What Makes One Liberal or Conservative?

Great Debates
81

I assume you mean just the first decade or so. Later in the first half of the 20th century, we were mostly killing Germans. :wink:

I knew you’d trot out the example of the great moves west, and it’s true there was a significant displacement of people, but it’s a deliberately exceptional example:

  1. The migrations of people in to the North American west are clearly historical outliers, and don’t really support, and definitely don’t PROVE, your claim.

  2. The reason so many Germans, Scandinavians et al. could move out West is that the American and Canadian governments put a lot of effort into killing Indians and stealing their land. You clearly cannot equate the movement of people into a conquered and ethnically cleansed territory with the lure of free land to asking someone to move from Sydney to Wetaskiwin so he can take a $11/hr job.

Your claim that social assistance reduces mobility is one you’re going to find difficult to prove; it’s a pretty sweeping claim that would require substantial study to back up. As obvious as it might be to you that poor people would move without welfare, it seems equally obvious to me that poor people are naturally somewhat LESS mobile than rich people. It also strikes me as perhaps valid that someone who’d rather live off the tiny amount of money welfare offers than get a job is probably going to find some other way to sponge or steal rather than go to the effort of moving for a job. My anecdotal theories are every bit as valid as yours; where’s the empirical beef?

Look, you’re not going to get an argument from me on that issue. I’m disputing your claims about geographic mobility, not the fact that we’ve got a lot of leeches in sou’westers. I’ve seen them.

About ten years ago I was a guest lecturer for a reserve GMT course at CFB Kingston; as luck would have it, the recruits were mostly from the Maritimes. I was sitting at the back of the class pulling together some materials when he was asking them (in frustration; it was a bad day) why the hell they’d joined his beloved army. To a person, every one of them said they just needed a certain amount of work so they could get back on the pogey. They all planned to quit the instant they qualified. They could have gotten B-class contracts with the Forces nad made far more money, but they were adamant that it was just easier to hit the pogey. They didn’t seem to grasp why the two of us were horrified.

But hey, it works on both sides. I also remember John Stossel doing an interview with U.S. cotton farmers that went something like this:

STOSSEL: Why should the government give you free money just because you’re cotton farmers?

FARMERS: Cotton’s important.

STOSSEL: If it’s important won’t people pay you for it? Why not let the market decide?

FARMERS: Well, we disagree.

STOSSEL: Um, okay. But, why should the government give you free money? Why not give money to me? Nobody subsidizes me if my show goes belly up.

FARMERS: We disagree.

STOSSEL: But why???

FARMERS: We disagree.

It was amazing. Appalling.

82

But many people do. Alberta has the strongest economy in Canada, and as a result it also has by far the largest amount of internal immigration from other parts of Canada.

I make the argument from basic economic principles. If you live in a place where the jobs have dried up, you have no alternative but to move on. If instead the government subsidizes you, you may choose to stay instead.

Or would you care to make the argument that if Federal equalization payments to Nova Scotia stopped tomorrow, and if off-season assistance to fisherman stopped tomorrow, it wouldn’t increase the number of people who chose to leave the province in search of better lives?

Some might. And some might actually work hard and create a job. But some would leave. When you remove economic incentives, changes happen on the margins.

Excellent example of my main point, which is that government assistance tends to create a culture of dependency and a sense of entitlement. And those things prevent people from rising out of poverty. For example, the soldiers in your example apparently had an option available to them that would have given them a better income, better skills, and a shot at a real career. The existence of a subsidy encouraged them to make a poorer choice and to turn away from an opportunity to make permanent improvements in their life and economic situation in favor of continuing an existence based on dependency and continued poverty.

83

http://www.osjspm.org/101_income.htm#4

Quintile Yearly Income Range in 2001
Lowest $0 - $17,916
Second $17,916 - 33,377
Third $33,377 - 53,162
Fourth $53,162 - 84,016
Highest $84,016 and higher
Top 5% $150,002 and higher

In the US that would put you near the middle as far as household income. At least by 2001 standards.

84

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-welfarepoverty.htm

It is hard to say as there are no developed countries which are economic libertarians which can act as controls.

The idea that a social safety net eliminates incentives to work intelligently may be a rational argument, but I haven’t seen consistent evidence that it is true.

85

Not as the man who coined the term meant it. Class != income. Social status was also a factor. Even today in modern usage. Fast food wages would generally be considered “working poor”. Whereas an auto worker is clearly seem as middle class. Your stats also fail to measure actual income. For an auto worker, that includes decent medical insurance, company retirement pension, paid vacation, etc. None of that slinging burgers at Mickey Dees. Thus if we use real income, there is a much bigger spread between fast food worker and auto worker.

86

Yep, I knew that taxes are manditory, so my question wasn’t about that. It was about what sets governers apart from ordinary people. How do you know that when your governer collects his taxes, he will then turn around and be charitable with the money? How do you know he won’t be stingy with it and direct a large portion toward himself and his own interests?

87

There were huge influxes of Irish into the UK during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to find work down the Lancashire pits. Today there’s large influxes of Eastern Europeans into the UK as well (just go and work at any fast food store, it’s like the United Nations), with their admittance into the EU.

Populations moving in search of work isn’t as uncommon as you claim it is.

88

These are different questions to your earlier inquiry. Nonetheless, an element of my earlier response remains apposite;

“… publicly funded policies are accountable to the enfranchised public.”

‘Interests’ is a good word, lets run with that. Making the assumption that your governor is a rogue, her interests are likely to be as follows:

  • diverting public money to her private and crony interests,
  • staying in office, i.e. not being found out.

Her optimal strategy is to balance these interests. She will aim to maximise the dispersal to private interests while performing the minimum to remain in office and conceal her conduct.

Good so far?

By contrast the system is set up to defeat that very strategy. It is weighted to minimizing the opportunities to fund private interests, while maximising the opportunities to uncover invidious conduct. Most importantly other people want her job. If she is buying her nephews Ferraris then that’s a good way for other people to take her job.

Other people have a reliable ‘interest’ in exposing the rogue to take over her office.

Secondly, the expenditure of public money is, in general, closely audited. So the rogue’s ambition is not only to defeat the system. Criminal law is also her enemy.

Thirdly, let’s attribute knowledge of the above to the rogue governor. Our rogue elects to balance her ‘interests’ such that the governmental expediture excludes Ferraris and equivalent outrages. Moreover, she operates within the constraints of her auditor and the criminal law.

IOW, her policies are objectionable but not outrageous. In this circumstance we rely on the pressure of competition for her job to keep her in line. Remember, this competition will arise within her own party as well as from her notional opposition.

In short it is the tension within the system, rather than good faith, that aims to protect its ordinary people.

89

An interesting thread, I will admit that I have not read all of the posts, but probably half, I have noticed a few reoccurring themes, many being claimed by both factions. Lets look at a few;

Personal Choices; I grew up on a large farm, I was expected to work before and after school, late hours, weekends etc. Now I am lazy by nature, and all of this work seemed to interfere with my fun time, but, it was work or be punished. I had a choice, I could sit around and lollygag and risk a beating, or I could get my work done and enjoy the fruits of my labor (trust me, there is something oddly satisfying about forking cowshit all day and having a clean barn to show for it). After I grew up (literally and figuratively) I joined the Navy, let me tell you, if you wanted to slack, this was the place to do it…No one really cared to much, after some time being lazy again, I noticed that if you had at least half a brain and applied yourself, you could achieve incredible success. I was off and running. So what does this have to do with liberalism or conservatism? First, I never expected anyone to do my work for me, but, I also did not want to share my success with others, I was the one who studied instead of partying, I was the one who spent time making sure my uniform was squared away, and yes, I also completed my assignments on time and found other ways to make myself valuable in my division. I led by example, the tools were there for me to use, so I used them. The bottom line, is I realized no-one was responsible for my happiness or success but me, so I should enjoy the fruits of my labor. I took up engineering, worked many jobs, spend countless months away from home, fell down more than once, picked myself up and soldiered on. I opened my own business and am in a position to enjoy relative security. Does this make me liberal or conservative?

Personal and Corporate Welfare; So Ted Stevens wants to build a bridge to no-where, and he wants our money to do it. This bridge does not have any strategic or tactical value from a national security standpoint, it will not open any new trade routes, so why is the Imperial Federal Government digging into my pocket? Why does the Honorable Ted, throw a hissy fit on the floor of congress like a spoiled brat demanding he get money for his precious bridge or he will come out against all other pork spending? Why don’t the good people of Alaska spend their money to build it if it will be so wonderfull? Why hasn’t the private sector built this bridge? Why hasn’t W vetoed anything? Power, bring it home and keep the lifestyle you are accustomed to, it all about staying in power. Lets face it, they steal land through Eminent Domain, give it to large corporations and private parties, fund projects that should be done on the state level (but if it was really worth it, private enterprise would do it). If you support this under the auspices of greater tax revenue, instead of demanding spending cuts, does this make you a conservative or a liberal? If someone decides to do drugs, become a father or mother, or work at an occupation while demanding the government support you, does this give you the right to demand the government take money from me with the threat of deadly force to support your personal choices? If you do, can I demand that the government give me money to start a resturant, hey, I’m a good cook, and that’s what I want to do, what makes my request wrong? Does this make me liberal or conservative?

National Security; The one thing that our government does seem to get right (most of the time) is our national security. When you balance our freedoms with our security, we are the safest place on earth (people will argue this, but quote all of the statistics you want, then travel abroad and look at the control most governments have over their people…Even in countries that are considered “Westernized”). The government is constitutionally obligated to protect both it’s citizens and it’s trade routes. No one does this better that us and no one but the US can do it. If you don’t support the military, does this make you liberal or conservative?

Environmental Policy; Bjørn Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, is an interesting study, he was outspoken about things like “global warming” and industrial pollution. He is also a scientist, but he was troubled by some of the things the environmentalist crowd were saying, he decided to do some in depth research about it and came away with some conclusions that were no longer in lock-step agreement with the environmentalist crowd, he was denounced by many, certain governments said his work was akin to slander, the magazine Scientific American did a review of his work and basically took the extremist view and shouted him down with innuendo, instead of scientific fact (this review was the final straw that led me to cancel my subscription), but the reviewers also had dirty secrets they were not up front about, many had political allegiances that mandated they hold certain views or be exposed as the scientific frauds they are.

So what does all of this mean? First and foremost it should show us that government interferes way to deeply in our daily lives, everything from drug policy (we need to get real) to the environment. Government is sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, yet many still look to the government to justify themselves and their work. I do not care if you are gay, I do not care if you have 20 kids, I do not care if you are a vegetarian, I do not care if you chose not to own guns or hunt. I do not support abortion, but that is your business (It is also a state issue and not a federal government issue, that is why Roe, among thousands of other laws need to be overturned). You have a right to your opinions, I have a right not to listen to them, I believe in the power of the individual and not the collective masses (a committee did not found Ford, GM, Microsoft or any other employer of consequence that has lifted the standard of living to the heights we enjoy). Governments job is to insure equal access to all, the right to carry on with our daily lives, and have the freedoms to both succeed and fail. It does not guarantee we will not be offended, in-fact laws are in place that guarantee we probably will at one time or another. I am conservative with one hell of a Libertarian bend, I found my direction by living life by my rules within the rules of society. I don’t give a damn if you are liberal or conservative, just let me be what I am.

Thanks for the opportunity…Thoughts anyone?

90

“Obama said the television industry needs to do more to help parents better navigate the ever-growing number of channels and programs. Making TV ratings easier to understand is one way, he said, adding that that if broadcasters and cable don’t do more they are inviting Congress to act.”

So Barack Obama is a conservative? Who knew?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/10/sexy.tv.ap/index.html

91

I suppose it could seem that way. I blame my inability to communicate effectively on my lack of formal education. Obviously, you could not have read my mind. However, when I asked, “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?”, what I was getting at was the reliability of the governer versus the person of mercy. Since you thought I was asking whether taxes were voluntary, I rephrased my question for clarity, and asked these follow-ups: “How do you know that when your governer collects his taxes, he will then turn around and be charitable with the money? How do you know he won’t be stingy with it and direct a large portion toward himself and his own interests?”

You see, it’s all water in the same boat. The governer can do well in fighting disease and starvation so long as those are indeed his goals. But what I’m trying to ascertain is what is it that is intrinsic to a governer that makes him a more reliable fighter against these things than anyone else. Why should he be trusted to set his own interests aside to accomplish these tasks? That’s not yet a different question, but merely follows from the others.

Now, your response here was more thorough (thank you! and thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me!). You explained that there is nothing intrinsic in the governer, but in the government — that is, there is a “tension” put there by design. There are checks and balances and so forth. And of course, laws. But honestly, I already knew all that as well.

What I’d really like to deal with is not so much the caricature evil governer who bellows and brags about breaking the law, but rather the more realistic surreptitiously selfish governer who uses the law (a very, very complicated set of laws, I must say) to her own benefit in the guise of being concerned about people like you and me. Suppose the governer weren’t a mean old woman out to destroy the world for her own pleasure, but simply a politician who helps make, execute, or interpret the laws, and who relies on an overall apathy for her goals, appealing to special interest groups invested in her success.

Why would that person be more reliable than a person who does mercy because he loves mercy?

You might say that she has more resources available to her, and yes I’ll grant you that. But that does not say anything about what she might do with those resources. I include the rest of your post for reference:

92

Holy non sequitur Batman!

Pressuring the TV industry to make ratings easier to understand =/= Controlling what you see on TV.

93

Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread, it has been an interesting read. There has been a lot more responses than I expected, so I won’t answer everyone’s posts, but I’d like to especially thank the more conservative/libertarian posters, and especially Shagnasty and Sam Stone, for explaining to me how they think and what makes them think this way. As a liberal, my opinions are of course different from them, and it’s illuminating to see where they come from.

I noticed that something that the conservative posters mentioned a lot is what I would call the “welfare mother” effect: that is, handouts from the government allow people to live, maybe barely, but without having to “fight”, so to speak. This has on some people the effect of discouraging them from finding work, leading to a permanent poor and unhappy underclass who eventually think they “deserve” these handouts just be existing. I won’t deny the reality of this phenomenon. On the other hand, I think that we should examine the situation with an eye for the shades of grey. There are people who get “soft” due to welfare, but being on welfare doesn’t make a lot of people proud, and I think that most people who find themselves in this situation will only use it for the time they need to get back on their feet. (Yes, I know that Shagnasty and Sam Stone said they would refuse welfare even if they qualified, but everyone’s situation is different, and maybe some don’t have this opportunity.)

Similarly, while it is true that someone who has just lost their job may find some low-paying fast-food job to survive, it certainly isn’t their first choice. Yes, I know that in a hard situation, you can’t be a chooser, but let’s suppose that there exist government programs to help people, say, go back to school or start a business. Our hypothetical job seeker, with their help, could then find themselves a job that they would like and be productive at. This would be positive for society. Yes, it could be argued that if they really want to go back to school, or own their own business, they could work on it in their free time of working at their fast-food job. But again, everyone’s situation is different, and maybe this isn’t possible for different reasons. It’s worth mentioning that not everyone is superhuman, and it’s my belief that even those of us who aren’t should be given a chance to succeed. I know that there are people who were able to overcome all odds to find their place in the sun, without help from anyone, and yes, they deserve to be proud of this, but I think that offering some help will allow more people to succeed. It isn’t a question of supporting people who won’t work, it’s a question of giving a degree of support to people while they do the work they have to do.

Also, I see that jsgoddess mentioned her disabled husband. I think this is a good example. There are things that disabled people are able to do, but others they can’t do despite all their will. Now, of course we could argue that a tight-knit community will do better to support people than the government ever could. In some cases, it may be true. But jsgoddess is right to say that she doesn’t want her ability to survive depend on if people like her. A supportive community is a good thing, but it’s not always possible in today’s world.

In the end, as SentientMeat said, I think that everyone has their heart in the right place. But it’s important not to become dogmatic. I’m a liberal, and I think that the government has a place in economy and society, and that handouts sometimes make things better. But I cannot ignore the fact that sometimes, they don’t. We have to take decisions based on how things are, not on how our doctrine says they should be.

Just a quick question before finishing: Shagnasty, you said that your name is a reference to individualism. What do you mean? You shag? Nastily? Alone? :eek: :o :stuck_out_tongue: Seriously, I don’t get the reference.

94

What is “conservative/libertarian”? Is that like the opposite of “liberal/authoritarian” or something? :smiley:

95

Not my screen name you big silly, my real name. It is Maverick which does refer to an odd kind of individualism.

96

I know that in the fifties and sixties, an enormous chunk of the young and employable population of my part of eastern Kentucky moved off to Ohio to work in the factories. Of my dad’s eight brothers and sisters, seven of them moved to Ohio, and all are still there. You can still find neighborhoods in southern Ohio that are almost exclusively made up of displaced Kentuckians.

While Sam Stone is right that this doesn’t happen very much today, I don’t think it’s the public assistance keeping people around; those good-paying factory jobs just don’t exist anymore. Back then, someone without any particular job skills could get hired on at a wage that allowed for a middle-class life, but these days you’d probably do well to get by on it. If you’re just barely going to get by, what’s the point in moving so far away from the people and the place you know and love?

97

Sorry to continue the hijack, but why on Earth should Congress be involved in the first place? Does anyone remember when “Parental Control” was the off switch, or even not having a tv in the first place? We certainly don’t need Congress mucking things up, and the junior Senator is a fool.

98

Lib said: “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?”
I believe it on the basis that never, in the long sad history of the human race, have there EVER been enough “people of mercy” to prevent a very large portion of humanity from living and dying in extreme misery. The good Christian Victorians of Dicken’s London were very loud about their piety, and paid very little taxes compared to nowadays, and orphans still ended up starving in the streets. Where I live, the rich are very rich, and pay even less taxes, and thirtyfive percent of the country’s children are suffering from malnutrition.
If you can offer some example from some period in history when anyone who wasn’t born wealthy could expect to have anything like a decent life and a reasonably comfortable old age, I would like to hear them.
There have been a few societies where working class people could expect that sickness, or an accident, or just plain old age didn’t necessarily mean misery and hunger; those societies are the European socialist democracies that conservatives sneer at so eloquently. And of course the USA from the New Deal to a few years ago.

99

Of course, you have a cite that working class people are experiencing more sickness, accidents, misery, and hunger in the last few years, right?

100

Well, how about:poverty estimates are available. From the most recent trough in 2000, both the number and rate have risen for three consecutive years, from 31.6 million and 11.3 percent in 2000, to 35.9 million and 12.5 percent in 2003.
Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03hi.html.

Or try:
. State Medicaid cuts could leave up to 1.7 million of the nation’s most vulnerable poor persons without coverage this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The lack of a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors and people with disabilities continues to force many to choose between food and necessary medicines.http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/publications/magazine/0603_healthcare.cfm Don’t know how you measure misery, but I imagine being sick and unable to pay for medicine, or being hungry, doesn’t make for cheerful living.