make the fewest number of stupid choices you can manage- and you should at least be OK with a small chance of being extremely well-off (opportunity is a factor). If you make constant poor choices, you gain a 0% chance of becoming successful. That’s why the onus is put on bad choices. It’s not that those that put in the effort deserve the reward; it’s the you only qualify for the reward if you’ve already put in the work. If opportunity knocks and you’re not ready; well, that’s on you.
This I disagree with. There are many millionaires who did nothing to earn it. They started out as millionaires, or the won the lottery, or they got lucky and happened to be in the right time and place.
And when that hedge fund manager who was low in his class, but did okay because his parents were wealthy, who did not ever work a menial job to get himself through college, does a hostile takeover of a company and strips it of the assets and capital that previous owners have invested their efforts into putting in, does he really “earn” that money? The company that he interacted with is worse off, the employees that worked for that company are worse off, the consumers who patronized that company are worse off. The only person who is better off is the person who managed to move that working capital from the company to his own wallet.
I don’t think of that as “earning”. I think of that as legalized theft.
There are many who did very little right, and yet still ended up very well off.
You have, in these paragraphs, essentially tried to explain the “just world hypothesis” that conservatives operate under. That people are poor because they made poor decisions, and that people are wealthy because they made good ones. That you put in a bit of a caveat that sometimes those who put in the work don’t get rewarded doesn’t change that.
Yeah, I specifically called out people who had accumulated their own money. You’ve changed conditions, then hit me with an endless series of emotional examples, not a clear argument.
How did he do well? Did he have tutors and have to put in extra coursework? Sounds like he did extra work to make up for poor choices. Or is this a paranoid fantasy of his parents buying off his professors for good grades- because if he couldn’t deliver in the real world, he’d not make hedge fund manager.
How did he get started not making coffee with a poor academic record? I’m smelling more than a whiff of fantasy here.
That’s a beef with capitalism- the rules of the game are available to everyone. If they play more ruthlessly, that makes them an asshole, it doesn’t make it something moral or immoral. His own shareholders are better off, he’s better off- so there’s utils on both sides. How was this possible? Did the company not retain its competitive edge? Then the company failed its people.
It’s more accurate to phrase as people commonly remain poor or remain wealthy because they continue to make poor decisions or good decisions. That you can only transition from the former to the latter by making good choices; if you make poor choices you’re not going to make that transition. There’s nothing inherently immoral about that. And you’re inserting your own opinions all over the place- you can call it legalized theft, or you can call it playing the game by commonly known rules available for understanding by all players. That’s not something to like or dislike, that’s simply how the world is. I smell emotional investment, and emotions are fundamentally not rational.
There’s an old joke on fundamentalist Christians I’m put in mind of:
A very religious man is washed overboard in a storm. A lifeboat is launched, and he refuses to climb on board, telling them that “God will save me.” Another boat comes by, and they toss him a life preserver; when asked why he doesn’t climb on it he replies “I don’t need to, God will save me.” Finally, a Coast Guard vessel comes by and a man swims out to him, and he shakes the man off, insisting “No, God will save me.”
He then dies and goes to the pearly gates. When he sees God, he asks, “Why didn’t you save me?” God replies “What are you talking about? I sent two boats and the Coast Guard out!”
Needing help is one thing, but there’s nearly always some opportunity somewhere; so if there isn’t, it will probably be along shortly. Just because it’s not the opportunity you want, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take it.
You’ve really never met anyone who was an incompetent fuck up but nonetheless managed to fail upwards? You must have led a very sheltered life.
I’m not sure you understand the point of that joke.
OK, people who have definitely earned their own money, according to your conservative principles (just a few that come to mind):
Jordan Belfort (“the wolf of Wall Street”), the guys who ran Enron, the guys who ran Worldcom, just about every crook on Wall Street and every incompetent corporate CEO with a 7-figure salary and a golden parachute who milks the company for all it’s worth while it self-destructs – and there are hundreds of them; all the fine well-paid executives at Pacific Gas & Electric who so poisonously contaminated all the drinking water in the town of Hinckley and then denied it, and just one more among thousands that I hadn’t heard of before that recently made news: former silicon valley darling Elizabeth Holmes, widely celebrated as an ambitious young self-made billionaire until it turned out that her breakthrough blood-testing device was a scam that had endangered people’s lives, and was sued by the SEC for fraud. I suppose I may as well throw in another hardworking entrepreneur: Bernie Madoff – living the American dream until a couple of things sadly went wrong for him.
It’s not that there aren’t good hardworking people in business, it’s that there are also a lot of shady ones, and on the subject of “trust” which you seem so big on, progressives tend to trust democratically elected governments accountable to the people to protect us against liars, crooks, scoundrels, and cheats. Your position seems to be (quoting directly) “For conservative-minded people, you can trust individuals, but institutions tend toward corruption and/or bureaucratic waste”.
Which seems to say you can trust everybody and everything except government. Oddly enough, what individuals and all those other institutions have in common is a self-serving interest. An accountable government is the only hope – the last best hope of mankind, I’ve heard it said – that people have for collective representation against these powerful islands of self-interest. You seem to favor an anarchy with few if any laws, because everybody is basically good. Look at my examples again and tell me if they support that ridiculous premise. The premise they seem to support is that everybody acts in their self-interest to the maximum extent that they can get away with.
Think you missed a big part. - People that think they are protecting themselves from the government.
Which, may… be a tiny, tiny, tiny bit true. But so unlikely to happen it approaches zero. But we are looking at some very vocal people that think that the rights of others (such as abortion, or LGBT) are going to somehow be forced on them. Don’t want an abortion? No problem. Don’t ‘want’ to be gay? No one is saying you should be. They are welcome to that as long as they don’t force their religion on others. Same difference. Why could they possibly care that someone is gay? Why could they possibly care what religion I am or am not?
I am a gun owner as I have inherited a number of them. I am open to ideas about restrictions.
I find it funny that many that support a wanabe dictator, are often those that support zero gun restrictions.
Endless series?? It was literally one sentence containtaining 3 examples. And that you consider them to be “emotional examples” means that you either don’t believe that they can happen, or something. I’m not sure what the point of your attempt at being dismissive there is.
People are good at failing upward. You get through school with a C average, that doesn’t stop you from taking someone else’s seed money, using that to leverage your way into a company, and then force the company to stop using its profits to maintain and grow its infrastructure of capital, labor, and reputation, and instead cash in that capital that others have invested and put it into their own pocket.
This is a common thing going on right now. I see many companies that used to be pretty good to work for or to receive services from being drained of what makes them valuable.
Family connections, fraternity connections, social connections, high school friend connections, along with simple bullshitting.
Can’t say what it is that you are smelling, but, as we lack olfactory transport over IP technology, it’s something coming from your side of the screen.
The point of having laws and regulations are not to protect the weak from the strong, they are to protect the moral from the immoral. Laws and regulations on capitalism have many loopholes and failings in that regard. Taking advantage of those loopholes to the harmful detriment of others is actually an immoral act, even if it is not illegal.
The shareholders are better off in the short term. The stock price goes up a tick, or the dividend payout may be a bit better. Meanwhile, the employees and the consumers are worse off. But, the company looses its competitive edge and fails its people, but the investor doesn’t care, as he has already made his money back with a nice profit, and is ready to move onto the next.
It’s more accurate to say that those who start wealthy have much more freedom to make many more poor decisions and still be successful than those who are poor.
Yeah, I actually told that one myself back at the pulpit when I was a serious church goer.
I prefer the one where they guy asks god for winning the lottery, and god agrees. After years and years and years of not winning the lottery, finally the guy dies, and asks god, “I thought you said I was going to win the lottery.” And god replies, “All you had to do was buy a ticket.”
Fun… Story time. 
This is more “just world” bullshit. There are not always opportunities, and there are not always opportunities along shortly. When opportunities do come up, they may come at a cost (note that “opportunity cost” is a real thing) that is greater than you can afford or can stomach.
And there is also the fact that for some reason, you seem to be focussing on millionaires here, which make up such a tiny fraction of the work and consumer force that they really are barely a blip. But, just like many, you consider these statistical blips to be more important than the tens of millions of people that are directly effected by their actions.
It is not that someone that works hard deservers millions of dollars, it is that anyone who is willing to put in the effort should at least be able to make a living wage. That is what is being denied because the focus is more on how much money we can give to the wealthy, than how to keep people from being impoverished.
Immigration seems to be another big area of talking past each other. Republicans usually make the argument that they are in favor of enforcing immigration law, whereas Democrats tend to support an immigration policy that is based more on the reality of people on the ground rather than strictly following the laws on the book. As a Democrat, however, I can’t help but believe that what those on the right really want is to keep out as many immigrants as possible. If it was just about following the law, they have it in their power to change the law to increase the numbers allowed to come legally, but they refuse to do so.