But it IS Democrats and other liberals who shout down conservative speakers on college campuses.
On the other hand, individualism makes me think of a man’s house is his castle; the right to be left alone; etc.
By the way, I would honestly like to know how you think things like Obamacare with its attendant fines, gun regulation, raising taxes, etc. square with non-conformity, non-reverence of authority, and self-determination.
Not to mention trying to ban God knows how many books from school libraries.
The idea that conservatives are stronger in regards to “free speech” is ludicrous.
Adorable. Are you seriously suggesting that liberals are stronger advocates in general for the idea of unfettered private property rights than conservatives are? Because that seems to be one of the most basic divides between left and right. Personally I find advocacy for unfettered property rights to be repellantly anti-human; it’s not at all something I think is good. The fact that under highly specific circumstances liberals are willing to allow possession of some property that conservatives won’t in no way invalidates the general tendencies of conservatives to idolize property in a way that liberals generally don’t.
LGBT issues are good for LGBTs and don’t hurt others. Abortion is a personal freedom which doesn’t harm other citizens. Encouraging voting is good for democracy and hurts only those who resent people unlikely to vote their way, Marijuana is, if a sin, a victimless sin.
Guns often kill or injure people who don’t own the guns. Teaching creationism spoils the education of our children and others’ children – ignorance is bad for society and democracy. Providing healthcare to others is charitable and good for society. (Do you need an explanation why participation needs to be mandatory for UHC to be effective?)
Do you see the difference?
“Freedom” is a two-edged sword. Your freedom to smoke robs me of the freedom to go to a smoke-free restaurant. Your freedom to carry a gun reduces my freedom to feel safe on the streets. Your freedom not to buy health insurance robs me of the freedom to live under a financially sound UHC system.
The government needs funds for education, healthcare, etc., but “Higher taxation” is a very bizarre way to encapsulate that “debate.” In fact, Federal spending consists primarily of military spending and obligations like SocSec, debt interest, and veterans’ benefits. Since liberals tend to be more rational than right-wingers, naturally they want to fund the spending. Right-wing tax cuts are based in large part on the “Starve the Beast” philosophy.
On many issues I’m more of a centrist, in principle, than a liberal. School vouchers make sense in theory. But in practice in today’s America they are a way to further impoverish the public schools that most children will attend, while subsidizing religious schools and families that can afford private schools. (This is a simplification, and I’d support vouchers if these objections were eliminated.)
In principle, I would oppose government enforcement of minimum wages and employee safety etc. if I thought the free market could fil the gap. In practice, due to various reasons including the disempowerment of labor unions, it cannot.
TL;DR: Liberals want individuals to flourish in a benevolent environment, with regulations to account for external costs like pollution. For the right-wing, individualism is defined by unfettered Ayn Rand-style dog-eat-dog capitalism.
LGBT issues are good for LGBTs and don’t hurt others. Abortion is a personal freedom which doesn’t harm other citizens. Encouraging voting is good for democracy and hurts only those who resent people unlikely to vote their way, Marijuana is, if a sin, a victimless sin.
Guns often kill or injure people who don’t own the guns. Teaching creationism spoils the education of our children and others’ children – ignorance is bad for society and democracy. Providing healthcare to others is charitable and good for society. (Do you need an explanation why participation needs to be mandatory for UHC to be effective?)
Do you see the difference?
“Freedom” is a two-edged sword. Your freedom to smoke robs me of the freedom to go to a smoke-free restaurant. Your freedom to carry a gun reduces my freedom to feel safe on the streets. Your freedom not to buy health insurance robs me of the freedom to live under a financially sound UHC system.
The government needs funds for education, healthcare, etc. but “Higher taxation” is a very bizarre way to encapsulate that “debate.” Federal spending consists primarily of military spending and obligations like SocSec, debt interest, and veterans’ benefits. Since liberals tend to be more rational than right-wingers, naturally they want to fund the spending. Right-wing tax cuts are based in large part on the “Starve the Beast” philosophy.
On many issues I’m more of a centrist, in principle, than a liberal. School vouchers make sense in theory. In practice they would be a way to further impoverish the public schools that most children will attend, while subsidizing religious schools and families that can afford private schools. (This is a simplification, and I’d support vouchers if these objections were eliminated.)
I would oppose government enforcement of minimum wages and employee safety etc. if I thought the free market could fil the gap. In practice, due to various reasons including the disempowerment of labor unions, it cannot.
TL;DR. Liberals want individuals to flourish in a free benevolent environment, with regulations to account for external costs like pollution. For the right-wing, indicidualism is defined by unfettered Ayn Rand-style do-eat-dog capitalism.
BTW, in your list of freedoms, left-vs-right, I didn’t address free speech becuase …
Forcing one person to buy a product to benefit another person is wrong. Do you understand why?
Slee
I don’t think that’s what’s happening. We aren’t forcing anyone to buy anything, you just forgo a penalty if you don’t do so. What we are doing is reducing the number of people who consume health care and don’t pay for it. One way or another, nearly all of us require health care. Unless you’re insured or wealthy enough to self-insure, your care will be paid by the rest of us. The ACA just gives you incentive and the ability to buy health insurance.
It would be too hard to try to characterize which group’s interests are “more” individualistic and which ones are less. But I consider suicide to be entirely and wholly within the domain of my own body. It physically affects no one else, and no one else is qualified to determine what’s going on in my own head. Of all the things a person owns and controls, an argument can be made that everything else except the body they are born with belongs to someone else.
Who’s more hostile to the idea of suicide? That side champions individualism the least.
Assuming you mean “do” not “don’t” - a penalty for not doing something is the definition of coercion.
Are you one of the [checks forum] geniuses who thinks all taxes are theft?
Not really. If you can afford to pay the penalty and think you can self-insure, knock yourself out. If you can’t afford the penalty and can’t self-insure, you have a chance to buy affordable insurance. You aren’t coerced to do anything, you can make whatever choice you feel appropriate. What we need to do is reduce those that get their health care for free and drive up the costs for the rest of us.
True. So we can say that free speech is neither a conservative value nor a liberal one. The claim I responded to was:
It’s not as though shutting down controversial speech on college campuses is a liberal monopoly itself. Try Daniel Pipes, for example.
In just the same way, I am not forcing any of my students to pray. If they don’t mind serving an hour’s detention, they can go ahead and refuse. No one could object to that.
Regards,
Shodan
You don’t have taxing power over your students.
That’s not exactly true. The last time the amendment came up for a vote, in the 109th Congress, 77 House Democrats and 13 Senate Democrats voted for it. Including the current Democratic Senate Minority Leader.
True. But I think you would agree that it is primarily Republicans who are in favor, yes?
You are misusing the word “individualism” by equating it with “individual liberty.” The opposite of individualism is not regulation, but conformity.
Hmmm. Maybe a better question would be “which side do individualists mostly prefer?”
Their own.
Primarily, yes. But the Amendment only missed the 2/3 threshold in the Senate by one vote, so it could be fairly be considered a bipartisan effort.