What Makes One Liberal or Conservative?

In my case, I grew up in a single parent family where my mother was totally apolitical. I don’t recall a single discussion of politics at all with my mother. We were very poor, and lived in tract housing where almost every family there was on welfare. My mother worked for minimum wage, and my brother and I both worked from the age of 13 or so, so we wouldn’t have to go on welfare.

So I came about my conservative beliefs purely from my own experiences and from my own reading and reflection. I saw first-hand what welfare did to people, and I didn’t like it. Many of the other people living in my neighborhood were in single parent families where the mom stayed home on welfare. Many of my friends had mothers like this, and to an amazing extent they were lazy, bitter, angry at the government for not giving them more, and consigned to their status in life. Many were alcoholics, and a couple of my friends were beaten, locked out of their houses, and in general had miserable lives. They were stigmatized by being on welfare, they lacked self-esteem as a result of being wards of the state, and made no attempt to better themselves.

In contrast, my family always had a strong work ethic. It was simply unthinkable that we would accept handouts from anyone else. Too much pride. So we worked, and we saved. Eventually, my mom saved enough to put a down payment on a tiny house. We moved out of the tract housing and into our own house. As the value of the house increased, my mom used it to buy herself a little country store, and did just fine. She recently sold the store and retired to a comfortable modest living.

Today, many of those people I grew up with are still living in that tract housing, and their children are living there too. Welfare for them was a trap that allowed them to indulge their weaknesses and which sapped them of their belief that they could do better. Their children grew up without role models, and came to believe the same thing.

I came to believe that welfare was soul-deading and destructive. So when I was old enough, I started reading about economics and social policy, and the stuff I read on the left just didn’t sound right to me. It didn’t match my own experiences. The free market, libertarian, economically conservative thought matched up perfectly. When I read about the disincentive effects of welfare, I knew it was true. When I read others saying that social assistance should be temporary and always of a form that helped someone up rather than just making them comfortable, I agreed. And when I read about communism I knew exactly why it wouldn’t work, and at the time I did a lot of reading about the Soviet Union and other communist states, and what I saw there reinforced everything I believed about the nature of state power and what redistributionist policies really do.

At the same time, growing up on the ‘wrong side of the tracks’, I knew lots of people that your typical suburban Republican wouldn’t have anything to do with. Bikers, drug users, hard working blue collar guys. These were my friends. That led me to being a social libertarian. I saw nothing wrong with their chosen lifestyles, so long as they were paying their own way. Most of them were very happy in their chosen lifestyles. One of the nicest guys I knew worked for a rail company by day, and by night he liked to come home, light a joint, listen to music, and play his guitar. I spent many an enjoyable evening at his place, and it infuriated me that what he was doing was seen to be criminal and that some would punish him for it. I find that abhorrent.

The other influence on my life was my grandparents. I was very close to them, because my mom would ship us off to live with them on the farm for half the year. Both of them worked their asses off, and were a living example that liberal claims that the poor can’t help their lot in life were simply not true. When I was born, my grandparents lived in the same tract housing I grew up in. My grandfather was 53 years old, and was working as a pump jockey in a gas station. He also did other work on the side and after hours to make extra money. He had a grade 9 education, and my grandmother a high school diploma. My grandfather had a bad back, and if anyone had a claim to being unable to make it in society, it was them.

However, they eventually saved enough to put a small down payment on a tiny farm in Saskatchewan. It was a decrepit old farm, with a house built in the late 1800’s which had no running water and no heat. Both of them worked their asses off on that farm (as did I), and my grandfather worked as an insurance adjuster in the off season to pay the bills. Eventually, he built a new modern house with his own hands and the help of the neighbors. Through hard work, they turned that beat-up old farm into a little jewel, year by year. They had a happy life, and when they retired they sold the farm for half a million dollars and retired in comfort. Neither of them had a handout, and neither had much of an education. They just knew how to work, and how to save. Their example made me less tolerant of the argument that the poor ‘can’t help it’, and my experience in a welfare neighborhood made me see how self-induced much of the poverty around me was.

Let me say something about the neighbors on the farm. The other thing I learned from that experience is that the best charity is local charity. Government charity creates resentment, and splits people into groups - those who give, and those who take. It’s not good for society. But absent government charity, communities come together and help each other, and the effects of that were positive. The people of the community helped my grandparents build a new house. My grandparents felt immense gratitude for that, and displayed it by ‘passing it on’. We went and helped others do the same. At harvest time, if someone fell ill the rest of us would go to his farm to help pull the crops in. This kind of charity sets examples. It binds communities together. It brings out the good in people. Forced redistribution by government creates resentment and a culture of dependency. Not only that, it displaces private charity and helps destroy communities by removing the need for people to depend on their neighbors. It is destructive.

As a teen, I gravitated towards the writing of Robert Heinlein, who shared the same individualistic, self-determination ethic that I had. Not having a dad, my role models were the father figures and young men in Heinlein’s fiction, and I believe that influenced my thinking and helped place my ‘moral center’ where it is today.

As I got older, I started reading social and political philosophy: Hume, Mill, Hobbes, Von Mises, Hayek, etc. Hayek and Friedman in particular really influenced my ‘adult’ political beliefs. Hayek showed how regulatations beget more regulations, and how chosing the state as your instrument of social justice really was the ‘Road to Serfdom’. He also showed how government simply cannot work well, because it lacks the information that the market has. There are sound structural reasons to prefer a free market over government control. Friedman gave spirited, principled defenses of capitalism and the market not just on moral grounds, but on practical ones. He showed how the market is not anarchy, how there are powerful forces that lead economic actors into the ‘right’ paths, and how the market is actually pretty good at protecting works and consumers.

Thus my philosophy: make your own way in life. Demand nothing from others. Do not interfere with others unless they are interfering with you. Avoid the trap of believing that government can cure society’s ills, because it usually just makes it worse.

So, what do you honestly think would have been the result if those specific people didn’t have Welfare? Do you think they would suddenly have good role models and be smart and driven? Because in societies without safety nets, not all people become successful.

I’d rather have people be lazy and bitter than dead of disease and starvation. There will always be a portion of the population who are out-and-out failures. The question is: What will be the penalty?

And the follow-up question - who will pay that penalty?

I think you are assuming that the poor would rather starve than work. In a few cases, I think that’s true, but not generally. And there are others who genuinely cannot work, and it is a caricature to say that conservatives begrudge them their welfare check. Notice that I said genuinely.

But maybe you have hit on another difference between liberals and conservatives. When you get right down to it, and you have someone who would rather live out a fairly miserable life on the dole than work, even though they could work if they chose, what do you do about them?

I am not talking about what proportion of the poor is genuinely disabled. Assume it is any fraction > 0. What do you do about that fraction?

The Victorian phrase was “sturdy beggar”. He could work, but chose not to.

If you are a hard-hearted, selfish, greedy, mean-spirited conservative, you tell that person to take a hike. And to come back when he is hungry enough to change his mind.

Regards,
Shodan

No, I am assuming that there are times when they won’t have a choice. I am assuming that there are times when there is no work that will keep them from starving, and no amount of self-bootstrap-pulling will change that.

You’ve heard the old canard about how it’s better for 100 guilty persons to go free than for 1 innocent person to be imprisoned? Well, I think it’s better for 100 “lazy” people to get assistance they don’t deserve than for 1 “innocent” person not to.

Determining who is failing due to luck and who is failing due to choice is an impossible task. You want to talk bureaucracy! That’d be a doozy.

And my husband is disabled. I know all about him being begrudged assistance. For a stellar example here on the boards, look up Crafter Man’s positions.

I think that absent welfare, there would be more emphasis on community aid and support. And that attaching the recipients of aid closely to their donors has a very beneficial effect of not just giving them good role models, but it creates an atmosphere where you will be expected to repay the favor by working harder or helping others. This gets back to my example of the farm community, where everyone helps everyone else. Do you know what happens if someone receives help from the community, and then refuses to help others? Suddenly there won’t be so much help any more for him. People will shun him. This is a powerful societal effect that pushes people into the ‘right’ actions.

Take away the need for that community, and you remove all those incentives. If a farmer can just go on the dole or get a government handout if he’s sick and can’t pull in his crop that year, then he doesn’t need his neighbors. Suddenly his neighbors are no longer part of his community. In fact, they are his rivals. They’re all fighting for the same handouts, and the wealthier ones are resented.

The other thing welfare does is it tends to collect poor people into the same area, thereby ensuring that the children have no role models of better behaviour, and allowing the welfare recipients to reinforce each other’s anger and resentment. That’s how neighborhoods break down and a cycle of dependency is created.

People aren’t born bad or lazy. They learn those behaviours. Public assistance tears apart societal institutions that help direct people away from bad behaviour, and replaces it with a faceless bureaucracy that makes people feel helpless and trapped.

In another thread I mentioned a person I know who constantly makes bad choices. But you know what? He keeps doing it because he can. The government shelters him from ultimate accountability. He’s been on welfare numerous times after quitting perfectly good jobs. He’s declared bankruptcy and been excused from his debts. He knows that no matter what decisions he makes, ultimately he’s not going to starve or be left in the streets. There’s always a net there to catch him.

If that net were a little more painful or difficult to hit, perhaps he would have learned earlier in life that poor decisions have bad consequences, and he would have learned to take more responsibility for his own life and his own well-being. Had he done so, I’m sure he would be leading a happier, more fulfilling life today. Welfare has been no friend of his.

I do not advocate letting people starve to death or go without basic medical care. I do think we have a responsibility to help those who are truly in need. If you are crippled or blind, we’ll take care of you. But I think the government should have the smallest role possible in this, and that every attempt to help others should keep in mind the terribly destructive effects of government solutions to social problems. Thus I would tend more towards supporting things like government funding for local shelters and soup kitchens, job training assistance, catastrophic medical coverage, and social assistance that is tied to jobs. You want welfare? Fine. You can take a trash bag and clean your neighborhood. Or you can work at the local women’s shelter, or help out making beds in the local community health center. If you have children at home, you can be a block parent or for that matter lick envelopes for all I care. Tie aid to responsibility and work. Make sure the aid doesn’t destroy existing cultural institutions, but instead enhances them. And the lowest levels of support, for those able-bodied who have shown time and again that they will not be responsible and will not work, should be pretty damn difficult. The softer you make the landing, the more people will make the jump.

Well, no offense, but I thought I limited the discussion strictly to those who could work, but choose not to.

Well, that’s one position, and not necessarily wrong to someone who shares that set of assumptions. You will need to get used to conservatives pointing out that, under such a system, you are spending at least a hundred times as much as you need to, and that most of the recipients under that system - not necessarily our current one - are genuinely lazy and shiftless.

No, I don’t think it is that hard. My experience is that if you spend enough time with the chronically poor, it becomes clear after a while that many of their misfortunes did not happen to them randomly.

There is a woman at my folk’s church. She has five children by four different men, none of whom ever married her, and none of whom support her or her children. Maybe the first was bad luck, or the second. But five? And bad luck of that sort tends to happen to people in her neighborhood. A lot.

I don’t know who it was who said, “I believe in luck, and the harder I work, the more of it I have.” It ain’t an iron-clad guarantee - what in life ever is? But the tendency is rather strong - if you act the way the middle class acts, you tend to wind up in the middle class.

But, as you say, much of it is what you are willing to put up with. If 90% of the populace makes it out of poverty under one system, you still have to decide what to do with the 10%. If the cost of making it 99% making it out is that 1% get treated like shit, there is a case to be made both for and against such a system.

Sorry about your husband. I can’t speak for Crafter Man.

Regards,
Shodan

And if that community aid and support isn’t there?

I’ve never seen any evidence that people give more to charity when their taxes go down. Is there such evidence? Or do you mean other support?

The right actions could be so many things. I don’t want my ability to survive based on if someone likes me.

I voted for Reagan in 1980. I was pro-feminist and pro-choice, but Jimmy Carter had pissed me off by vetoing some pro-feminist legislation (and justified it with something akin to “Sometimes life isn’t fair”). And I was very much pro-balanced budget, and I just knew Reagan was going to bring fiscal responsibility to the White House and wouldn’t really do anything to jeopardize abortion rights, he was just pandering a bit to southern social conservatives.

I’d have to say Reagan’s first administration was a politics-changing experience for me. Didn’t immediately turn me into a Democrat (and I could not bring myself to vote for Walter Mondale even as pissed as I was at Reagan. I cast a write-in vote for Sonia Johnson of the Citizen’s Party). By 1988 I was voting as a single-issue pro-choice voter, therefore voting Democratic, but the real other half of the politics-changing experience came under Bill Clinton, whereby I saw that it was possible for the Democrats to be in charge and not rack up huge debts, that despite the Johnson era legacy the Democratic Party could be the fiscally responsible one.

I don’t know why the issue has so strongly affected my national politics. I guess I have this image of us all paying taxes and those taxes all going towards interest on the debt so we don’t get any services in return, and that just infuriates me. I don’t mind paying taxes if they are efficiently spent on actions and programs that benefit the country and its people (and I accept that in a complex pluralistic country I won’t agree with all of them). I don’t mind paying taxes if I feel sufficiently consulted about how they are to be spent. (I’m not, by the way). But to run up an ever-higher debt, so that interest on the debt is an ever-growing slice of the annual budget? That’s seriously fucking irresponsible. Never mind managing a balanced budget and thereby not making it worse in any given year, we should be paying that sucker down a little every year. Always tax a little more than you spend. Spend a little less than you tax. Doesn’t take a fiscal-policy genius to figure that one out.

Well, charitable giving increased dramatically after the Reagan tax cuts of the 80s.

Don’t know if you can prove cause and effect, but there seems to be a correlation.

Regards,
Shodan

You mean there are always sufficient jobs available? Everyone could always have enough money if only they really tried?

I thought you didn’t like giant government bureaucracies, yet you want one that judges people’s worth? You don’t think that’s expensive?

As for what “needs” to be spent, well that’s the question. How much needs to be spent to ensure that no one slips through the cracks? How many guilty people “need” to be freed? The goal isn’t to free the guilty or give money to the shiftless. The goal is to make sure those who need the support get the support. Just as there are “loopholes” in the legal system to protect the innocent even if it can also shield the guilty.

So, how many bad choices is too many?

I chose to marry a disabled man. That’s not random. I fell into debt because of it. That’s not random. Was it a bad choice? My checking account sure thinks so.

Is it a giant coincidence that it seems to happen to people “in her neighborhood,” or is there perhaps some sort of common denominator, like maybe lack of education?

Cite?

Sure, and I’ll acknowledge that both systems have their plusses. But both systems have their minuses, too. The mistakes under my system might mean someone gets a free ride, just as mistakes in justice might mean that the guilty go free. I can live with that sort of mistake. I can’t live with the opposite.

Then we need to supplement it. But at least be aware that the existence of public aid helps destroy community support, and therefore creates an even greater requirement for public aid. So if we’re going to help them, let’s come up with a way to do it by strengthening the community rather than just giving them handouts.

In fact, there is a strong correlation between tax reduction and increases in charitable giving. Charitable giving increased 25% during the Reagan years, and after Bush’s tax cuts in his first term charitable giving rose above 2% of GDP for the first time since 1971.

How about basing your ability to survive on your willingness to work for a living or otherwise create things that other people want so they will trade with you for the things you want? How about accepting that you have no right to live by taking the property of others, and that if you are given something you didn’t earn it’s not your ‘right’ but an act of kindness you should be greatly thankful for? That’s the way I feel, and that’s why I bust my ass to make sure I don’t become dependent on others, and if God forbid I did become dependent on someone, I’d do my damnedest to either repay my benefactor or otherwise see to it that I lived up to the generosity offered to me.

The problem with that view (since we are discussing what makes one liberal vs conservative and that the idea of individual work leading to rewards is at the root of conservatism) is that we all benefit from the infrastructure that taxation builds.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-earnedmoney.htm

Argument

Many conservatives and libertarians have argued that the government has no right to tax their money; they earned it, and the government has no right to “steal” it.

However, these individuals could not have made a dime on the free market without any of the following government supports of the free market:

Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
Public roads.
Rural electrification.
Government subsidized telephone wiring.
Satellite communications.
Police protection.
Military protection.
A criminal justice system.
Fire protection.
Paramedic protection.
An educated workforce.
An immunized workforce.
Protection against plagues by the Centers for Disease Control.
Public-funded business loans, foreclosure loans and subsidies.
Protection from business fraud and unfair business practices.
The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights.
Student loans.
Government funded research and development.
National Academy of Sciences.
Economic data collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Prevention of depressions by Keynesian policies at the Fed (successful for six decades now).
Dollars protected from inflation by the Fed.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Public libraries.
Cooperative Extension Service (vital for agriculture)
National Biological Service.
National Weather Service
Public job training.
When you consider that in the US at least the military, judicial system and education funding combined come to about 1.5 trillion a year (almost half of the entire US budget) and that everyone benefits from it the idea of individual freedom doens’t really hold water. Who paid for your K-12 education or your college? Who pays for the police and military that enable you to find and keep a job w/o fear of being robbed or forced into slavery? Who paid for the roads that let you get to work and who funded some of the technological innovations that made your job, getting to your job and what you do at your job possible? People who pay taxes did, the idea of total independence from the taxation system isn’t true.

I can understand eliminating the system ‘in general’ for everything except maybe the military and how that will eliminate interdependence but as it stands right now everyone benefits from the infrastructure and everyone pays into it.

I was making it as clear as possible that we are talking about people for whom work is available, but who choose not to take it.

Where exactly do I say I wanted a government bureaucracy? That was your idea.

Fuck this, you’re just making shit up.

Regards,
Shodan

The unemployment rate is only about 5%. In my city, it’s less than 4%. That’s considered ‘full employment’, meaning the unemployed are people who choose to be unemployed, or who are between jobs, or who are taking time off for personal reasons, or who refuse work. There are signs in every convenience store and gas station asking for help. Employees are so scarce that wages are being pushed up to the point where fast food places are advertising $9/hr.

$9/hr, at 40 hours a week, is $1440/mo. $17,280 per year. My wife and I both work. If we had no educations and to this point in our lives had achieved nothing and were desperately poor, we could each take a job like that and have a family income of $34,560. And day care here is subsidized, so even if you had to put two kids in day care to go to work, it would only cost about $5000/yr. In addition, families in that income bracket pay almost no taxes and get rebates on GST taxes and other credits.

With an income like that, it should be possible to eake out a middle class existence and put a little money away each month.

And yet, there are whole neighborhoods filled with poor people who are not working, living off of social assistance.

But do you expect that, because you married a disabled man, someone owes you something? It was admirable of you to marry a disabled person in part because you had to know that you were not going to have the same economic outcome as others. You made your choice. Why be bitter about it? Why demand that others help shoulder your burden?

You may not become rich. You may have to struggle financially. But I would hope that you made that choice because you thought your love was more valuable. I do the same thing when I put away a good chunk of my disposable income to my daughter’s college fund. Because I don’t want her starting her life with tuition handouts from the government.

I can point to lots of communities with low educational levels and decent standards of living. Most blue-collar working communities, for example. But then, they don’t have 70% of their young women having children out of wedlock.

It’s not lack of education. It’s lack of role models. It’s twisted values created by a culture of dependency and resentment. In some black communities, black kids who work hard in school are actually stigmatized as ‘acting white’.

In typical middle-class communities, having a child out of wedlock is frowned upon, and a person who does so may be socially ostracised to some extent. In other words, there is a powerful cultural incentive to NOT do this. Little girls grow up believing that having a child before they are married and get an education would be a disaster for them, and that people would look down on them. This is a powerful force keeping them on the straight and narrow. That force doesn’t exist in poor neighborhoods where it’s the norm to have babies at a young age. So more girls do it. Bad decisions creating an environment which encourages even more bad decisions.

If the consequence of your ‘mistake’ was simply that some slacker got to slack a little more, I might agree. But that’s not the case. The consequence of your system is to create a permanent underclass, to create ghettos and neighborshoods where there is violence, dependency, despair, and social meltdown. Big government and the welfare state create a disaster.

I said:

You said:

That is a ridiculous comment, since I made no such assumption, and I can’t see where you could even get such an assumption. When did I say that people who could find jobs and who were capable of working would rather starve than work? I said that some people will fail. There will be failures. What then?

When you state “could work” I did make an assumption. I assumed you meant “had the capability” instead of “had the capability and had the job.” Many people, often conservatives, seem to argue that the jobs are always there and sufficient if the person looks hard enough.

Most conservatives would argue that some of the people getting benefits now don’t deserve them. In order to weed out those people, what would have to be done? Seems to me you would have to either get rid of the benefits, or judge more closely who gets them. You claim you don’t want to get rid of the benefits, so that means you have to judge more closely who gets them. That means more people doing the judging and more bureaucracy. The more complicated the system, the more government bureaucracy it takes to implement. I don’t think I’m just making this up.

Though if you’d rather just have a screaming fit, that’s fine, too.

Whoa there. This is not an argument against all taxation. I strongly believe in paying for what I use, and that includes paying for my share of the public infrastructure. We can argue about how much of the infrastructure should be created and managed by government, but to the extent that it is I don’t mind paying my share. I’m not even opposed to the rich paying more than the poor, purely on practical grounds.

This is a totally different argument than the argument that says government should be our source of charity, should force us to have equal outcomes, should punish or reward us for doing the things government thinks we should be doing. It’s a far cry from believing that we need government to be our mommy and daddy, sheltering us from bad choices and ‘protecting’ us with endless rules and regulations that thwart our ability to make our own choices.

I’m from Appalachia. The unemployment rate here is 7.5%, and that’s not that bad historically. We advertised jobs at $8.25/hour and got nearly 500 applications. Another factory is closing at the end of this year. The only help wanted sign I’ve seen lately was probably for seasonal work. It was a landscaper. I think the position is filled.

Houses are staying on the market for years. Commuting is extremely expensive and three of the surrounding counties are just as depressed. The education system is constantly rated substandard in the county except for my community.

Very few of the employers offer health coverage. None of the doctors are accepting new patients. Another one just retired.

Fast food? There’s a Subway and a Taco Bell in this town, a Wendy’s and a McDonalds the next town over. That’s the extent of our fast food. I haven’t been in any of them recently. They might be hiring. No way it’s at $9/hour, but they might be hiring.

It seems to me that the former, in due time, would lead to the latter. But my question is this: on what basis is it that you believe your governer will do a better job of dealing with disease and starvation than doctors and people of mercy will do?

Perhaps your definition is correct in Canada, but it’s not correct in the United States:

(emphasis added). So your “people who choose to be unemployed, or who are taking time off for personal reasons, or who refuse work” are NOT included in US unemployment stats; your people who are “between jobs” MAY be included, as long as they’re looking for jobs.

Your single mom working 20 hours a week because nobody will hire her full-time because they’d have to pay benefits? Employed. Your guy who’s been out of work for two years, and has started drinking too much and hasn’t looked for work in the past couple weeks? Not in the labor force. Your guy who broke his back and is recovering from the injury? Not in the labor force.

Daniel

I’m pretty sure that unemployment rates are calculated only from people collecting unemployment benefits. If you are not only not an employed person but also not currently collecting benefits from your previous place of employ, you aren’t in the head count.

I won’t stick a sword in the ground and say I’m positive of this, but I had heard it before I was last drawing unemployment when I was informed of it again by the folks at the unemployment office.

What I will say from experiences spanning many states and more than a decade’s worth of situations is that you can very very definitely be willing to take any job, determined to show up on time and work hard, and still not be able to get a job. Happened to me not once upon a time in one town during one economic downturn but many times, many towns, and under a wide range of economic conditions.

I do not know what percentage of people between adulthood and retirement age are not working, nor what percent of those people are choosing not to work rather than unsuccessful at seeking employment, but I strongly suspect the first figure is dramatically higher than the official “unemployment” figures reflect and that the often-reiterated category “people for whom work is available, but who choose not to take it” doesn’t accurately describe as large a chunk of them as Sam Stone appears to think it does.