An interesting ponder, your thoughts please.
Roy Anderson
free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
(those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
Professors) tend to be liberal?
Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind expansion
that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the word
"tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
assumptions are correct.
I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
-Roy Anderson
taichi
>
"Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Is it a fair
that is a good observation Roy. Basically, rich capitalists want to stay
rich and poor capitalists hope some of the wealth will be shared with them.
unfortunately, Noblesse oblige ( the obligation of the rich and noble is a
myth). Most rich people enjoy the fact that other people are poor and can
be bought.
The intellectuals understand that the quality of the society is based on
equity and justice. that is what makes civilization possible. Most
intellectuals understand this but do not have the moral conviction to tell
it like it is. They opt out for the comfortable status quo.
Dave
<O>
>
Urthman
> Greetings Roy,
> >
> "Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Is it a fair
> assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
> > free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
> > would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> > (those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
> >
> > Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
> > intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
> > Professors) tend to be liberal?
> >
> > Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
> > environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind expansion
> > that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the word
> > "tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
> > aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
> > assumptions are correct.
> >
> > I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
> >
> >
> > -Roy Anderson
> >
> Dave's comment,
> that is a good observation Roy. Basically, rich capitalists want to stay
> rich and poor capitalists hope some of the wealth will be shared with them.
> unfortunately, Noblesse oblige ( the obligation of the rich and noble is a
> myth). Most rich people enjoy the fact that other people are poor and can
> be bought.
... and the degree of rich-ness is defined by the degree of poor-ness of others.
1Z
> Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
> free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
> would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> (those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
People who benefit rom a system tend to want to maintain the status quo, so
they can continue to benefit -- hence the conservatism of the wealthy.
Russ Rose
> free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
> would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> (those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
Like Ted Kennedy? Those who did not earn the money or understand how the
money was earned will tend to be more liberal.
>
> Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
> intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
> Professors) tend to be liberal?
The intelligent people who are capable of producing in the real world leave
the universities to do so. This leaves the theoretically intelligent people
to teach theory. The best professors are those that have made it in the real
world and returned to share their experience. Imagine a physics class with
Einstein or a creative writing class with Stephen King.
>
> Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
> environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind expansion
> that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the word
> "tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
> aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
> assumptions are correct.
>
> I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
>
I doubt you are actually interested in any contradictory views but I will
supply them.
Free market capitalism has existed and will always exist in every human
society including the most totalitarian and anarchistic. It is as natural to
humans as breathing. Human survival is based on fulfilling needs, and human
needs are very diverse and virtually endless. To believe that any socialist
system, no matter how prosperous it is, could produce enough to satisfy all
of the needs of all of its citizens is silly. Therefore an underground
economy naturally develops to meet those un-met or illegal needs such as
garden trolls, drugs, car magazines, porn, etc.
When the governing body makes this sort of trade illegal it becomes known as
the "black market", but it could never be eliminated regardless the
penalties threatened or imposed. To believe this possible is to deny human
needs and the human will to sacrifice all to meet those needs. For example
if you outlaw alcohol what happens? It simply moves the economy underground.
To say conservatives tend toward this system is wrong. All humans tend
toward this system. Conservatives generally recognize the benefits of the
system, which makes them more visible proponents. Liberals may try to deny
this reality and attempt to control or limit the system (for others), but
they will always participate in it. The "elites" in the communist
governments are often the biggest consumers on these black markets.
Conservatives tend to be optimistic and therefore do not fear the future.
They take risks in business ventures. They confront their enemies instead of
bending over for them. By having a better understanding of how the real
world works, it becomes more predictable and there is less to fear.
Liberalism is based completely in fear. "Safety net" social programs are
designed to remove the fear of the unknown future by providing the
necessities when "hard times" hit. Anti-war and anti-nuke protesters are
afraid of what could happen, and don't realize that their weakness only
invites the aggression of the enemy. Protecting every single human from
every single bad thing that could happen is completely motivated by the fear
of bad things happening. I want my lawn darts back! You take any liberal
position and you will likely find fear is the underlying motivation.
Universities tend to be safe little places for liberals to hide from the
harsh realities of the real world. This is why there are so many of them
there. You're fooling yourself if you believe they are filled with liberals
because liberals are more intelligent.
>
> -Roy Anderson
ta
"Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hwWC8.18648$RR3.9124@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2hhmdukon8qkep2t5...@4ax.com...
> > Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
> > free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
> > would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> > (those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
Define conservative (somebody had to say it!).
> Like Ted Kennedy? Those who did not earn the money or understand how the
> money was earned will tend to be more liberal.
>
> >
> > Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
> > intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
> > Professors) tend to be liberal?
If you equate intelligence with education, you might as well stop right
there. This is what happens when you start with conclusions and then fill in
the blanks, as is so often the case on these NGs.
> The intelligent people who are capable of producing in the real world
leave
> the universities to do so.
There are plenty of intelligent people in the ranks of academia who do not
leave for the "real world". Furthermore, school is very much the "real
world". I think I know where you going with this, and tend to agree, but
let's not get carried away.
> This leaves the theoretically intelligent people
> to teach theory.
Unforunately, I think there is alot of truth to this. Educational
institutions in general tend to contain alot of teachers passing down
someone else's knowledge (which may or may not be 1st hand experience) as
facts.
> The best professors are those that have made it in the real
> world and returned to share their experience.
I definitely agree, and I think there are plenty of them out there.
> Imagine a physics class with
> Einstein or a creative writing class with Stephen King.
I'm with you on the physics class, but Stephen King? Come on! :-)
> >
> > Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
> > environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind expansion
> > that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the word
> > "tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
> > aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
> > assumptions are correct.
> >
> > I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
> >
>
> I doubt you are actually interested in any contradictory views but I will
> supply them.
It seems the original poster is not the only one starting with conclusions
and assumptions.
> Free market capitalism has existed and will always exist in every human
> society including the most totalitarian and anarchistic. It is as natural
to
> humans as breathing.
Perhaps. But as we evolve as a species, who is to say that ulimately
cooperation will not prove to be a much more efficient and useful method for
survival than competition? I'd say the world is definitely moving in that
direction.
> Human survival is based on fulfilling needs, and human
> needs are very diverse and virtually endless.
Cooperation is necessary for survival.
> To believe that any socialist
> system, no matter how prosperous it is, could produce enough to satisfy
all
> of the needs of all of its citizens is silly.
So the choices are either capitalism or socialism?
> Therefore an underground
> economy naturally develops to meet those un-met or illegal needs such as
> garden trolls, drugs, car magazines, porn, etc.
>
> When the governing body makes this sort of trade illegal it becomes known
as
> the "black market", but it could never be eliminated regardless the
> penalties threatened or imposed.
It can only be eliminated when the demand ceases.
> To believe this possible is to deny human
> needs and the human will to sacrifice all to meet those needs. For example
> if you outlaw alcohol what happens? It simply moves the economy
underground.
>
> To say conservatives tend toward this system is wrong. All humans tend
> toward this system. Conservatives generally recognize the benefits of the
> system, which makes them more visible proponents.
I think this is generally true.
> Liberals may try to deny
> this reality and attempt to control or limit the system (for others), but
> they will always participate in it. The "elites" in the communist
> governments are often the biggest consumers on these black markets.
> Conservatives tend to be optimistic and therefore do not fear the future.
> They take risks in business ventures.
On the one hand, I see how you could draw that conclusion. On the other
hand, I don't see someone who is "conservative" as being a risk taker. By
its definition, conservation entails minimizing risk doesnt it? A venture
capitalist who has a ton of money to invest is not "conservative" to me.
Maybe this is a terminology thing. Further, to say that liberals tend not to
be optimistic is a vast generalization, and therefore not very useful in
arriving at any better understanding of this issue IMO.
> They confront their enemies instead of
> bending over for them. By having a better understanding of how the real
> world works, it becomes more predictable and there is less to fear.
Still struggling with your "real world" notion. I've found that many
liberals are the ones embracing the real world problems, such as
environmental deterioration, poverty, physical and mental health, and child
care. Tell the 3rd grade inner city school teacher that she is not dealing
in the real world.
> Liberalism is based completely in fear. "Safety net" social programs are
> designed to remove the fear of the unknown future by providing the
> necessities when "hard times" hit. Anti-war and anti-nuke protesters are
> afraid of what could happen, and don't realize that their weakness only
> invites the aggression of the enemy. Protecting every single human from
> every single bad thing that could happen is completely motivated by the
fear
> of bad things happening. I want my lawn darts back! You take any liberal
> position and you will likely find fear is the underlying motivation.
I think you risk getting carried away here, although there is some
underlying truth to what you say about fear. But I don't think it's a
liberal/conservative thing. Some of the biggest fear mongers in the U.S.
hail from the right. Ronald Reagan (must fear the "evil empire"), Jerry
Falwell (must fear the heathens), and Jesse Helms (must fear the
homosexuals) come to mind as contemporary examples. Conservatives also tend
to be much more heavily supportive of a military buildup, which is
completely motivated by fear. I tend not to look at it in terms of "liberal"
versus "conservative". That's the old way of thinking.
> Universities tend to be safe little places for liberals to hide from the
> harsh realities of the real world. This is why there are so many of them
> there.
That may be one reason. Although there are plenty of conservatives in
academia as well. How do you account for them?
> You're fooling yourself if you believe they are filled with liberals
> because liberals are more intelligent.
Definitely agree. The whole premise of the original poster is absurd IMO.
Anonymous
http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
www.spearhead-uk.com www.whitecivilrights.com
"Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hhmdukon8qkep2t5...@4ax.com...
America is a leftist country. "Conservatives" want no laws against greed
and "liberals" want no laws against race mixing, but they are all leftist.
America is ruled by a race of leftists namely the Jews.
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is a leftist.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
anarchy.
What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
against the real right wing during World War Two.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in Soylent
Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not interested and insist
that nothing could be more important than the freedom of individuals to be
as decadant as they want. They are like the children in the old black and
white movie "Lord of the Flies".
-----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Russ Rose
"ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MUYC8.191536$tt4.13...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>
> "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hwWC8.18648$RR3.9124@sccrnsc02...
> >
> > "Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2hhmdukon8qkep2t5...@4ax.com...
> > > Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
> > > free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
> > > would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> > > (those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
>
> Define conservative (somebody had to say it!).
Not liberal? Personally I see it as "everything in moderation".
Creative is the key word. He is not only prolific but his range is
incredible. You may only be familiar with his popular horror stories. And he
actually teaches at a local college in Maine. Since I wasn't limiting to the
living, Twain and Shakespeare would be interesting as well.
>
> > >
> > > Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
> > > environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind expansion
> > > that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the word
> > > "tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
> > > aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
> > > assumptions are correct.
> > >
> > > I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
> > >
> >
> > I doubt you are actually interested in any contradictory views but I
will
> > supply them.
>
> It seems the original poster is not the only one starting with conclusions
> and assumptions.
There is nothing more predictable than a young liberal. I was one a long
time ago.
>
> > Free market capitalism has existed and will always exist in every human
> > society including the most totalitarian and anarchistic. It is as
natural
> to
> > humans as breathing.
>
> Perhaps. But as we evolve as a species, who is to say that ulimately
> cooperation will not prove to be a much more efficient and useful method
for
> survival than competition? I'd say the world is definitely moving in that
> direction.
Since when is cooperation not part of free trade? It takes two to tango.
>
> > Human survival is based on fulfilling needs, and human
> > needs are very diverse and virtually endless.
>
> Cooperation is necessary for survival.
>
> > To believe that any socialist
> > system, no matter how prosperous it is, could produce enough to satisfy
> all
> > of the needs of all of its citizens is silly.
>
> So the choices are either capitalism or socialism?
Not a choice. Socialism is a natural way of getting along with each other.
They work with each other, each within their natural context. It is when
socialism tries to take over the economy, or vice versa, when things go
awry.
>
> > Therefore an underground
> > economy naturally develops to meet those un-met or illegal needs such as
> > garden trolls, drugs, car magazines, porn, etc.
> >
> > When the governing body makes this sort of trade illegal it becomes
known
> as
> > the "black market", but it could never be eliminated regardless the
> > penalties threatened or imposed.
>
> It can only be eliminated when the demand ceases.
Correctamundo, but it never does.
Perhaps I should have said calculated risk. I bet most of my money that an
idea I have will bring me greater wealth. The gamble lies completely within
the quality of my judgment.
Optimistic liberals are destined to become conservatives.
>
> > They confront their enemies instead of
> > bending over for them. By having a better understanding of how the real
> > world works, it becomes more predictable and there is less to fear.
>
> Still struggling with your "real world" notion. I've found that many
> liberals are the ones embracing the real world problems, such as
> environmental deterioration, poverty, physical and mental health, and
child
> care. Tell the 3rd grade inner city school teacher that she is not dealing
> in the real world.
"Embracing" is an interesting word. Conservatives prefer to solve the
problems.
>
> > Liberalism is based completely in fear. "Safety net" social programs are
> > designed to remove the fear of the unknown future by providing the
> > necessities when "hard times" hit. Anti-war and anti-nuke protesters are
> > afraid of what could happen, and don't realize that their weakness only
> > invites the aggression of the enemy. Protecting every single human from
> > every single bad thing that could happen is completely motivated by the
> fear
> > of bad things happening. I want my lawn darts back! You take any liberal
> > position and you will likely find fear is the underlying motivation.
>
> I think you risk getting carried away here, although there is some
> underlying truth to what you say about fear. But I don't think it's a
> liberal/conservative thing. Some of the biggest fear mongers in the U.S.
> hail from the right. Ronald Reagan (must fear the "evil empire"),
He did not fear the "evil empire" otherwise he would not have provoked them
so. The liberals on the other hand were cowering in the corner, waiting for
the missles to be launched when they heard him say that.
> Jerry
> Falwell (must fear the heathens), and Jesse Helms (must fear the
> homosexuals) come to mind as contemporary examples.
I did not say conservatives were all sane, but I would not characterize it
as fear. Pity in the former case and likely disgust in the latter.
> Conservatives also tend
> to be much more heavily supportive of a military buildup, which is
> completely motivated by fear. I tend not to look at it in terms of
"liberal"
> versus "conservative". That's the old way of thinking.
>
The military is not a product of fear. Defense is prudent when faced with
the abundance of human history.
Old or new, it is accurate.
> > Universities tend to be safe little places for liberals to hide from the
> > harsh realities of the real world. This is why there are so many of them
> > there.
>
> That may be one reason. Although there are plenty of conservatives in
> academia as well. How do you account for them?
Most have been "out there" in one way or the other.
Roy Anderson
the biased post was a mis-interpretation of my original post, perhaps
not. Following this are two FAQ's. One liberal, one conservative. I
will take the time to note to all that the "liberal faq" is more of an
ad hoc collection, also it was written in the UK by a relatively non
note-worthy individual with extreme leftist inclination. None the
less, it does seem to sum up the far left fairly well.
The "conservative faq" on the other hand, was written by a relatively
note-worthy American, who is clearly better with the written word, and
more effectively presents his "faq" as a moderate view point (as
opposed to the somewhat more extreme "liberal faq").
Bottom line is that the conservative faq is better written, and both
faqs were written by people in different countries, readers should
take this into account when contemplating both. Should someone have a
better liberal faq, feel free to post it, I just didn't want to spend
too much time searching for either. Disclaimer aside:
The Liberal FAQ
*******************************************************************************
A. Definitions, Principles and History
1. What is a liberal?
The word has a number of meanings, all of which reflect aspects of
liberal thought. These include "favorable to progress and reform, as
in religious or political affairs"; "favorable to or in accord with
concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by
law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties";
"open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or
conventional ideas, values, etc."; and "characterized by generosity
and willingness to give in large amounts". [Random House Dictionary of
the English Language]. Liberals want to change things to increase
personal freedom and tolerance, and are willing to empower government
to the extent necessary to achieve those ends.
2. What do liberals want to do?
Help individuals take more control over their own lives. This requires
(a) providing an environment that does not arbitrarily remove choice;
(b) ensuring that isolated failures of judgment are not catastrophic,
removing choice; (c) offering enough information so that choices can
be understood and made intelligently; and (d) giving people
responsibility and encouraging self-reliance within a social
framework. It is important to distinguish different levels of choice;
alternative kinds of toothpaste are not more important than (e.g.)
career options.
3. Where does liberalism come from?
Modern liberalism has multiple roots. An important one is the
provision of human rights, from the Magna Carta through the US
Constitution to the International Declaration of Human Rights. Adam
Smith, John Stuart Mill and the "classical liberals" of the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries were another influence. The recognition that
the social and economic patterns of large populations are
qualitatively different from those of small groups draws upon insights
of Marx, Weber, and Keynes. Modern liberalism is virtually alone among
20th-century movements in trying to synthesize classical-liberal
individualism with the Marxist critique of capitalism, adding a heavy
sprinkling of pragmatic compromise.
4. How do liberals differ from "libertarians" and "conservatives"?
Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the
same thing; both were individualist, distrustful of state power,
pro-free-market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal
and mercantilist system. After 1870, models of of society were being
refined in terms of the structural effects of group interaction; the
social environment came to be seen as a significant factor in
determining the ability of large numbers of people to succeed in
attaining their goals (and indeed in determining what those goals
were). Libertarians felt that any attempt to solve social problems had
to depend on private, voluntary effort, and that modifying social
factors would inevitably lead to worse problems. Liberals felt that
the problems were too serious to be passively left to chance in this
way, and that government should have a role in influencing the social
framework within which people act. Economically, liberals came to
believe that pure free markets led to systematic abuse, so that a
limited amount of regulation was needed; libertarians continued to
favour the caveat emptor approach. By this time, conservatives had
become comfortable with the free-market, capitalist system, so they
joined forces with the libertarians on the economic (though not the
social) front.
5. How do liberals differ from "socialists" and "communists"?
Communists understand society as interactions of groups, to the extent
that they largely ignore the value and effect of individual action.
Socialists, while advocating individual rights, see property-owning
structures in society as inevitably leading to corruption and the
ill-treatment of the poor by the rich. Both groups arose as a reaction
to the abuses of capitalists, and so feel that individual
acquisitiveness is the primary cause of social injustice and poverty.
[This is over-simplified.] Liberals feel that when properly regulated,
self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be
harnessed, rather than erased.
6. What do liberals want the government to do?
Liberals see the role of government as providing a framework within
which individuals can develop their lives and contribute to society.
Regulation of private industry is needed to ensure integrity and
safety, with respect to customers and workers. Equal opportunity
should be a goal, which entails a level of provision to ameliorate the
effects of poverty and discrimination. Health care and education
should be universally available, since without either, individual
choice is severely limited. Liberals do *not* want the government to
protect people from themselves, or to interfere in individual
interaction, except insofar as to prevent systematic actions that
cause harm.
B. Politics and Consequences
The liberal approach to controversial issues is to recognize that
there are usually conflicting principles involved, neither of which
always dominates. It is necessary first to discover the conflict, and
then to find the best tradeoff in any given situation; i.e. absolute
priorities, while simple, are almost always wrong.
7. What is the liberal position on abortion?
Most liberals are in favor of abortion rights. Although a foetus is a
pre-human, and should be accorded as many rights as possible all else
being equal, the quality of life of existing human beings can at this
level outweigh the potential life of the baby. It is, however, a
difficult question that involves tradeoffs among very important
conflicting goals, so no dogmatic yes/no answer can be found; it
depends on circumstances.
8. What is the liberal position on minority, gay & women's rights?
Liberals believe that every human being is entitled both to equality
before the law and equal opportunity in society. Systematic
discrimination causes unequal opportunity by removing choice; it is
not enough to say that the victim(s) could go elsewhere, if there is
nowhere else to go. It is true that legislating beliefs cannot work;
but legislating that actions cannot discriminate unfairly treats the
symptom while a cure is sought. The danger is that the underlying
problem is then ignored or exacerbated; this is why education plays
such a vital role.
9. What is the liberal position on gun control?
The conflict here involves distrust of government, individual
responsibility, and attitudes towards violence within society. Giving
everyone a mechanism to hurt other people quickly, easily, and at a
distance is dangerous; people are more likely to do it. On the other
hand, a basic liberal principle is that people should be trusted, and
that large organizations should not. One approach to resolving this
conflict is the Swiss system, in which large numbers of people own
guns, but they are registered such that usage can be easily traced;
such weapons are kept in a manner that reduces the possibility of
sudden, irrational use. Many liberals prefer the outright banning of
guns intended only to kill people, on the grounds that such weapons
are by now ineffective in dealing with abuse of power by government.
10. What is the liberal position on art, pornography and censorship?
Liberals are opposed to government-enforced limits on free expression;
this, the First Amendment of the US Constitution, is the issue on
which they come closest to taking an absolutist line. This extends to
the propagation of ideas; in our mass media age, an opinion or
argument that is not conveyed to large numbers of people is
effectively censored. Thus, not only should anti-pornography laws be
removed, but the active promotion of alternative and controversial
viewpoints should be encouraged and financially supported. This can
give people a better idea of the arguments both for and against a
given position.
As noted at the beginning, there is no single liberal position on this
or (just about) any other issue; a discussion of MacKinnon's views is
presented by dks (though opinions as to whether this is liberal or not
may vary).
-- CMH]
11. What is the liberal position on the draft?
The argument against the draft is that it coerces people, and it
reduces the overall effectiveness of the army. The argument for the
draft is that in an emergency, manpower may be required that otherwise
would not be available, and depending entirely upon supply and demand
places the poor at risk more than the rich. In ordinary peacetime, the
draft should not exist. In foreign adventures, some liberals feel that
only volunteers should be sent to fight. In genuine emergencies that
threaten the nation, where volunteer forces are not sufficient, the
draft is preferable to simply increasing wages until enough people are
willing to fight.
12. What is the liberal position on the "drug war"?
This country went through Prohibition once, and its only long-term
result was to corrupt law enforcement and create a vicious and
entrenched criminal class. It's happening again, and (just like last
time) selective enforcement is making the "war on drugs" a war against
the poor and black and downtrodden and a pretext for dangerous
expansions in police power (through confiscation laws, "no-knock"
warrants and a thousand other "anti-drug" measures). In any case, the
government has no right to tell us what we can or cannot put in our
bodies. Only the individual can decide to "say no"; the drug problem
is not one of supply but of *demand*. Total legalization of everything
is the only way to break the drug gangs. However, restriction of
access to children should be ensured, as with tobacco and alcohol; and
taxes should be used to reduce the potential for abuse.
13. What would liberals do about concentrations of corporate power?
Provide a regulatory mechanism to ensure that abuses of power towards
both customers and employees carry severe penalties, and offer a
whistle-blowing office to encourage the reporting of breaches of human
rights, in terms of safety and environmental consequences. It is not
feasible to abolish limited liability, because people are going to be
manipulating resources well beyond the scope of individual repayment,
and assuring them of disaster if they make a mistake simply ensures
that such officers are drawn only from the imprudent. However, no
liability whatsoever is also to be avoided.
C. Standard Criticisms
Liberals are often accused of being wishy-washy, of sitting on the
fence and refusing to accept that the world can be viewed in black and
white. This does not mean that they lack principles, and have no ideas
for change, however.
14. But what about the environment?
The environment is important both for quality of life, and for the
preservation of resources that are as yet unvalued. However, it should
not be given absolute priority over human welfare. Changes that need
to be made to deal with the environment include the widespread
introduction of quality of life into economic evaluations, and the
idea that economic decisions need to err on the safe side whenever it
is known that there is not enough information for an accurate
evaluation to be made. Such radical changes to standard economic
analyses can only be brought about through legislation; otherwise
short-term interests will outweigh longer term considerations.
15. What is the role of property rights?
Property is a social convention that allows people to claim priorities
for certain kinds of interactions with their environment. To own
something is to be able to use it in particular ways. The kinds of
changes that a person can make to an object depends on its value to
others, and the degree of ownership. For example, renting a house
confers a certain amount of freedom in remodelling it, owning it (but
not the land it rests on) adds to this freedom, and owning both it and
the land adds more. If the house is of value to the community, this
restricts the possible modifications; if the house is sufficiently
important to be of value to the nation as a whole, this adds further
restrictions. Property rights are always a compromise between those
who are most directly involved and others whose interest is indirect.
16. Would liberals just give money to the poor?
No, though paying the poor might be an improvement over what
government has done to them. As the level of "anti-poverty" spending
in this country has risen, so has poverty, because so much money is
being spent on bureaucratic administration. Liberals want to break
this cycle by eliminating marginal tax rates of over 100%, allowing
the poor to *keep* most of what they earn instead of removing it by
reducing benefits. The simplest scheme to administer is universal
welfare, combined with a relatively high flat rate income tax. This
removes the demeaning aspect of receiving charity, which encourages
dependency, and ensures that the inadequate levels of charity offered
are not stretched to the breaking point in trying to cope. It is
important to remember that education and training also need to be
provided to offer a realistic way to find jobs.
17. What about national defense?
This issue is inevitably combined with that of foreign aid; to what
extent does it make sense to give money to others so that they won't
be inclined to attack us? The bottom line seems to be human rights; a
country in which human rights are respected is far more stable than
one in which they are not. In the latter, a ruler is more likely to
seek external adventures, so as to bolster internal support; and also,
dictators are more likely to support one another in pacts against
potential victims than rulers of democratic republics. The goal should
be to maintain a defense against potential threats, but to spend most
of the defense budget on increasing the standard of living and level
of democratic participation in other countries.
D. Prospects
18. How can I get involved?
Think about freedom, and act on your thoughts. Spend your dollars
wisely. Oppose the expansion of corporate power, and state power when
it exceeds its limits. Promote "bottom-up" solutions that encourage
local solutions to local problems, within a universally agreed
framework, and that empower individuals to make decisions affecting
their lives. Join a liberal organization; the ACLU (NCCL in the UK),
Amnesty International, Oxfam, Shelter. Encourage others to think about
issues without stereotyping and oversimplifying; show what being a
liberal means by example. Support voluntary cooperation.
19. Is liberalism likely to get a practical test in my lifetime?
Many non-liberals seem to think that liberalism is what is currently
being practiced in the Western world; of course they are mistaken.
Your author thinks that liberalism is on the brink of a revival, with
the collapse of command economies in Eastern Europe and the failure of
the voodoo economics of the '80s; the alternative is further
bloodshed, suffering, and a retreat towards "strong" leaders who can
get the trains to run on time. Some liberals believe that the
fundamental changes in society over the past few decades will make
most of the favoured ideologies obsolete, just as the industrial
revolution did. Only time will tell.
Roy Anderson
<*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Your thoughts have been interesting, one obviously biased. Perhaps
>the biased post was a mis-interpretation of my original post, perhaps
>not. Following this are two FAQ's. One liberal, one conservative. I
>will take the time to note to all that the "liberal faq" is more of an
>ad hoc collection, also it was written in the UK by a relatively non
>note-worthy individual with extreme leftist inclination. None the
>less, it does seem to sum up the far left fairly well.
>The "conservative faq" on the other hand, was written by a relatively
>note-worthy American, who is clearly better with the written word, and
>more effectively presents his "faq" as a moderate view point (as
>opposed to the somewhat more extreme "liberal faq").
>
>Bottom line is that the conservative faq is better written, and both
>faqs were written by people in different countries, readers should
>take this into account when contemplating both. Should someone have a
>better liberal faq, feel free to post it, I just didn't want to spend
>too much time searching for either. Disclaimer aside:
The Conservative FAQ
***********************************************************************************
1 General Principles
1.1 What is distinctive about conservatism as a political view?
Its emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what
can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated.
1.2 Why is tradition a source of greater wisdom?
It is a network of commonly accepted attitudes, beliefs and practices
that evolves through strengthening of things that work and rejection
of things that lead to conflict and failure. It therefore comprises a
collection of habits that have proved useful in a huge variety of
practical affairs, and a comprehensive and generally coherent point of
view that reflects very extensive experience and thought. Through it
we know subtle and fundamental features of the world that would
otherwise escape us, and our understanding of those things takes on
concrete and usable form.
The usual alternative to reliance on tradition is reliance on theory.
Taking theory literally can be costly because it achieves clarity by
ignoring things that are difficult to articulate. Such things can be
important; the reason politics and morals are learned mostly by
experience and imitation is that most of what we need to know about
them consists in habits, attitudes and implicit presumptions that we
couldn't begin to put into words. There is no means other than
tradition to accumulate, conserve and hand on such things.
Other considerations also support the wisdom of relying on tradition,
if not specifically of tradition itself. For example, tradition
typically exists as the common property of a community whose members
are raised in it. Accordingly, it normally unites more than divides,
and is far more likely than theory to facilitate free and cooperative
life in common.
1.3 What's the difference between following tradition and refusing to
think?
Conservatives do not reject thought, but are skeptical of its
autonomy. They believe that tradition guides and corrects thought, and
so brings it closer to truth, which has no special connection with any
private view.
While truth is not altogether out of reach, our access to it is
incomplete and often indirect. Since it can not be reduced wholly to
our possession, conservatives are willing to accept it in whatever
form it is available to us. In particular, they recognize the need to
rely on the unarticulated truth implicit in inherited attitudes and
practices.
Today this aspect of our connection to truth is underestimated, and
conservatives hope to think better and know more truly by
re-emphasizing it.
1.4 Why isn't it better to reason things out from the beginning?
Our knowledge of things like politics and morality is partial and
attained slowly and with difficulty. We can't evaluate political ideas
without accepting far more beliefs, presumptions and attitudes than we
could possibly judge critically. The effects of political proposals
are difficult to predict, and as the proposals become more ambitious
their effects become incalculable. Accordingly, the most reasonable
approach to politics is to take the existing system of society as a
given that can't be changed wholesale and try to ensure that any
changes cohere with the principles and practices that make the
existing system work as well as it does.
1.5 Why can't tradition be an accumulation of ignorance, error and
vice as easily as of wisdom?
Since tradition is a human thing it may reflect human vices as well as
virtues. The same, of course, is true of relying on autonomous reason.
In this century, anti-traditional theories supported by intelligent
men for reasons thought noble have repeatedly led to the murder of
millions of innocents.
The issue therefore is not whether tradition is perfect but its
appropriate place in human life. To the extent our most consistent aim
is toward what is good, and we err more through ignorance, oversight
and conflicting impulse than coherent and settled evil, tradition will
benefit us by linking our thoughts and actions to a steady and
comprehensive system in which they can correct each other. It will
secure and refine our acquisitions while hampering antisocial
impulses. To the extent we consistently aim at what is evil, then
tradition can not help us much, but neither can anything else short of
divine intervention.
1.6 There are lots of conflicting traditions. How can anyone know his
own is the right one?
Comprehensive certainty is hard to come by. Our own tradition (like
our own reasoning) might lead us astray where another's would not.
However, such concerns can not justify rejecting our own tradition
unless we have a method transcending it for determining when that has
happened, and in most situations we do not. If experience has led us
astray it will most likely be further experience that sets us right.
The same is true of tradition, which is social experience.
Putting issues of truth aside, the various parts of a particular
tradition are adjusted to each other in a way that makes it difficult
to abandon one part and substitute something from another tradition. A
French cook will have trouble if he has to rely on Chinese ingredients
and utensils. Issues of coherence and practicality accordingly make it
likely that we will do better developing the tradition to which we are
accustomed than attempting to adopt large parts of a different one.
1.7 But what about truth?
Most conservatives are confident comprehensive objective truth exists,
but not in the form of a set of propositions with a single meaning
equally demonstrable to all. The world is too big for us to grasp as a
whole in a clear systematic way. We apprehend truth largely through
tradition and in a way that cannot be fully articulated, and we cannot
do otherwise. Even if some truths can be known with certainty through
reason or revelation, their social acceptance and their interpretation
and application depend on tradition.
1.8 There are conflicting traditions even within a single society.
Which gets treated as "ours?"
The question is less serious than it appears, since it cannot be asked
without assuming a community of discourse and therefore an
authoritative tradition.
Any collectivity that deliberates and acts has a tradition -- a set of
commonly-held habits, attitudes, beliefs and memories that is
reasonably coherent over time -- that enables it to do so. A society
consists of those who at least in general accept the authority of a
common set of traditions. "Our" tradition is therefore the tradition
that has guided and motivated the collective action of the society to
which we belong and give our loyalty, and within which the relevant
discussion is going forward.
It is worth noting that no society is perfectly unified; each has
elites and subordinate societies with their own traditions and spheres
of action. A society may also harbor resident aliens and dissident or
criminal groups. Which groups are treated as subordinate societies
legitimately belonging to the larger one and which are treated as
resident aliens, criminals or foreign oppressors is itself determined
by the traditions that define the society as a whole and make it what
it is.
2 Tradition and Change
2.1 Society has always changed, for the better in some ways and for
the worse in others. Why not accept change, especially if everything
is so complicated and hard to figure out?
Changes have always involved resistance as well as acceptance. Those
that have to make their way over opposition will presumably be better
than those that are accepted without serious questioning.
In addition, conservatism is not rejection of all change as such, but
of intentional change of a peculiarly sweeping sort characteristic of
the period beginning with the French Revolution and guided by
Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophies such as liberalism
and Marxism. It is recollection that the world is not our creation,
and that there are permanent things. For example, the family as an
institution has changed from time to time in conjunction with other
social changes. However, the current left/liberal demand that all
definite institutional structure for the family be abolished as an
infringement of individual autonomy (typically phrased as a demand for
the elimination of sex roles and heterosexism and the protection of
children's rights) is different in kind from anything in the past, and
conservatives believe it must be fought.
2.2 Isn't conservatism simply another way of saying that people who
currently have wealth and power should keep it?
Every political view promotes the particular advantage of some people.
If political views are to be treated as rationalizations of the
interests of existing or would-be elites, then that treatment should
apply equally to conservatism and all other views. On the other hand,
if arguments that particular political views advance the public good
are to be taken seriously, then the arguments for conservatism should
be considered on their merits.
It's worth noting that contemporary liberalism furthers the interests
of the powerful social classes that support it, and that movements
aiming at social justice typically become intensely elitist because
the more comprehensive and abstract a political principle, the smaller
the group that can be relied on to understand and apply it correctly.
2.3 Wouldn't we still have slavery if conservatives had always been
running the show?
Experience suggests otherwise. Slavery disappeared in Western and
Central Europe long ago without need for self-conscious attempts at
social reconstruction. It lasted much longer in the new and less
conservative societies Europeans founded in America.
While conservatism as such doesn't guarantee there will be no
oppression, neither do attempts at autonomous rational thought. It has
been under radical and not conservative regimes that brutal forced
labor and other gross forms of oppression have made a comeback in
recent times. That is no paradox. Radicalism is far more compatible
than conservatism with tyrannical institutions because by
overemphasizing the role of theory in politics it destroys reciprocity
and mutual accommodation between rulers and ruled.
In addition, conservatism is not rejection of all change. It is not
self-contained; its recognition of existing practice as a standard
does not mean denial that there is any other standard. It recognizes
that moral habits evolve with experience and changing circumstances,
and that social arrangements that come to be too much at odds with the
moral feelings of a people change or disappear. It also recognizes
that there can be corruptions as well as improvements.
Conservatism arose not from a desire to freeze everything exactly as
it is, but from recognition of the necessity of continuity, the
difficulty of forcing society into a preconceived pattern, and the
importance of things, such as mutual personal obligation and standards
of right and wrong not reducible to power and desire, for which
ideologies of the Left have trouble finding a place. Those
recognitions make conservatives more reliable opponents of tyranny
than progressives.
3 Social and Cultural Issues
3.1 What are family values and what is so great about them?
They are habits and attitudes that maintain a society in which
people's most basic loyalties, and the relationships upon which they
rely most fundamentally, are relationships to particular persons
rather than to the state.
Family values are basic to moral life because it is primarily in
relationships with particular persons that are taken with the utmost
seriousness that we find the degree of concrete knowledge and mutual
responsibility that is necessary for our obligations to others to
become realities for us. In addition, the knowledge and habits
necessary for the good life mostly have to do with the day-to-day
activities of ordinary men. Such things lose coherence if everyday
personal relations are unstable and unreliable, as they will be if law
and expected habits and attitudes do not support stable and functional
family life.
To the extent the necessity of practical reliance on particular
persons is viewed as something oppressive and unequal that the state
should remedy, family values are rejected. Conservatives oppose that
rejection.
3.2 Why can't conservatives just accept that people's personal values
differ?
Liberals, conservatives and others all recognize limits on the degree
to which differing personal values can be accommodated. Such limits
often arise because personal values can be realized only by
establishing particular sorts of relations with other people, and no
society can favor all relationships equally. No society, for example,
can favor equally a woman who primarily wants to have a career and one
who primarily wants to be a mother and homemaker; if public attitudes
presume that it is the man who is primarily responsible for family
support they favor the latter at the expense of the former, while if
they fail to make that presumption they do the reverse.
3.3 Why do conservatives always want to force their values on
everybody else?
Conservatives aren't different from other people in that regard.
Anyone with a notion of how society should work will believe that
other people should follow the program he favors. For example, if
Liberal Jack thinks the government should be responsible for the
well-being of children and wants to support the arrangement through a
tax system that sends people to jail who don't comply, and
Conservative Jill thinks there should be family responsibility
supported by a system of sex roles enforced by informal social
sanctions, each will want what the public schools teach to be
consistent with his program. Both will object to a school textbook
entitled Heather Has Two Mommies Who Get Away with Paying No Taxes
Because They Accept Payment Only in Cash. Liberal Jack will object to
the book Heather's Mommy Stays Home and Her Daddy Goes to the Office,
while Conservative Jill will object to other well-known texts. Even
Libertarian Jerry might have some problems with Heather and Her Whole
Family Organize to Fight for Daycare and against Welfare Reductions.
There is no obvious reason to consider any of the three more tolerant
than the others.
At present, the issue of social tolerance comes up most often in
connection with sexual morality. For a discussion from a conservative
perspective, see the Sexual Morality FAQ.
3.4 What role do conservatives think government should play in
enforcing moral values?
Since conservatives believe moral values should be determined more by
the traditions and feelings of the people than by theory and formal
decisions, they typically prefer to rely on informal social sanctions
rather than enforcement by government. Nonetheless, they believe that
government should recognize the moral values on which society relies
and should be run on the assumption that they are good things that
should not be undercut. Thus, conservatives oppose public school
curricula that depict such values as optional and programs that fund
their rejection, for example by subsidizing unwed parents or artists
who intend their works to outrage accepted morality. They also oppose
legislation that forbids discrimination on moral grounds. How much
more the government can or should do to promote morality is a matter
of experience and circumstance. In this connection, as in others,
conservatives typically do not have high expectations for what
government can achieve.
3.5 Aren't conservatives racist sexist homophobes?
That depends on what those words mean. They are often used very
broadly.
"Racist"--Conservatives consider community loyalty important. The
communities people grow up in are generally connected to ethnicity.
That's no accident, because ethnicity is what develops when people
live together with a common way of life for a long time. Accordingly,
conservatives think some degree of ethnic loyalty and separateness is
OK. Ethnicity is not the same thing as "race" as a biological
category; on the other hand, the two are difficult to disentangle
because both arise out of shared history and common descent.
"Sexist"--All known societies have engaged in sex-role stereotyping,
with men undertaking more responsibility for public affairs and women
for home, family, and childcare. There are obvious benefits to such
stereotypes, since they make it far more likely that individual men
and women will complement each other and form stable and functional
unions for the rearing of children. Also, some degree of
differentiation seems to fit the presocial tendencies of men and women
better than unisex would. Conservatives see no reason to struggle
against those benefits, especially in view of the evident bad
consequences of the weakening of stereotypical obligations between the
sexes in recent decades.
"Homophobes"--Finally, sex-role stereotyping implies a tendency to
reject patterns of impulse, attitude and conduct that don't fit the
stereotypes, such as homosexuality.
For a more extended discussion from a conservative perspective of
issues relating to the liberal demand for "inclusiveness", see the
Anti-Inclusiveness FAQ.
3.6 What happens to feminists, homosexuals, racial minorities and
others marginalized in a conservative society?
The same as happens in a society based on the liberal conception of
inclusiveness to religious and social conservatives and to ethnics who
consider their ethnicity important. They find themselves in a social
order they may not like dominated by people who may look down on them
in which it may be difficult to live as they prefer.
In both kinds of society, people on the outs may be able to persuade
others to their way of thinking, to practice the way of life they
prefer among themselves, or to break off from the larger society and
establish their own communities. Such possibilities are in general
more realistic in a conservative society that emphasizes local
control, federalism, and minimal bureaucracy than in a society that
idealizes egalitarian social justice and therefore tries to establish
a universal homogeneous social order. For example, ethnic minorities
in a conservative society may well be able to thrive or at least
maintain themselves through some combination of adaptation and
niche-finding, while in an "inclusive" society they will find
themselves on the receiving end of policies designed to eliminate the
public importance of their (and every other) ethnic culture.
One important question is whether alienation from the social order
will be more common in a conservative or a liberal society. It seems
that it will be more common in a social order based on universal
implementation of a bureaucracy's conception of social justice than in
one that accepts the moral feelings and loyalties that arise over time
within particular communities. So it seems likely that a liberal
society will have more citizens than a conservative society who feel
that their deepest values and loyalties are peripheral to the concerns
of the institutions that dominate their lives, and so feel
marginalized.
3.7 What about freedom?
Conservatives are strong supporters of social institutions that
realize and protect freedom, but believe such institutions attain
their full value as part of a larger whole. Freedom is fully realized
only when we are held responsible for the choices we make, and it is
most valuable in a setting in which things can readily be chosen that
add up to a good life. Accordingly, conservatives reject perspectives
that view freedom as an absolute, and recognize that the institutions
through which freedom is realized must respect other goods without
which freedom would not be worth having.
In addition, conservatives believe there is a close connection between
freedom and participation in public affairs. Since how we live affects
others, freedom includes taking part in making society what it is.
Accordingly, the conservative principles of federalism, local rule,
and private property help realize freedom by devolving power into many
hands and making widespread participation in running society a
reality. Respect for tradition, the "democracy of the dead," has the
same effect.
3.8 And justice?
Justice between man and man is respect for concrete obligations and
individual responsibility. Conservatives take both very seriously.
Social justice is the ordering of social life toward the good for man.
Social injustice is systematic destruction of the conditions for
existence of that good. Because the good for man can not be fully
known, because it includes respect for each of us as a moral agent,
and because human affairs are infinitely complex, social justice can
never be fully achieved, nor achieved at all through imposition of a
preconceived overall design on society. Attempts to do the latter have
led to horrendous crimes including, in several modern instances, the
murder of millions of innocents. Since social justice must evolve
rather than be constructed its furtherance requires acceptance of the
authority of tradition. The two cannot be separated.
Social justice is sometimes thought to mean promotion of equality
through comprehensive government action. That view can not be correct
since men differ and what is just for them must therefore also differ.
In addition, the goods which that view is concerned to divide equally
-- wealth, power and the like -- do not appear to be the ultimate
human goods and therefore can not appropriately be considered the
ultimate concerns of justice. Finally, a system guided by such a
conception must defeat its own purpose because it puts enormous and
uncontrollable power in the hands of those who control the government;
possession of such power, of course, makes them radically unequal to
those they rule.
4 Economic Issues
4.1 Why do conservatives say they favor virtue and community but in
fact favor laissez-faire capitalism? Doesn't laissez- faire capitalism
promote the opposite?
Conservatives typically are not fans of pure laissez-faire, although
they view economic liberty as one of the traditional liberties of the
American people that has served that people well. Many are skeptical
of free trade and most favor restraints on immigration for the sake of
permitting the existence and development of a reasonably coherent
national community. Nor do they oppose in principle the regulation or
suppression of businesses that affect the moral order of society, such
as prostitution, pornography, and the sale of certain drugs.
Conservatives strongly favor free markets when the alternative is to
expand bureaucracy to implement liberal goals, a process that clearly
has the effect of damaging virtue and community. Also, they tend to
prefer self-organization to central control because they believe that
overall administration of social life is impossible. They recognize
that like tradition the market reflects men's infinitely various and
often unconscious and inarticulate goals and perceptions far better
than any bureaucratic process could.
In any event, it's not clear that laissez-faire capitalism need
undermine moral community. "Laissez-faire capitalism" has to do with
limitations on what the government does and only indirectly with the
nature of society as a whole. While social statistics are only a crude
measure of the state of community and morality, it is noteworthy that
in England crime and illegitimacy rates fell by about half from the
middle to the end of the 19th century, the heyday of untrammelled
capitalism, and that the rejection of laissez-faire has in fact been
accompanied by increasing social atomization.
4.2 Why don't conservatives care about what happens to the poor, weak,
discouraged, and outcast?
Conservatives do care about what happens to such people. That's why
they oppose government programs that multiply the poor, weak,
discouraged, and outcast by undermining and disrupting the network of
habits and social relations that enable people to carry on their lives
without depending on government bureaucracy.
Moral community declines when people rely on government to solve their
problems rather than on themselves and those they live with. It is the
weak who suffer most from the resulting moral chaos. Those who think
that interventionist liberalism means that the weak face fewer
problems should consider the effects on women, children, and blacks of
trends of the past 35 years, a period of large increases in social
welfare expenditures, such as increased crime, reduced educational
achievement, family instability, and an end to progress in reducing
poverty.
4.3 What about people for whom the usual support networks don't work?
Shouldn't the government do something for them?
The fundamental question is whether government should have ultimate
responsibility for individual material well-being. Conservatives
believe that it should not; giving it that responsibility means
despotism, since material well-being is a result of a complex of
things that in the end extends to the whole of life, and
responsibility for each individual case requires detailed control of
the whole.
Government responsibility for specific cases also means that what what
happens to people, and therefore what they do, is the business of no
one in particular; if there's a serious problem, the government will
take care of it. Such an outlook destroys social ties and promotes
antisocial behavior. If government does things that weaken
self-reliance and the moral bonds that give rise to community, and
that can not be made to work without an elaborate system of
compulsion, in the long run it will increase suffering and
degradation.
Conservatives are therefore suspicious of social welfare programs,
especially attempts at categorical solutions. Suspicion has rational
limits. Some government social welfare measures (free clinics for
mothers and children or local systems of support for deserving people)
may well increase social welfare even in the long term. However,
because of the obscurity of the issue, the difficulty in a mass
democracy of limiting the expansion of government benefit programs,
and the value of widespread participation in public life, the best
resolution is likely to be keeping central government involvement
strictly limited, and letting individuals, associations and localities
support voluntarily the institutions and programs they think socially
beneficial.
4.4 What about welfare for the middle classes, like social security,
medicare, the home mortgage interest deduction, and so on?
The most consistent conservatives want to get rid of all of them.
Social security and medicare, they say, are financially unsound, and
are socially harmful because they lead people capable of saving for
their own retirement and supporting their own parents to rely on the
government instead. They could better be replaced by private savings,
prefunded medical insurance, greater emphasis on intergenerational
obligations within families, and other arrangements that would evolve
if the government presence were reduced or eliminated.
Other conservatives distinguish these middle-class benefits from
welfare by the element of reciprocity; people get social security and
medicare only if they have already given a great deal to society, and
in the case of the mortgage interest deduction the "benefit" consists
only in the right to keep more of one's earnings. Still others try to
split the difference somehow. As a practical matter, the reluctance of
many conservatives to disturb these arrangements is likely motivated
in part by the electoral power of their supporters.
4.5 If conserving is a good thing, why isn't ecology a conservative
cause?
Conservatism is concerned more with relations among men than those
between man and nature, so ecology is not one of its defining issues.
There is, however, nothing in conservatism intrinsically at odds with
ecological concerns. Some conservatives and conservative schools of
thought take such issues very seriously; others less so. There are, of
course, conservative grounds for criticizing or rejecting particular
aspects of the existing environmental movement such as overemphasis on
central controls.
5 Conservatism in an Age of Established Liberalism
5.1 Why do conservatives talk as if the sky is about to fall and all
good things are in the past? People have been bemoaning the present
for a long time but things don't seem so bad today.
Conservatives don't predict more disasters than liberals, just
different disasters. Like other people they see both hopeful and
hazardous trends in the current situation. Post-communist societies
display the social consequences of energetic attempts to implement
post-Enlightenment radicalism. Less energetic attempts, such as modern
American liberalism, do not lead to similar effects as quickly.
Nonetheless, social trends toward breakdown of affiliations among
individuals, centralization of political power in irresponsible
elites, irreconcilable social conflicts, and increasing stupidity,
brutality and triviality in daily life suggest that those consequences
are coming just the same. Why not worry about them?
5.2 Isn't conservatism essentially nostalgia for a past that never was
and can't be restored?
In substance, the objection is that the goals of conservatism are
neither serious nor achievable. That objection fails if in the end
conservatives are likely to get what they want.
Conservatism involves recognition that moral community is required for
the coherence of individual and social life, and that a reasonably
coherent way of life is a practical necessity. Current trends toward
radical egalitarianism, individualism and hedonism destroy the
possibility of moral community. Conservatives are therefore confident
that in some fashion existing trends will be reversed and in important
respects the moral and social future will resemble the past more than
the present. In particular, the future will see less emphasis on
individual autonomy and more on moral tradition and essentialist ties.
The timing and form of the necessary reversal is of course uncertain.
It plainly can't be achieved through administrative techniques, the
method most readily accepted as serious and realistic today, so
conservatives' main political proposal is that aspects of the modern
state that oppose the reversal be trimmed or abandoned. Those who
consider modern trends beneficial and irreversible therefore accuse
conservatives of simple obstructionism. In contrast, those who believe
that current trends lead to catastrophe and that a reversal must take
place expect that if conservatives aren't successful now their goals
will be achieved in the future, but very likely with more conflict and
destruction along the way.
5.3 What's all this stuff about community and tradition? The groups
that matter these days are groups like yuppies, gays, and senior
citizens that people join as individuals based on interests and
perspectives rather than tradition.
Can this be true in the long run? When times are good people imagine
that they can define themselves as they choose, but a society will not
long exist if the only thing its members have in common is a
commitment to self-definition. The necessity for something beyond that
becomes clearest when the times require sacrifice. Membership in a
group with an identity developed and inculcated through tradition
becomes far more relevant then than career path, life-style option, or
stage of life. One of Bill Clinton's problems as president was that
people see in him a yuppie who wouldn't die for anything; at some
point that kind of problem becomes decisive.
5.4 If conservatism is so great, why are most people seriously
involved in studying and dealing with social issues liberals?
Conservatives believe it is impossible to define and control the
considerations relevant to social life accurately enough to make a
technological approach to society possible. Accordingly, they reject
efforts to divide human affairs into compartments to be dealt with by
experts as part of an overall plan for promoting comprehensive goals
like equality and prosperity. Academic and other policy experts are
defined as such by their participation in such efforts. It would be
surprising if they did not prefer perspectives that give free rein to
them, such as welfare-state liberalism, over perspectives that are
suspicious of them.
5.5 How can tradition do anything but endorse the way things happen to
be -- which at present means established liberalism?
If traditionalism were a formal rule it could of course tell us very
little; the current state of a tradition is simply the current
practices, attitudes, beliefs and so on of the community whose
tradition it is. The point of tradition, however, is that formal rules
are inadequate. Tradition is not self-contained, and not all parts of
it are equally authoritative. It is a way of grasping things that are
neither knowable apart from it nor merely traditional. One who accepts
a religious tradition, for example, owes his ultimate allegiance not
to the tradition but to God, who is known through the tradition. It is
allegiance to something that exceeds and motivates the tradition that
makes it possible to distinguish what is authentic and living in the
tradition from nonessentials and corruptions.
5.6 Shouldn't modern conservatives at least favor things that are as
well-established as the welfare state and steady expansion of the
scope of the civil rights laws?
Yes, to the extent they are consistent with the older and more
fundamental parts of our social arrangements, such as family,
community, and traditional moral standards, and contribute to the
over-all functioning of the whole. Unfortunately, the things mentioned
fail on both points. Existing welfare and civil rights measures make
sense only as part of a comprehensive centrally managed system that is
adverse to the connections among men that make community possible, and
is designed to reorder society as a whole through bureaucratic decree.
It is very difficult for conservatives to accept anything like such a
system.
5.7 I was raised a liberal. Doesn't that mean that to be conservative
I should stay true to liberalism?
How can you feel bound to a viewpoint that does not value loyalty and
therefore can survive only if it is fundamentally not accepted by most
people? For someone raised a liberal, the conservative approach would
be to look for guidance to the things on which the people with whom he
grew up actually relied for coherence and stability, including the
traditions of the larger community upon which their way of life
depended. Those things will always include fundamental illiberal
elements that enabled the community to function as such.
6 The Conservative Rainbow
6.1 How do libertarians differ from conservatives?
In general, libertarians emphasize limited government more than
conservatives and believe the sole legitimate purpose of government is
the protection of property rights against force and fraud. Thus, they
usually consider legal restrictions on such things as immigration,
drug use, and prostitution to be illegitimate violations of personal
liberty. Many but not all libertarians hold a position that might be
described as economically Right (anti-socialist) and culturally Left
(opposed to what are called cultural repressiveness, racism, sexism,
homophobia, and so on), and tend to attribute to state intervention
the survival of things the cultural Left dislikes.
Speaking more abstractly, the libertarian perspective assigns to the
market the position conservatives assign to tradition as the great
accumulator and integrator of the implicit knowledge of society. Some
writers, such as F.A. Hayek, attempt to bridge the two perspectives on
that issue. In addition, libertarians tend to believe in strict
methodological individualism and absolute and universally valid human
rights, while conservatives are less likely to have the former
commitment and tend to understand rights by reference to the forms
they take in particular societies.
6.2 What are mainstream conservatives?
People who mix the traditionalist conservatism outlined in this FAQ
with varying proportions of libertarianism and liberalism. Any
conservative who gets elected or otherwise hits the mass market (e.g.,
Rush Limbaugh) is likely to be a mainstream conservative.
Mainstream conservatives often speak the language of liberalism,
especially classical liberalism. Their appeal is nonetheless
conservative; typically, they reject more highly developed forms of
liberalism in favor of earlier forms that retain more traces of
non-liberal traditions.
6.3 What are neoconservatives?
A group of conservatives most of whom were liberals until left-wing
radicalism went mass-market in the sixties. Their positions continue
to evolve; some still have positions consistent with New Deal
liberalism, while others have moved on to a more full-blown
conservatism. Many of them have been associated with the magazines
Commentary and The Public Interest, and a neopapalist contingent (now
at odds with many other neoconservatives over the relation between
religion and politics) is associated with the magazine First Things.
Their influence has been out of proportion to their numbers, in part
because they include a number of well-known Northeastern and West
Coast journalists and academics and in part because having once been
liberals they still can speak the language and retain a certain
credibility in Establishment circles.
6.4 What are paleoconservatives?
Another group of conservatives most of whom were never liberals and
live someplace other than the Northeastern megalopolis or California.
The most prominent paleo publications are Chronicles and Modern Age.
They arose as a self-conscious group in opposition to neoconservatives
after the success of the neos in establishing themselves within the
Reagan administration, and especially after the neos helped defeat the
nomination of paleo Mel Bradford as head of the National Endowment for
the Humanities in favor of one of their own, Bill Bennett. The views
set forth in this FAQ are consistent with those of most
paleoconservatives as well as many neoconservatives.
6.5 What are paleolibertarians?
A group of libertarians, notably Llewellyn Rockwell and the late
Murray Rothbard, who reject mainstream libertarianism as culturally
libertine and often squishy-soft on big government and on most issues
share common ground with paleoconservatives. Their center on the web
is Mises.org, and a sampling of their views expressed in popular form
can be found at LewRockwell.com
6.6 What are Frankfurt School Neopaleoconservatives?
A group (so named for the first time in this FAQ) that has come by way
of Frankfurt School cultural criticism to a position reminiscent of
paleoconservatism emphasizing federalism, rejection of the therapeutic
managerial state, and (most recently) liturgy. Their publication is
Telos, which now includes paleocon Paul Gottfried on its editorial
board and publishes Chronicles editor Thomas Fleming as well as
writers such as Alain de Benoist associated with the European New
Right.
6.7 Where do the pro-life movement and religious right fit into all
this?
Like conservatism, both movements reject hedonism and radical
individual autonomy and emphasize the authority of traditionally-based
institutions in opposition to that of the modern managerial state.
Their general goals can usually be supported on conservative
principles, but they tend to base their claims on principles of
natural law or revelation that are sometimes handled in an
antitraditional way. As popular movements in an antitraditional public
order they often adopt non-conservative styles of reasoning and
rhetoric. Thus, these movements have strong conservative elements but
are not purely conservative. It should be noted, however, that pure
conservatism is rare or nonexistent and may not even be coherent; the
point of conservatism is always some good other than maintenance of
tradition as such.
6.8 What are the differences between American conservatism and that of
other countries?
They correspond to the differences in political tradition. In general,
conservatism in America has a much stronger capitalist/libertarian and
populist streak than in other countries. European conservatism once
emphasized support for throne, altar and sword as hierarchical bearers
of authoritative traditions. In America those hierarchies never
existed, and especially in recent years conservatism has emphasized
opposition to new antitraditional hierarchies of formal expertise and
bureaucratic position. These differences seem to be declining as other
countries become more like America and as many American conservatives
become more alienated from their country's actual way of life and
system of government.
6.9 What do all these things called "conservatism" have in common?
Each rejects, through an appeal to something traditionally valued, the
liberal tendency to treat individual impulse and desire as the final
authorities. Differences in the preferred point of reference give rise
to different forms of conservatism. Those who appeal to the
independent and responsible individual become libertarian
conservatives, while those who appeal to a traditional culture or to
God become traditionalist or religious conservatives. Depending on
circumstances, the alliance among different forms of conservatism may
be closer or more tenuous. In America today libertarian,
traditionalist and religious conservatives find common ground in
favoring federalism and constitutional limited government and opposing
the managerial welfare state.
Russ Rose
> Your thoughts have been interesting, one obviously biased.
Obviously biased yet you demonstrated your liberal "fear" in not responding.
If you believe your post was completely unbiased, as if it is a bad thing to
have a point of view, you are living in a fantasy world.
As I accurately predicted in my original response "I doubt you are actually
interested in any contradictory views". Try debating with your thoughts and
ideas to specifics that others have spent their valuable time responding to.
Especially when you originate the topic.
> Perhaps
> the biased post was a mis-interpretation of my original post, perhaps
> not.
Why didn't you respond directly and clarify? Because you know I hit the nail
directly on the head.
(Introduction to other people's boring thoughts clipped)
> Should someone have a
> better liberal faq, feel free to post it, I just didn't want to spend
> too much time searching for either. Disclaimer aside:
>
(Other people's boring thoughts clipped)
Russ Rose
Roy Anderson
wrote:
>The author of this "conservative FAQ" is not a conservative.
Yes, he is in fact very conservative, or more specifically, a
"Traditionalist Conservative" (in his words).
However, what specifically do you believe he misrepresents about
Traditionalist Conservatives?
-Roy Anderson
Roy Anderson
wrote:
>
>"Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:n58pduostlvt6serd...@4ax.com...
>> Your thoughts have been interesting, one obviously biased.
>
>Obviously biased yet you demonstrated your liberal "fear" in not responding.
Are you ok?
Take a valium or something. Perhaps you should reread my original
post. I'll repeat a relevant part:
"I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this."
>If you believe your post was completely unbiased, as if it is a bad thing to
>have a point of view, you are living in a fantasy world.
Again, calm down Geronimo. I didn't evict your people from their
lands.
>As I accurately predicted in my original response "I doubt you are actually
>interested in any contradictory views". Try debating with your thoughts and
>ideas to specifics that others have spent their valuable time responding to.
>Especially when you originate the topic.
Ok, when it's Friday night, early Saturday morning, and you just got
home from a kegger and are completely lit, let's see if you can
actually get online, read some posts, search for coherent definitions
of two subjective words, post said definitions *and* make an attempt
to formulate intellectual responses to numerous posts while the room
is spinning. I seriously doubt many others could (or would for that
matter).
>> Perhaps
>> the biased post was a mis-interpretation of my original post, perhaps
>> not.
>
>Why didn't you respond directly and clarify? Because you know I hit the nail
>directly on the head.
Not quite, read above. Further, since when has an originating poster
felt obligated to respond to every single person who posted under his
thread? I sense egotism at work in your heart.
>(Introduction to other people's boring thoughts clipped)
>
>> Should someone have a
>> better liberal faq, feel free to post it, I just didn't want to spend
>> too much time searching for either. Disclaimer aside:
>>
>
>(Other people's boring thoughts clipped)
Alright, it's my son's second birthday, so I'm taking him to the park
and to buy a present (while fighting a horrible hangover), and THEN
I'll respond to your post, O Egotistical One. Hope the time delay is
OK with you.
-Roy Anderson
p.s.---I will be responding in alt.philosophy.debate only however,
since I believe this goes beyond the scope of mere commentary (as was
the point of my original post).
ta
>
> "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:MUYC8.191536$tt4.13...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:hwWC8.18648$RR3.9124@sccrnsc02...
> > >
> > > "Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2hhmdukon8qkep2t5...@4ax.com...
> > > > Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which
a
> > > > free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps
it
> > > > would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> > > > (those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
> >
> > Define conservative (somebody had to say it!).
>
> Not liberal? Personally I see it as "everything in moderation".
I don't know, I still think we need a better defnition. I hate the term
"liberal" - it's meaning has been so twisted and warped by the far right
that it no longer has any meaning. Liberal to me means forward-thinking,
progressive, striving for improvement. The likes of Rush Limbaugh have
managed to completely turn this word into a negative thing for sheer
political purposes.
Fair enough, I'll take your word on that one, and you're right, I am not
familiar with any of his work outside of the pop fiction.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
> > > > environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind
expansion
> > > > that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the
word
> > > > "tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
> > > > aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
> > > > assumptions are correct.
> > > >
> > > > I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I doubt you are actually interested in any contradictory views but I
> will
> > > supply them.
> >
> > It seems the original poster is not the only one starting with
conclusions
> > and assumptions.
>
> There is nothing more predictable than a young liberal.
If you're mind is already made up, how can you ever learn anything new? You
could have given him the benefit of the doubt, which is what optimistic
people do. They don't assume the worst in people as you have done. You must
be a liberal. ;-)
> I was one a long
> time ago.
Unfortunately, "the truth" cannot be found by changing "sides". Looking at
issues through the eyes of ideology and dogma (whatever the flavor) only
gives you a different kind of bias.
> >
> > > Free market capitalism has existed and will always exist in every
human
> > > society including the most totalitarian and anarchistic. It is as
> natural
> > to
> > > humans as breathing.
> >
> > Perhaps. But as we evolve as a species, who is to say that ulimately
> > cooperation will not prove to be a much more efficient and useful method
> for
> > survival than competition? I'd say the world is definitely moving in
that
> > direction.
>
> Since when is cooperation not part of free trade? It takes two to tango.
That's true.
> >
> > > Human survival is based on fulfilling needs, and human
> > > needs are very diverse and virtually endless.
> >
> > Cooperation is necessary for survival.
> >
> > > To believe that any socialist
> > > system, no matter how prosperous it is, could produce enough to
satisfy
> > all
> > > of the needs of all of its citizens is silly.
> >
> > So the choices are either capitalism or socialism?
>
> Not a choice. Socialism is a natural way of getting along with each other.
> They work with each other, each within their natural context. It is when
> socialism tries to take over the economy, or vice versa, when things go
> awry.
Good point.
> >
> > > Therefore an underground
> > > economy naturally develops to meet those un-met or illegal needs such
as
> > > garden trolls, drugs, car magazines, porn, etc.
> > >
> > > When the governing body makes this sort of trade illegal it becomes
> known
> > as
> > > the "black market", but it could never be eliminated regardless the
> > > penalties threatened or imposed.
> >
> > It can only be eliminated when the demand ceases.
>
> Correctamundo, but it never does.
I think it happens on an individual level, and therefore can happen on a
widescale level. Then again, I'm an optimist. :-)
OK. Agreed. And thank God for venture capitalists who are willing to risk
it!
> Optimistic liberals are destined to become conservatives.
I don't buy this. I've met plenty of optimistic liberals whose dedication
and optimism drives their work. Trust me, these people will never become
"conservatives". How could one dedicate their working life to a cause (i.e.,
helping rape victims) and not be optimistic about their chances of success
for improving the world?
> >
> > > They confront their enemies instead of
> > > bending over for them. By having a better understanding of how the
real
> > > world works, it becomes more predictable and there is less to fear.
> >
> > Still struggling with your "real world" notion. I've found that many
> > liberals are the ones embracing the real world problems, such as
> > environmental deterioration, poverty, physical and mental health, and
> child
> > care. Tell the 3rd grade inner city school teacher that she is not
dealing
> > in the real world.
>
> "Embracing" is an interesting word. Conservatives prefer to solve the
> problems.
By embracing, I mean confronting them and taking on the challenge. That is
what people do by working in those fields, which are often times dominated
by "liberals". This requires a great deal of optimism. Although I've also
met people who are not that optimistic after engaging in that type of work.
> >
> > > Liberalism is based completely in fear. "Safety net" social programs
are
> > > designed to remove the fear of the unknown future by providing the
> > > necessities when "hard times" hit. Anti-war and anti-nuke protesters
are
> > > afraid of what could happen, and don't realize that their weakness
only
> > > invites the aggression of the enemy. Protecting every single human
from
> > > every single bad thing that could happen is completely motivated by
the
> > fear
> > > of bad things happening. I want my lawn darts back! You take any
liberal
> > > position and you will likely find fear is the underlying motivation.
> >
> > I think you risk getting carried away here, although there is some
> > underlying truth to what you say about fear. But I don't think it's a
> > liberal/conservative thing. Some of the biggest fear mongers in the U.S.
> > hail from the right. Ronald Reagan (must fear the "evil empire"),
>
> He did not fear the "evil empire" otherwise he would not have provoked
them
> so.
Of course he feared them. Reagan was one of the greatest fear mongers of all
time. If there was nothing to fear, then why all the rhetoric about the
"evil empire"? This is classic fear mongering: we'd better build up the
military or the big bad evil Russians or going to get us. The whole "star
wars" concept is precisely the safety net you claim the liberals obsess
about. If there was nothing to fear, why the need for a missile defense
system? The whole concept of "National Security" is based on fear, isn't it?
This clearly has more to do with human beings in general and less to do with
liberals and conservatives.
>The liberals on the other hand were cowering in the corner, waiting for
> the missles to be launched when they heard him say that.
(laugh) I'm sure that's how it went down.
> > Jerry
> > Falwell (must fear the heathens), and Jesse Helms (must fear the
> > homosexuals) come to mind as contemporary examples.
>
> I did not say conservatives were all sane, but I would not characterize it
> as fear. Pity in the former case and likely disgust in the latter.
Classic fear. Falwell and Helms are deathly frightened of their respective
"enemies". Falwell is so blinded by his religious dogma that he fears
anyone/anything who threatens it. Helms is completely blinded by his
political ideology - he is afraid of how homosexuals are corrupting America.
These are two of the most insecure, fearful men in the public eye.
> > Conservatives also tend
> > to be much more heavily supportive of a military buildup, which is
> > completely motivated by fear. I tend not to look at it in terms of
> "liberal"
> > versus "conservative". That's the old way of thinking.
> >
>
> The military is not a product of fear. Defense is prudent when faced with
> the abundance of human history.
The term "defense" is completely rooted in fear. Defend against what?
Someone who is going to hurt you! Whether you think its prudent or not is
irrelevant - the bottom line is that it is based in fear. Fear is what
prevents human beings from getting along.
> Old or new, it is accurate.
The old way hasn't worked - look around. Yassar Arafat and Ariel Sharon
represent the old way. Two fearful men with deeply entrenched religious and
political ideologies, refusing to budge or compromise on who is "right".
> > > Universities tend to be safe little places for liberals to hide from
the
> > > harsh realities of the real world. This is why there are so many of
them
> > > there.
> >
> > That may be one reason. Although there are plenty of conservatives in
> > academia as well. How do you account for them?
>
> Most have been "out there" in one way or the other.
I don't have any statistics one way or the other, but this sounds like a
vast generalization to me.
Russ Rose
Conservatism does not come from accepting traditions in place of reason and
genuine thought. To believe conservatives are backward thinking is an
outsider's point of view. Each side has its blind followers, which this
author characterizes as the root of conservatism. There are things that are
very natural to human existance. Recognition and understanding this
generation after generation is not a clinging to "the way things were", it
is seeing that which is obvious. This is analogous to accepting the
gravitational constant as a fact. You can theorize all you want, pretend you
have a "better" system of explaining why things fall when you let go of
them, but in the end Newton stay's on top.
Russ Rose
>
> "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CV_C8.12874$Po6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:MUYC8.191536$tt4.13...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> > >
> > > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:hwWC8.18648$RR3.9124@sccrnsc02...
> > > >
> > > > "Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:2hhmdukon8qkep2t5...@4ax.com...
> > > > > Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists
which
> a
> > > > > free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps
> it
> > > > > would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> > > > > (those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
> > >
> > > Define conservative (somebody had to say it!).
> >
> > Not liberal? Personally I see it as "everything in moderation".
>
> I don't know, I still think we need a better defnition. I hate the term
> "liberal" - it's meaning has been so twisted and warped by the far right
> that it no longer has any meaning. Liberal to me means forward-thinking,
> progressive, striving for improvement. The likes of Rush Limbaugh have
> managed to completely turn this word into a negative thing for sheer
> political purposes.
>
Who has been trying to kill the space program since its inception? Liberals.
Not very forward thinking in my book. We all look forward, the difference is
in what we see there.
I was right, wasn't I? He singled out my comments as "biased", indicating
that he was in some way neutral. Liberal is not "the worst" in people, evil
is. Had I not been optimistic that I could plant a seed of the truth in his
mind, I would not have wasted my time responding.
>
> > I was one a long
> > time ago.
>
> Unfortunately, "the truth" cannot be found by changing "sides". Looking at
> issues through the eyes of ideology and dogma (whatever the flavor) only
> gives you a different kind of bias.
It wasn't changing sides, it was getting a better understanding of reality.
If I was a "flat world" person and then realized that a spherical world
matched observations much better, I would not be changing sides, just seeing
reality a little more clearly.
Specific needs maybe, but there is always something new to come along and
fill you will the "gottahaveits". It is as natural as breathing.
Conservatives don't help rape victims? There's an old saying "a liberal is a
conservative that hasn't been mugged yet". I saw a fascinating interview a
few weeks ago between Rosie O'Donnell and Bill O'Reilly. Rosie was detailing
how 9/11 had changed how she looked at the world. She did not change her
opinions on issues, she merely understood them in a different way.
Conservatives want the same things liberals want, it is only the path taken
to those goals that differs.
>
> > >
> > > > They confront their enemies instead of
> > > > bending over for them. By having a better understanding of how the
> real
> > > > world works, it becomes more predictable and there is less to fear.
> > >
> > > Still struggling with your "real world" notion. I've found that many
> > > liberals are the ones embracing the real world problems, such as
> > > environmental deterioration, poverty, physical and mental health, and
> > child
> > > care. Tell the 3rd grade inner city school teacher that she is not
> dealing
> > > in the real world.
> >
> > "Embracing" is an interesting word. Conservatives prefer to solve the
> > problems.
>
> By embracing, I mean confronting them and taking on the challenge. That is
> what people do by working in those fields, which are often times dominated
> by "liberals". This requires a great deal of optimism. Although I've also
> met people who are not that optimistic after engaging in that type of
work.
Confronting and taking on still are not the same as solving. MLK Jr deamed
of a color blind society. Who is it that keeps color as part of the
equation? Liberals. You mentioned rape victims earlier, who works to
"reform" and release rapists instead of punishing them? Liberals. Recidivism
rates are ridiculous.
I'm sure you have seen the movie Braveheart. The scene where he's ridng back
and forth and whipping them into a fighting mood, that is not "fear
mongering". That is instilling and inspiring the courage necessary to fight
the moral wars that need to be fought. Again defense is not fear, it is
prudence. The liberals do not want these weapons, particularly SDI, because
they fear provoking the wrath of their enemy.
>
> >The liberals on the other hand were cowering in the corner, waiting for
> > the missles to be launched when they heard him say that.
>
> (laugh) I'm sure that's how it went down.
>
> > > Jerry
> > > Falwell (must fear the heathens), and Jesse Helms (must fear the
> > > homosexuals) come to mind as contemporary examples.
> >
> > I did not say conservatives were all sane, but I would not characterize
it
> > as fear. Pity in the former case and likely disgust in the latter.
>
> Classic fear. Falwell and Helms are deathly frightened of their respective
> "enemies". Falwell is so blinded by his religious dogma that he fears
> anyone/anything who threatens it. Helms is completely blinded by his
> political ideology - he is afraid of how homosexuals are corrupting
America.
> These are two of the most insecure, fearful men in the public eye.
>
Agree to disagree. Although I don't see it as fear, I get woozy
contemplating the defense of those nutbags. True conservatives do not have a
problem with contrary religious views or lifestyles.
> > > Conservatives also tend
> > > to be much more heavily supportive of a military buildup, which is
> > > completely motivated by fear. I tend not to look at it in terms of
> > "liberal"
> > > versus "conservative". That's the old way of thinking.
> > >
> >
> > The military is not a product of fear. Defense is prudent when faced
with
> > the abundance of human history.
>
> The term "defense" is completely rooted in fear. Defend against what?
> Someone who is going to hurt you! Whether you think its prudent or not is
> irrelevant - the bottom line is that it is based in fear. Fear is what
> prevents human beings from getting along.
>
So cops are cowards because they carry guns? The brave ones refuse to carry
one? Not having a strong, visible defense along with the will to use it only
invites the agressively evil that exist in the world. It is not fear that
recognizes and confronts evil, it is fear that runs from it or compromises
and appeases it.
As for getting along, it more often misunderstanding or conflicting goals
that keep people from getting along. Fear does underlie this sometimes,
whether it is the exception or the rule I don't know.
> > Old or new, it is accurate.
>
> The old way hasn't worked - look around. Yassar Arafat and Ariel Sharon
> represent the old way. Two fearful men with deeply entrenched religious
and
> political ideologies, refusing to budge or compromise on who is "right".
No, what you see are pit bulls on the end of leashes snapping at each other.
If you see them as cowards you have much to learn about the nature of
courage.
>
> > > > Universities tend to be safe little places for liberals to hide from
> the
> > > > harsh realities of the real world. This is why there are so many of
> them
> > > > there.
> > >
> > > That may be one reason. Although there are plenty of conservatives in
> > > academia as well. How do you account for them?
> >
> > Most have been "out there" in one way or the other.
>
> I don't have any statistics one way or the other, but this sounds like a
> vast generalization to me.
>
Conservatism comes through understanding. Understanding comes from being
"out there" in the real world. Definitely a generalization as well as a
guess, but it makes sense to me.
> > >
> > > > You're fooling yourself if you believe they are filled with liberals
> > > > because liberals are more intelligent.
> > >
> > > Definitely agree. The whole premise of the original poster is absurd
> IMO.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
I appreciate your thoughtful opposition to my ranting.
>
Russ Rose
You chose to respond indirectly, dismissing me as "biased" and claimed I did
not understand when it was clear I understood perfectly. You are not
obligated to respond at all. I was simply responding to your content and
method of response.
>
> >(Introduction to other people's boring thoughts clipped)
> >
> >> Should someone have a
> >> better liberal faq, feel free to post it, I just didn't want to spend
> >> too much time searching for either. Disclaimer aside:
> >>
> >
> >(Other people's boring thoughts clipped)
>
>
> Alright, it's my son's second birthday, so I'm taking him to the park
> and to buy a present (while fighting a horrible hangover), and THEN
> I'll respond to your post, O Egotistical One. Hope the time delay is
> OK with you.
Why are you getting "completely lit" at a "kegger" when you have a two year
old? Grow up.
>
> -Roy Anderson
>
>
> p.s.---I will be responding in alt.philosophy.debate only however,
> since I believe this goes beyond the scope of mere commentary (as was
> the point of my original post).
I look forward to it. To be honest I worded the reply specifically as a
challenge. Looks like it worked. ;-)
Roy Anderson
wrote:
Ok, your egocentric BS has finally gotten to me. Why did you possibly
think I was referring to you?
That's a rhetorical question btw.
>> >(Introduction to other people's boring thoughts clipped)
>> >
>> >> Should someone have a
>> >> better liberal faq, feel free to post it, I just didn't want to spend
>> >> too much time searching for either. Disclaimer aside:
>> >>
>> >
>> >(Other people's boring thoughts clipped)
>>
>>
>> Alright, it's my son's second birthday, so I'm taking him to the park
>> and to buy a present (while fighting a horrible hangover), and THEN
>> I'll respond to your post, O Egotistical One. Hope the time delay is
>> OK with you.
>
>Why are you getting "completely lit" at a "kegger" when you have a two year
>old? Grow up.
Because his mother had him that night (we're not together). It's not
the 1950's anymore, and this college student still desires to have fun
once in a while.
Now that I've explained my life to you--when I had no reason to do
so--do you feel satisfied? Here's another big difference between
conservatives and liberals. Liberals don't judge people (at least not
nearly to the degree that conservatives such as yourself do). Much as
the Conservative FAQ states, you base your worldview on "tradition,"
on what *you* know.
Grow up?
Fuck you.
Game over, this is the last post you will be receiving from me. Way
to take a possible discussion and screw it up with your self-centered
replies and traditionalist accusations.
-Roy Anderson
Roy Anderson
wrote:
>
>"Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:maaqdugpdskurdh5o...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 11 May 2002 11:51:47 GMT, "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The author of this "conservative FAQ" is not a conservative.
>>
>>
>> Yes, he is in fact very conservative, or more specifically, a
>> "Traditionalist Conservative" (in his words).
>>
>> However, what specifically do you believe he misrepresents about
>> Traditionalist Conservatives?
>>
>> -Roy Anderson
>
>Conservatism does not come from accepting traditions in place of reason and
>genuine thought. To believe conservatives are backward thinking is an
Are you sure you read this FAQ? I don't think you must have, he goes
out of his way to explain conservatives as the most forward thinkers.
He is after all, a *very* conservative graduate of Yale.
>outsider's point of view. Each side has its blind followers, which this
>author characterizes as the root of conservatism. There are things that are
>very natural to human existance. Recognition and understanding this
>generation after generation is not a clinging to "the way things were", it
>is seeing that which is obvious. This is analogous to accepting the
To who? You?
I believe you are acting in exactly the way he speaks.
>gravitational constant as a fact. You can theorize all you want, pretend you
>have a "better" system of explaining why things fall when you let go of
>them, but in the end Newton stay's on top.
Blah.
Actually read the FAQ.
-Roy Anderson
Russ Rose
Liberals judge conservatives' moral choices, conservatives judge liberals'
immoral choices.
> Much as
> the Conservative FAQ states, you base your worldview on "tradition,"
> on what *you* know.
> Grow up?
> Fuck you.
>
> Game over, this is the last post you will be receiving from me. Way
> to take a possible discussion and screw it up with your self-centered
> replies and traditionalist accusations.
What were you saying about valium? Awful defensive for someone who is proud
of their choices. Why is it you can't have fun with your child?
You'll understand what I'm saying someday.
>
> -Roy Anderson
Russ Rose
I did. I thought the other one was your last post to me. If you understood
conservatism, you would understand the difference. Your interpretation of
his words are about as valuable as my opinion on fashion. Enjoy.
>
> -Roy Anderson
>
>
Roy Anderson
wrote:
Yes, I know I said I would not respond to your posts henceforth, but
I'll make this one exception. This is too easy to turn down.
<snip>
>What were you saying about valium? Awful defensive for someone who is proud
>of their choices. Why is it you can't have fun with your child?
Again with the monstrous assumptions! Who said I'm proud of my
choices in life?
Who said I can't have fun with my child?
Again, this is you superimposing *your* life on me (which seems to
have been unhappy if I'm not misinterpreting). *You* create these
*assumptions* that I make which in reality = *you* are placing your
own mind as wax paper over my words, tracing lines over only that
which you know (with a heavily ego-centric mindset ta' boot).
>You'll understand what I'm saying someday.
Once again with the superimposition...
No, *you* would understand what you are saying someday. I have nary a
clue as to what you mean. I recognize my limitations and my
empty-headed indiscretions of youth, I also have a blast with my son
while mantaining a healthy social life. Having a social life outside
of the family unit is healthy, perhaps you should look into it.
-Roy Anderson
Russ Rose
> On Sun, 12 May 2002 01:51:44 GMT, "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, I know I said I would not respond to your posts henceforth, but
> I'll make this one exception. This is too easy to turn down.
> <snip>
>
> >What were you saying about valium? Awful defensive for someone who is
proud
> >of their choices. Why is it you can't have fun with your child?
>
> Again with the monstrous assumptions! Who said I'm proud of my
> choices in life?
That was my point. Your defensiveness betrays your true feelings.
> Who said I can't have fun with my child?
You did. "It's not the 1950's anymore, and this college student still
desires to have fun once in a while." Implying that getting lit at a kegger
was your only chance for fun. I did not actually believe this to be true, I
just wanted to make you think about it.
> Again, this is you superimposing *your* life on me (which seems to
> have been unhappy if I'm not misinterpreting). *You* create these
> *assumptions* that I make which in reality = *you* are placing your
> own mind as wax paper over my words, tracing lines over only that
> which you know (with a heavily ego-centric mindset ta' boot).
Every parent resists the responsibilities that must be undertaken to be a
good parent. Some overcome this before the stork drops its load, others
never do. I assumed that an interest in philosophy makes you reasonably
intelligent. Getting blotto with pride contradicts this. I was curious what
you're actually made of.
I try to avoid political argument in this NG because it usually goes far off
topic with nothing gained. You broached the subject in a way that allowed
for a philosophical discussion/argument of the essence of the two main
political philosophies. If that was not your intention, you could have
simply ignored my ranting, as many do. I'm glad to know you don't run from a
fight.
>
> >You'll understand what I'm saying someday.
>
> Once again with the superimposition...
> No, *you* would understand what you are saying someday. I have nary a
> clue as to what you mean. I recognize my limitations and my
> empty-headed indiscretions of youth, I also have a blast with my son
> while mantaining a healthy social life. Having a social life outside
> of the family unit is healthy, perhaps you should look into it.
Trust me, you will understand some day. This is not an insult, it is a
compliment.
>
> -Roy Anderson
ta
> which
> > a
> > > > > > free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or
perhaps
> > it
> > > > > > would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> > > > > > (those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
> > > >
> > > > Define conservative (somebody had to say it!).
> > >
> > > Not liberal? Personally I see it as "everything in moderation".
> >
> > I don't know, I still think we need a better defnition. I hate the term
> > "liberal" - it's meaning has been so twisted and warped by the far right
> > that it no longer has any meaning. Liberal to me means forward-thinking,
> > progressive, striving for improvement. The likes of Rush Limbaugh have
> > managed to completely turn this word into a negative thing for sheer
> > political purposes.
> >
>
> Who has been trying to kill the space program since its inception?
Liberals.
> Not very forward thinking in my book.
I have no idea what you're talking about. If you have more details to go on,
I'll gladly listen.
> We all look forward, the difference is
> in what we see there.
Conservation is all about maintenance, which is contrary to the notion of
progress. Conservatives typically deal in maintaining the status quo,
fearful that things might actually change. Go to the smallest podunk town in
the USA and you will find a great many conservatives who are deathly afraid
of upsetting their current state of affairs. Good, bad, or indifferent,
conservatism is not about change.
Whether you are "right" or not is irrelevant. You assumed negative things
about the poster before giving him a chance, which contradicts your claim
about being optimistic.
> Liberal is not "the worst" in people, evil
> is.
I didn't say it was. You saw the "worst" in the poster's intent by assuming
he had ulterior motives. Therefore, you are not very optimisitic.
Furthermore, you are as biased as he is.
> Had I not been optimistic that I could plant a seed of the truth in his
> mind, I would not have wasted my time responding.
<sarcasm> How gracious of you to implant some TRUTH in the poor lad's mind.
</sarcarsm> Your response is as arrogant as his initial query.
> >
> > > I was one a long
> > > time ago.
> >
> > Unfortunately, "the truth" cannot be found by changing "sides". Looking
at
> > issues through the eyes of ideology and dogma (whatever the flavor) only
> > gives you a different kind of bias.
>
> It wasn't changing sides, it was getting a better understanding of
reality.
Ahhh, I see. Your view is the "real" view, and everyone else's is warped.
Isn't that conveeeeeeeeenient. <more sarcasm> Gosh, if you only could
patent your ability to see reality and pass it on the rest of us folks
dealing in un-reality, wouldn't life be just swell.</more sarcasm>.
> If I was a "flat world" person and then realized that a spherical world
> matched observations much better, I would not be changing sides, just
seeing
> reality a little more clearly.
(laugh) could it be possible that the fact that the world is round can be
empirically verified and that political viewpoints cannot? No offense, but
you are not making a very good ambassador for the conservative cause with
these arguments.
Speak for yourself. There are very few "needs".
Of course. Did I say that they don't?
> There's an old saying "a liberal is a
> conservative that hasn't been mugged yet".
(laugh) Rush has got the best of you.
> I saw a fascinating interview a
> few weeks ago between Rosie O'Donnell and Bill O'Reilly. Rosie was
detailing
> how 9/11 had changed how she looked at the world. She did not change her
> opinions on issues, she merely understood them in a different way.
Didn't see it, so not sure what you're talking about here.
> Conservatives want the same things liberals want, it is only the path
taken
> to those goals that differs.
Now we're getting somewhere.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > They confront their enemies instead of
> > > > > bending over for them. By having a better understanding of how the
> > real
> > > > > world works, it becomes more predictable and there is less to
fear.
> > > >
> > > > Still struggling with your "real world" notion. I've found that many
> > > > liberals are the ones embracing the real world problems, such as
> > > > environmental deterioration, poverty, physical and mental health,
and
> > > child
> > > > care. Tell the 3rd grade inner city school teacher that she is not
> > dealing
> > > > in the real world.
> > >
> > > "Embracing" is an interesting word. Conservatives prefer to solve the
> > > problems.
> >
> > By embracing, I mean confronting them and taking on the challenge. That
is
> > what people do by working in those fields, which are often times
dominated
> > by "liberals". This requires a great deal of optimism. Although I've
also
> > met people who are not that optimistic after engaging in that type of
> work.
>
> Confronting and taking on still are not the same as solving.
I think you know what I mean, and I think you see my point.
> MLK Jr deamed
> of a color blind society. Who is it that keeps color as part of the
> equation? Liberals. You mentioned rape victims earlier, who works to
> "reform" and release rapists instead of punishing them? Liberals.
Recidivism
> rates are ridiculous.
Do you have solid evidence and proof to support the fact that recidivism is
due to this vague "liberal reform" notion you mentioned? Is is possible that
the high recidivism rates are due to the fact that treating people like
animals only makes them more animalistic once they get out?
Actually, no. Never saw it, and probably never will to be honest.
> The scene where he's ridng back
> and forth and whipping them into a fighting mood, that is not "fear
> mongering". That is instilling and inspiring the courage necessary to
fight
> the moral wars that need to be fought. Again defense is not fear, it is
> prudence. The liberals do not want these weapons, particularly SDI,
because
> they fear provoking the wrath of their enemy.
It sounds like you have seen too many hollywood movies, Marines commercials,
and daytime talk shows. I simply cant relate to what you are talking about
here.
> >
> > >The liberals on the other hand were cowering in the corner, waiting for
> > > the missles to be launched when they heard him say that.
> >
> > (laugh) I'm sure that's how it went down.
> >
> > > > Jerry
> > > > Falwell (must fear the heathens), and Jesse Helms (must fear the
> > > > homosexuals) come to mind as contemporary examples.
> > >
> > > I did not say conservatives were all sane, but I would not
characterize
> it
> > > as fear. Pity in the former case and likely disgust in the latter.
> >
> > Classic fear. Falwell and Helms are deathly frightened of their
respective
> > "enemies". Falwell is so blinded by his religious dogma that he fears
> > anyone/anything who threatens it. Helms is completely blinded by his
> > political ideology - he is afraid of how homosexuals are corrupting
> America.
> > These are two of the most insecure, fearful men in the public eye.
> >
>
> Agree to disagree. Although I don't see it as fear, I get woozy
> contemplating the defense of those nutbags. True conservatives do not have
a
> problem with contrary religious views or lifestyles.
So what is a "true conservative"?
> > > > Conservatives also tend
> > > > to be much more heavily supportive of a military buildup, which is
> > > > completely motivated by fear. I tend not to look at it in terms of
> > > "liberal"
> > > > versus "conservative". That's the old way of thinking.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The military is not a product of fear. Defense is prudent when faced
> with
> > > the abundance of human history.
> >
> > The term "defense" is completely rooted in fear. Defend against what?
> > Someone who is going to hurt you! Whether you think its prudent or not
is
> > irrelevant - the bottom line is that it is based in fear. Fear is what
> > prevents human beings from getting along.
> >
>
> So cops are cowards because they carry guns? The brave ones refuse to
carry
> one?
I don't know where you come up with these assumptions. I certainly didn't
say that. Fear is one thing, prudence is another.
> Not having a strong, visible defense along with the will to use it only
> invites the agressively evil that exist in the world. It is not fear that
> recognizes and confronts evil, it is fear that runs from it or compromises
> and appeases it.
What is the psychological root of "defense"?
> As for getting along, it more often misunderstanding or conflicting goals
> that keep people from getting along. Fear does underlie this sometimes,
> whether it is the exception or the rule I don't know.
>
> > > Old or new, it is accurate.
> >
> > The old way hasn't worked - look around. Yassar Arafat and Ariel Sharon
> > represent the old way. Two fearful men with deeply entrenched religious
> and
> > political ideologies, refusing to budge or compromise on who is "right".
>
> No, what you see are pit bulls on the end of leashes snapping at each
other.
Interesting comparison. Two animals, incapable of rising above their own
hatred to see the consequences of their actions.
> If you see them as cowards you have much to learn about the nature of
> courage.
Does it take courage to strap a set of explosives to your body and blow
yourself up in a crowded marketplace? Perhaps you ought to think about what
"courage" means yourself.
> >
> > > > > Universities tend to be safe little places for liberals to hide
from
> > the
> > > > > harsh realities of the real world. This is why there are so many
of
> > them
> > > > > there.
> > > >
> > > > That may be one reason. Although there are plenty of conservatives
in
> > > > academia as well. How do you account for them?
> > >
> > > Most have been "out there" in one way or the other.
> >
> > I don't have any statistics one way or the other, but this sounds like a
> > vast generalization to me.
> >
>
> Conservatism comes through understanding. Understanding comes from being
> "out there" in the real world. Definitely a generalization as well as a
> guess, but it makes sense to me.
>
> > > >
> > > > > You're fooling yourself if you believe they are filled with
liberals
> > > > > because liberals are more intelligent.
> > > >
> > > > Definitely agree. The whole premise of the original poster is absurd
> > IMO.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful opposition to my ranting.
No problem.
Russ Rose
Liberals have always railed against sending tax dollars into "space" when we
have people here on Earth who need food, shelter, etc. I wish I had a dime
for each time I had to defend the value of the space program. If you are
looking for specific Congressmen who fought the space program and worked to
cut the NASA budget I'm sure you will find examples of both Republicans and
Democrats. This tends to be rooted in the location of the aerospace
contractors that benefit most, and not necessarliy their personal views of
the value of technology.
>
> > We all look forward, the difference is
> > in what we see there.
>
> Conservation is all about maintenance, which is contrary to the notion of
> progress. Conservatives typically deal in maintaining the status quo,
> fearful that things might actually change. Go to the smallest podunk town
in
> the USA and you will find a great many conservatives who are deathly
afraid
> of upsetting their current state of affairs. Good, bad, or indifferent,
> conservatism is not about change.
Actually conservation is more about not wasting resources instead of
maintaining them. The "podunk" fear you describe is real, especially
concerning technology, but I do not believe this has anything to do with
political ideologies. Old liberals don't like these new fangled computer
gadgets any more than old conservatives (I've had to teach a lot on both
sides). This fear, or resistance, is more likely caused by a reduced ability
to learn new things which can be very frustrating.
The "podunks" certainly do favor a change when it clearly benefits them.
They remember a time when income tax was negligable and gun ownership was no
different than owning furniture. It may appear that all they want is to
return to the good old days, but sometimes the new ideas are not better than
the old ideas. I doubt any of the farmers would give up their John Deere and
go back to dragging a plow behind an ox.
I don't believe being liberal is a negative thing. I believe it is the
natural course of a human mind as it matures. 50+ year old liberals in power
worry me because of the damage they are doing, but I am an optimist and I
know that in the big picture their effect on things is minimal. Optimism is
not limited to the next action taken. It is based on the long term outlook.
> Furthermore, you are as biased as he is.
I never claimed to be unbiased. I was merely pointing out his implied
neutrality as false. Intuition is the application of past experience to
current situations. I have decades of past experience, enough to read
between the lines and know what I am facing. It wasn't just a lucky guess.
The purpose of the sentence was an honest assessment of the situation, with
a little "showing off" of my great intuitive skill. Perhaps the sentence was
confrontational and unwise, but it did serve a purpose.
>
> > Had I not been optimistic that I could plant a seed of the truth in his
> > mind, I would not have wasted my time responding.
>
> <sarcasm> How gracious of you to implant some TRUTH in the poor lad's
mind.
> </sarcarsm>
<honest> My role here is both teacher and student. It is up to the reader to
decide which one they are when they read. <i>no end honest tag because I am
always honest</i>
> Your response is as arrogant as his initial query.
Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder. I see it as confidence but you call
it what you like. I saw no arrogance in the original post either.
>
> > >
> > > > I was one a long
> > > > time ago.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, "the truth" cannot be found by changing "sides".
Looking
> at
> > > issues through the eyes of ideology and dogma (whatever the flavor)
only
> > > gives you a different kind of bias.
> >
> > It wasn't changing sides, it was getting a better understanding of
> reality.
>
> Ahhh, I see. Your view is the "real" view, and everyone else's is warped.
> Isn't that conveeeeeeeeenient. <more sarcasm> Gosh, if you only could
> patent your ability to see reality and pass it on the rest of us folks
> dealing in un-reality, wouldn't life be just swell.</more sarcasm>.
Not everyone else's, plenty of people understand things the way I do, I
would guess a large majority. They may not articulate it the same way, but
it is only semantics.
Have you ever read the Allegory Of The Cave?
>
> > If I was a "flat world" person and then realized that a spherical world
> > matched observations much better, I would not be changing sides, just
> seeing
> > reality a little more clearly.
>
> (laugh) could it be possible that the fact that the world is round can be
> empirically verified and that political viewpoints cannot? No offense, but
> you are not making a very good ambassador for the conservative cause with
> these arguments.
>
I'm just sharing a little observational knowledge.
Really? I see millions with more being invented every day. Deny them all you
want, but if you want to limit other people to what you consider to be
"needs", good luck shutting down the WWF.
Never heard Rush say that, but I don't get to listen to him much. My father
has been saying that for decades. Not sure who originated it.
>
> > I saw a fascinating interview a
> > few weeks ago between Rosie O'Donnell and Bill O'Reilly. Rosie was
> detailing
> > how 9/11 had changed how she looked at the world. She did not change her
> > opinions on issues, she merely understood them in a different way.
>
> Didn't see it, so not sure what you're talking about here.
A rabid liberal beginning to see the world through conservative eyes.
>
> > Conservatives want the same things liberals want, it is only the path
> taken
> > to those goals that differs.
>
> Now we're getting somewhere.
>
Where is that?
I guarantee that 100% of recidivism is caused by letting criminals out too
early.
Just trying to give a visual aid to go along with my explaination. I cannot
imagine being that removed from popular culture and yet being so <sarcastic>
about how in touch with reality someone else is.
If the concept of war is that foreign to you I cannot possibly explain my
point of view.
> > >
> > > >The liberals on the other hand were cowering in the corner, waiting
for
> > > > the missles to be launched when they heard him say that.
> > >
> > > (laugh) I'm sure that's how it went down.
> > >
> > > > > Jerry
> > > > > Falwell (must fear the heathens), and Jesse Helms (must fear the
> > > > > homosexuals) come to mind as contemporary examples.
> > > >
> > > > I did not say conservatives were all sane, but I would not
> characterize
> > it
> > > > as fear. Pity in the former case and likely disgust in the latter.
> > >
> > > Classic fear. Falwell and Helms are deathly frightened of their
> respective
> > > "enemies". Falwell is so blinded by his religious dogma that he fears
> > > anyone/anything who threatens it. Helms is completely blinded by his
> > > political ideology - he is afraid of how homosexuals are corrupting
> > America.
> > > These are two of the most insecure, fearful men in the public eye.
> > >
> >
> > Agree to disagree. Although I don't see it as fear, I get woozy
> > contemplating the defense of those nutbags. True conservatives do not
have
> a
> > problem with contrary religious views or lifestyles.
>
> So what is a "true conservative"?
>
Unfortunately it is far too easy to pigeon-hole a philosophy by taking a
well known figure and pointing out the foibles of that individual as flaws
of the philosophy. I started it with Ted Kennedy, an easy liberal target.
I have already listed many characteristics of true conservatism in this
thread, not sure what you need me to add. I will probably do a post mortem
on this thread to see if I can distill something coherent from my rambling.
> > > > > Conservatives also tend
> > > > > to be much more heavily supportive of a military buildup, which is
> > > > > completely motivated by fear. I tend not to look at it in terms of
> > > > "liberal"
> > > > > versus "conservative". That's the old way of thinking.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The military is not a product of fear. Defense is prudent when faced
> > with
> > > > the abundance of human history.
> > >
> > > The term "defense" is completely rooted in fear. Defend against what?
> > > Someone who is going to hurt you! Whether you think its prudent or not
> is
> > > irrelevant - the bottom line is that it is based in fear. Fear is what
> > > prevents human beings from getting along.
> > >
> >
> > So cops are cowards because they carry guns? The brave ones refuse to
> carry
> > one?
>
> I don't know where you come up with these assumptions. I certainly didn't
> say that. Fear is one thing, prudence is another.
Cops carry guns for defensive purposes which you say is rooted in fear. That
would make them cowards by your logic. I know you don't believe that which
is why I used it as an example.
>
> > Not having a strong, visible defense along with the will to use it only
> > invites the agressively evil that exist in the world. It is not fear
that
> > recognizes and confronts evil, it is fear that runs from it or
compromises
> > and appeases it.
>
> What is the psychological root of "defense"?
Survival.
>
> > As for getting along, it more often misunderstanding or conflicting
goals
> > that keep people from getting along. Fear does underlie this sometimes,
> > whether it is the exception or the rule I don't know.
> >
> > > > Old or new, it is accurate.
> > >
> > > The old way hasn't worked - look around. Yassar Arafat and Ariel
Sharon
> > > represent the old way. Two fearful men with deeply entrenched
religious
> > and
> > > political ideologies, refusing to budge or compromise on who is
"right".
> >
> > No, what you see are pit bulls on the end of leashes snapping at each
> other.
>
> Interesting comparison. Two animals, incapable of rising above their own
> hatred to see the consequences of their actions.
Except one has tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons.
>
> > If you see them as cowards you have much to learn about the nature of
> > courage.
>
> Does it take courage to strap a set of explosives to your body and blow
> yourself up in a crowded marketplace? Perhaps you ought to think about
what
> "courage" means yourself.
>
Neither Sharon or Arafat have done so and I would not assign that word to
those who did. To choose to lead a nation in the face of such violent
opposition takes great courage. I have thought about courage quite
extensively.
Douglas E Gogerty
<*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
>free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
>would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
>(those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
>
>Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
>intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
>Professors) tend to be liberal?
>
A conservative pursuit would be to obtain and hold onto wealth. A
liberal pursuit is to change the world for the better. These are more
fair assumptions than yours. Thus, if you are a 2nd generation
wealthy person, if you wish to change the world, you will still be
liberal. If you wish to hold onto your wealth, then you will desire
the status quo and be conservative.
Hence, if you become a University Professor to change the world, then
you will have a liberal lean. If you become a University Professor to
make money, then it is likely that you will be more conservative.
>Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
>environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind expansion
>that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the word
>"tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
>aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
>assumptions are correct.
>
>I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
>
>
>-Roy Anderson
I would say that although there are a fair number of liberal college
professors, I would say there is a good number of conservative ones.
Further, the conservative ones would be likely in positions where you
would find a large percentage of conservative students. IE, it is
much more likely to have a conservative professor in a business school
than say an art school.
Douglas E Gogerty No, I'm from Iowa...
DougG...@hotmail.com I just work in outer space.
http://DougGogerty.homestead.com -James T. Kirk
Russ Rose
"Douglas E Gogerty" <DougG...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvb0eus74a5f6pepn...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 May 2002 04:04:54 GMT, Roy Anderson
> <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
> >free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
> >would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> >(those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
> >
> >Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
> >intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
> >Professors) tend to be liberal?
> >
>
> A conservative pursuit would be to obtain and hold onto wealth.
That is a human pursuit. Conservatives are just better at it.
> A
> liberal pursuit is to change the world for the better.
Also a general human pursuit which conservatives are better at. Liberals are
better at pretending the world is better because of their changes.
> These are more
> fair assumptions than yours.
Unproductive observation deleted...
> Thus, if you are a 2nd generation
> wealthy person, if you wish to change the world, you will still be
> liberal. If you wish to hold onto your wealth, then you will desire
> the status quo and be conservative.
>
> Hence, if you become a University Professor to change the world, then
> you will have a liberal lean. If you become a University Professor to
> make money, then it is likely that you will be more conservative.
>
> >Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
> >environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind expansion
> >that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the word
> >"tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
> >aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
> >assumptions are correct.
> >
> >I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
> >
> >
> >-Roy Anderson
>
> I would say that although there are a fair number of liberal college
> professors, I would say there is a good number of conservative ones.
> Further, the conservative ones would be likely in positions where you
> would find a large percentage of conservative students. IE, it is
> much more likely to have a conservative professor in a business school
> than say an art school.
>
Mr Anderson,
The author of the above reply is not a conservative. I knew you would
want my assessment. :-)
Roy Anderson
Useless personal anecdote.
>for each time I had to defend the value of the space program. If you are
>looking for specific Congressmen who fought the space program and worked to
>cut the NASA budget I'm sure you will find examples of both Republicans and
>Democrats. This tends to be rooted in the location of the aerospace
>contractors that benefit most, and not necessarliy their personal views of
>the value of technology.
"...both Republicans and Democrats."
You try to make a point with an anecdote, then completely undermine it
in the next sentence.
>> > We all look forward, the difference is
>> > in what we see there.
>>
>> Conservation is all about maintenance, which is contrary to the notion of
>> progress. Conservatives typically deal in maintaining the status quo,
>> fearful that things might actually change. Go to the smallest podunk town
>in
>> the USA and you will find a great many conservatives who are deathly
>afraid
>> of upsetting their current state of affairs. Good, bad, or indifferent,
>> conservatism is not about change.
>
>Actually conservation is more about not wasting resources instead of
Conservative www.dictionary.com
1.Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2.Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3.Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
5.Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
6.Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or
the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
7.Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Anything else is just your opinion. Who are you to decide what is and
is not conservative?
>maintaining them. The "podunk" fear you describe is real, especially
>concerning technology, but I do not believe this has anything to do with
>political ideologies. Old liberals don't like these new fangled computer
>gadgets any more than old conservatives (I've had to teach a lot on both
>sides). This fear, or resistance, is more likely caused by a reduced ability
>to learn new things which can be very frustrating.
What do old people and their learning abilities have to do with the
"podunk conservatives" of middle America? You're rabbit trailing.
>The "podunks" certainly do favor a change when it clearly benefits them.
>They remember a time when income tax was negligable and gun ownership was no
>different than owning furniture. It may appear that all they want is to
So...they are conservatives as TA said.
I mean, you don't know of any liberals longing for the "good old days"
of gun proliferation do you?
>return to the good old days, but sometimes the new ideas are not better than
>the old ideas. I doubt any of the farmers would give up their John Deere and
>go back to dragging a plow behind an ox.
You're rambling now. Here you make another point in line 1 then
undermine it in the next sentence.
?
Ok.
>50+ year old liberals in power
>worry me because of the damage they are doing, but I am an optimist and I
>know that in the big picture their effect on things is minimal. Optimism is
>not limited to the next action taken. It is based on the long term outlook.
An unsupported accusation deriding middle-aged liberals = what? I
think you're just mud-slinging now.
You also try to use semantics to avoid his point.
>> Furthermore, you are as biased as he is.
>
>I never claimed to be unbiased. I was merely pointing out his implied
>neutrality as false. Intuition is the application of past experience to
Again with these lame assumptions.
Your 1st Assumption: I am liberally biased (which flies in the face of
my original post).
Your 2nd Assumption based on your 1st Assumption: I am feigning
neutrality to cover my liberalism (this is on the list of stupidest
assumptions...why would I feign anything?).
>current situations. I have decades of past experience, enough to read
>between the lines and know what I am facing. It wasn't just a lucky guess.
>The purpose of the sentence was an honest assessment of the situation, with
>a little "showing off" of my great intuitive skill. Perhaps the sentence was
>confrontational and unwise, but it did serve a purpose.
I can actually *hear* your ego on this side of the connection. Get a
grip.
>> > Had I not been optimistic that I could plant a seed of the truth in his
>> > mind, I would not have wasted my time responding.
>>
>> <sarcasm> How gracious of you to implant some TRUTH in the poor lad's
>mind.
>> </sarcarsm>
>
><honest> My role here is both teacher and student. It is up to the reader to
>decide which one they are when they read. <i>no end honest tag because I am
>always honest</i>
You utterly missed his point.
>> Your response is as arrogant as his initial query.
>
>Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder. I see it as confidence but you call
>it what you like. I saw no arrogance in the original post either.
Ego-centric whining demanding attention is confidence to you? That's
what I "call it."
>> > > > I was one a long
>> > > > time ago.
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately, "the truth" cannot be found by changing "sides".
>Looking
>> at
>> > > issues through the eyes of ideology and dogma (whatever the flavor)
>only
>> > > gives you a different kind of bias.
>> >
>> > It wasn't changing sides, it was getting a better understanding of
>> reality.
>>
>> Ahhh, I see. Your view is the "real" view, and everyone else's is warped.
>> Isn't that conveeeeeeeeenient. <more sarcasm> Gosh, if you only could
>> patent your ability to see reality and pass it on the rest of us folks
>> dealing in un-reality, wouldn't life be just swell.</more sarcasm>.
>
>Not everyone else's, plenty of people understand things the way I do, I
>would guess a large majority. They may not articulate it the same way, but
>it is only semantics.
Ok. "plenty of people" slithers in on the carpet of the vague. "a
large majority" follows suite. *clears throat* Like the large
majority of people who responded to this thread?
>Have you ever read the Allegory Of The Cave?
If you have a point, make it. You're rambling.
Again.
<big snip>
>> > There's an old saying "a liberal is a
>> > conservative that hasn't been mugged yet".
>>
>> (laugh) Rush has got the best of you.
>
>Never heard Rush say that, but I don't get to listen to him much. My father
>has been saying that for decades. Not sure who originated it.
So Rush has got the best of you? Using implications in place of
definite statements is a shallow trick politicians have been using for
years. Take note of the fact that everyone is aware of it.
Make a statement, or don't.
>> > I saw a fascinating interview a
>> > few weeks ago between Rosie O'Donnell and Bill O'Reilly. Rosie was
>> detailing
>> > how 9/11 had changed how she looked at the world. She did not change her
>> > opinions on issues, she merely understood them in a different way.
>>
>> Didn't see it, so not sure what you're talking about here.
>
>A rabid liberal beginning to see the world through conservative eyes.
More rambling.
Further, your attempt to support your "argument" with a
pseudo-religous anecdote borders on humourous. Implying superiority
useing the "I was just like you once!" of Baptists and Jehovah's
Witnesses hasn't worked for quite some time, nor is it working for
you. Your sentence is a blatant attempt to gain some "high ground," as
if you are everyman. Once more you make an implication instead of
making a point; as usual your implication is based entirely on your
own experiences.
I guarantee that 100% of people are caused by other people screwing.
Your attempt at weaving semantics to suit your claims is preposterous.
Who decides when "too early" is? You? And you make this declaration
only after the convict commits another crime no doubt. Further, you
still have shown no evidence to support anything.
I am quite certain if you list all the top grossing movies of the last
year, you will find that you have not seen even 50% so I am somehow
missing how you "can't imagine." BTW, since when has Braveheart been
a distick of popular culture? Once again, you superimpose yourself on
others and still fail to make a point.
You didn't answer his question. What is a "true conservative?" If
you can't point to an example (which would just be *your* opinion
anyway) then you must not know.
>I have already listed many characteristics of true conservatism in this
>thread, not sure what you need me to add. I will probably do a post mortem
Again, how do you claim superior knowledge of what this mythical "true
conservatism" is?
>on this thread to see if I can distill something coherent from my rambling.
Good luck.
>> > > > > Conservatives also tend
>> > > > > to be much more heavily supportive of a military buildup, which is
>> > > > > completely motivated by fear. I tend not to look at it in terms of
>> > > > "liberal"
>> > > > > versus "conservative". That's the old way of thinking.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The military is not a product of fear. Defense is prudent when faced
>> > with
>> > > > the abundance of human history.
>> > >
>> > > The term "defense" is completely rooted in fear. Defend against what?
>> > > Someone who is going to hurt you! Whether you think its prudent or not
>> is
>> > > irrelevant - the bottom line is that it is based in fear. Fear is what
>> > > prevents human beings from getting along.
>> > >
>> >
>> > So cops are cowards because they carry guns? The brave ones refuse to
>> carry
>> > one?
>>
>> I don't know where you come up with these assumptions. I certainly didn't
>> say that. Fear is one thing, prudence is another.
>
>Cops carry guns for defensive purposes which you say is rooted in fear. That
Right-O.
>would make them cowards by your logic. I know you don't believe that which
>is why I used it as an example.
No, that would make them "cowards" by your logic.
I am unsure if you are intentional or unintentional about missing his
point. If police had *no fear* of harm coming to them, they wouldn't
carry weapons.
>>
>> > Not having a strong, visible defense along with the will to use it only
>> > invites the agressively evil that exist in the world. It is not fear
>that
>> > recognizes and confronts evil, it is fear that runs from it or
>compromises
>> > and appeases it.
>>
>> What is the psychological root of "defense"?
>
>Survival.
Oh, come on now. I know you can't expect this one to slide by.
Survival = Fear of Death. Ancient cities didn't erect walls because
they were unafraid of neighboring city-states. A lone tribal person
didn't run from lions because they were unafraid of them. Survival
instinct and fear are virtually indivisible.
<big snip>
Yes, I noticed this thread was still alive and couldn't help myself.
Though you may be a lost cause.
-Roy Anderson
brad
> Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
> free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
> would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> (those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
I think Russ hit this one pretty well dead on. Generally speaking (I know
there are exceptions) first generation rich tend to be much more
conservative, second generation are still somewhat conservative regarding
monetary concerns. This is largely due to the fact that they are brought up
in an environment where the more conservative values are prevelant. As time
goes on, and with it the link to the struggle that went into building family
wealth initially, the generations tend to become more and more liberal.
> Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
> intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
> Professors) tend to be liberal?
>
> Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
> environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind expansion
> that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the word
> "tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
> aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
> assumptions are correct.
I think that's very fair. If we look at the moral factor that drives most
people to teaching, we have the core belief that education is a valuable
thing and should be passed on to others. It's the same compassion that
drives most other liberal-minded individuals.
On the other hand, you have the old credo "Those who can, do. Those who
can't do, teach". To a large degree I think there is some truth to that.
Many people who are very good at reading a book and grasping concepts are
not very good at applying that knowledge in "the working world". Without
that knowledge the experiences are generally limited to the scope of
knowledge gained through books, and accounts from other sources.
They are left to ponder what is fair, and what is right without the burden
of what will keep the business going.
Conservative thinkers generally tend to be less academically educated than
liberal thinkers. They are usually the ones that learned as they went, and
gained knowledge of the world through experience. This knowledge gained
through application generally tends to focus more on keeping a business
afloat. While most conservatives would agree that they would love to pay
everyone a great wage, and offer great benefits, they will generally tell
you that it is just not practical to do so.
Whereas liberals tend to be more compassionate in their approach to life,
these types tend to be more practical. Liberals will tend to want people to
be happier while conservatives will expect them to be more efficient.
brad
brad
> > He did not fear the "evil empire" otherwise he would not have provoked
> them
> > so.
>
> Of course he feared them. Reagan was one of the greatest fear mongers of
all
> time. If there was nothing to fear, then why all the rhetoric about the
> "evil empire"? This is classic fear mongering: we'd better build up the
> military or the big bad evil Russians or going to get us. The whole "star
> wars" concept is precisely the safety net you claim the liberals obsess
> about. If there was nothing to fear, why the need for a missile defense
> system? The whole concept of "National Security" is based on fear, isn't
it?
> This clearly has more to do with human beings in general and less to do
with
> liberals and conservatives.
Just a quick aside on this point. The whole reason for the Star Wars
defense system was, in large part, to break the bank for the Russians.
Reagan knew their economy could not support the efforts needed to keep up
with what we were doing. It was economic warfare. Reagan himself didn't
even believe that current technology could produce a viable Star Wars
defense, but he knew the Russians would have to try and keep up with the
Jones's so to speak, and it would break them. He was right, and it did.
brad
Douglas E Gogerty
wrote:
>
>"Douglas E Gogerty" <DougG...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cvb0eus74a5f6pepn...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 May 2002 04:04:54 GMT, Roy Anderson
>> <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
>> >free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
>> >would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
>> >(those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
>> >
>> >Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
>> >intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
>> >Professors) tend to be liberal?
>> >
>>
>> A conservative pursuit would be to obtain and hold onto wealth.
>
>That is a human pursuit. Conservatives are just better at it.
>
Well, you couldn't be more wrong. The human pursuit is the same as
all animals, to survive. In a modern capitalist society, generally
speaking that means acquiring some sort of money to pay for the
necessities of survival. Conservatives put this pursuit above all
other things. Liberals believe that with wealth comes responsibility
and thus attempt to share the wealth. Ted Turner comes to mind here.
>> A
>> liberal pursuit is to change the world for the better.
>
>Also a general human pursuit which conservatives are better at. Liberals are
>better at pretending the world is better because of their changes.
>
How can a group dedicated to keeping things exactly the way they are
be better at changing the world for the better? The only way this
would be possible is if the world were perfect.
>> These are more
>> fair assumptions than yours.
>
>Unproductive observation deleted...
>
Read: I cannot debate on this information, so I am just deleting it.
>> Thus, if you are a 2nd generation
>> wealthy person, if you wish to change the world, you will still be
>> liberal. If you wish to hold onto your wealth, then you will desire
>> the status quo and be conservative.
>>
>> Hence, if you become a University Professor to change the world, then
>> you will have a liberal lean. If you become a University Professor to
>> make money, then it is likely that you will be more conservative.
>>
>> >Assuming that the above are taken as fact, what is it about the
>> >environments of free market capitalism and intellectual mind expansion
>> >that tend to create such opposite mind sets? Note my use of the word
>> >"tend" as well. I know that there are frequently exceptions in all
>> >aspects of Human behavior; nor am I totally convinced that my above
>> >assumptions are correct.
>> >
>> >I find I am curious as to your thoughts on this.
>> >
>> >
>> >-Roy Anderson
>>
>> I would say that although there are a fair number of liberal college
>> professors, I would say there is a good number of conservative ones.
>> Further, the conservative ones would be likely in positions where you
>> would find a large percentage of conservative students. IE, it is
>> much more likely to have a conservative professor in a business school
>> than say an art school.
>>
>
>Mr Anderson,
> The author of the above reply is not a conservative. I knew you would
>want my assessment. :-)
>
No, the author is a pragmatic realist rather than an idealogically
strapped capitalist.
Russ Rose
> Ever feel like a boomerang?
>
Is this your third or fourth "final" post to me? :-)
> >> > Who has been trying to kill the space program since its inception?
> >> Liberals.
> >> > Not very forward thinking in my book.
> >>
> >> I have no idea what you're talking about. If you have more details to
go
> >on,
> >> I'll gladly listen.
> >
> >Liberals have always railed against sending tax dollars into "space" when
we
> >have people here on Earth who need food, shelter, etc. I wish I had a
dime
>
> Useless personal anecdote.
Yet your useful evidence to prove me wrong is strangely absent.
>
> >for each time I had to defend the value of the space program. If you are
> >looking for specific Congressmen who fought the space program and worked
to
> >cut the NASA budget I'm sure you will find examples of both Republicans
and
> >Democrats. This tends to be rooted in the location of the aerospace
> >contractors that benefit most, and not necessarliy their personal views
of
> >the value of technology.
>
> "...both Republicans and Democrats."
> You try to make a point with an anecdote, then completely undermine it
> in the next sentence.
>
Political conservatives do not always choose the conservative thing over the
political thing. Your contradictory evidence is still nowhere to be found.
> >> > We all look forward, the difference is
> >> > in what we see there.
> >>
> >> Conservation is all about maintenance, which is contrary to the notion
of
> >> progress. Conservatives typically deal in maintaining the status quo,
> >> fearful that things might actually change. Go to the smallest podunk
town
> >in
> >> the USA and you will find a great many conservatives who are deathly
> >afraid
> >> of upsetting their current state of affairs. Good, bad, or indifferent,
> >> conservatism is not about change.
> >
> >Actually conservation is more about not wasting resources instead of
>
> Conservative www.dictionary.com
> 1.Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
> 2.Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
> 3.Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
>
> 4.Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
> 5.Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
> 6.Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or
> the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
> 7.Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
>
If you look very closely the word I was defining was conservation, not
conservative.
> Anything else is just your opinion.
100% of what I write is my opinion. Perhaps you do not understand the
concept of "philosophy.debate" as opposed to "science.debate".
> Who are you to decide what is and
> is not conservative?
I decide for myself and make no claim otherwise. The fact that I am correct
is just a bonus.
>
> >maintaining them. The "podunk" fear you describe is real, especially
> >concerning technology, but I do not believe this has anything to do with
> >political ideologies. Old liberals don't like these new fangled computer
> >gadgets any more than old conservatives (I've had to teach a lot on both
> >sides). This fear, or resistance, is more likely caused by a reduced
ability
> >to learn new things which can be very frustrating.
>
> What do old people and their learning abilities have to do with the
> "podunk conservatives" of middle America? You're rabbit trailing.
I was explaining that the fear of technology exhibited by older people is
not confined to a political ideology, as the previous post was claiming.
>
> >The "podunks" certainly do favor a change when it clearly benefits them.
> >They remember a time when income tax was negligable and gun ownership was
no
> >different than owning furniture. It may appear that all they want is to
>
> So...they are conservatives as TA said.
> I mean, you don't know of any liberals longing for the "good old days"
> of gun proliferation do you?
Yes I do, but that would be more "useless personal anecdote" which you find
objectionable.
>
> >return to the good old days, but sometimes the new ideas are not better
than
> >the old ideas. I doubt any of the farmers would give up their John Deere
and
> >go back to dragging a plow behind an ox.
>
> You're rambling now. Here you make another point in line 1 then
> undermine it in the next sentence.
> ?
The newer way is not always the better way. People naturally want things to
be better. What could be clearer than that?
[clip]
A teacher would not think it a negative characteristic if a 5 year old
student was unable to read. A teacher would likely think it a negative
characteristic if a 15 year old student was unable to read.
>
> >> Furthermore, you are as biased as he is.
> >
> >I never claimed to be unbiased. I was merely pointing out his implied
> >neutrality as false. Intuition is the application of past experience to
>
> Again with these lame assumptions.
> Your 1st Assumption: I am liberally biased (which flies in the face of
> my original post).
> Your 2nd Assumption based on your 1st Assumption: I am feigning
> neutrality to cover my liberalism (this is on the list of stupidest
> assumptions...why would I feign anything?).
Your claim to be unbiased (which is repeated again here) is untrue. If you
are unaware of your bias then I understand why you question my opinions.
>
> >current situations. I have decades of past experience, enough to read
> >between the lines and know what I am facing. It wasn't just a lucky
guess.
> >The purpose of the sentence was an honest assessment of the situation,
with
> >a little "showing off" of my great intuitive skill. Perhaps the sentence
was
> >confrontational and unwise, but it did serve a purpose.
>
> I can actually *hear* your ego on this side of the connection. Get a
> grip.
Call it what you want. You would serve your argument better to show that I
was wrong.
>
> >> > Had I not been optimistic that I could plant a seed of the truth in
his
> >> > mind, I would not have wasted my time responding.
>
> >>
> >> <sarcasm> How gracious of you to implant some TRUTH in the poor lad's
> >mind.
> >> </sarcarsm>
> >
> ><honest> My role here is both teacher and student. It is up to the reader
to
> >decide which one they are when they read. <i>no end honest tag because I
am
> >always honest</i>
>
> You utterly missed his point.
Perhaps you did, so I shall rephrase. I read and post on these newsgroups to
learn from others and to teach what I know. If I read something new and
agree, I am a grateful student. If I read something that I believe to be
incorrect I become a teacher, sending a post in reply. In turn when another
reads my posts they make the same determination based on their judgment of
my opinion. They are free to dismiss it as ridiculous. If you have an open
mind you may learn something from me - the education I provide is worth at
least what you pay for it. If I am wrong, please teach me. Despite my
"arrogance", "ego", or confidence in what I know, my mind is always open to
new and contradictory ideas.
>
> >> Your response is as arrogant as his initial query.
> >
> >Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder. I see it as confidence but you
call
> >it what you like. I saw no arrogance in the original post either.
>
> Ego-centric whining demanding attention is confidence to you? That's
> what I "call it."
Successfully manipulative educator is what I call it.
>
> >> > > > I was one a long
> >> > > > time ago.
> >> > >
> >> > > Unfortunately, "the truth" cannot be found by changing "sides".
> >Looking
> >> at
> >> > > issues through the eyes of ideology and dogma (whatever the flavor)
> >only
> >> > > gives you a different kind of bias.
> >> >
> >> > It wasn't changing sides, it was getting a better understanding of
> >> reality.
> >>
> >> Ahhh, I see. Your view is the "real" view, and everyone else's is
warped.
> >> Isn't that conveeeeeeeeenient. <more sarcasm> Gosh, if you only could
> >> patent your ability to see reality and pass it on the rest of us folks
> >> dealing in un-reality, wouldn't life be just swell.</more sarcasm>.
> >
> >Not everyone else's, plenty of people understand things the way I do, I
> >would guess a large majority. They may not articulate it the same way,
but
> >it is only semantics.
>
> Ok. "plenty of people" slithers in on the carpet of the vague. "a
> large majority" follows suite. *clears throat* Like the large
> majority of people who responded to this thread?
There are a few possibilities.
1. I am in a lot of killfiles so very few people ever see my posts. I
have a tendency to piss people off, if you have not noticed.
2. People think my ideas are so ridiculously wrong that they choose not
to waste their time responding to me.
3. I am correct and they have nothing to debate me on.
4. The topic is not one they are interested in.
5. ?
>
> >Have you ever read the Allegory Of The Cave?
>
> If you have a point, make it. You're rambling.
> Again.
If you had read and understood the story, you would understand that it was
my point.
>
> <big snip>
>
>
>
> >> > There's an old saying "a liberal is a
> >> > conservative that hasn't been mugged yet".
> >>
> >> (laugh) Rush has got the best of you.
> >
> >Never heard Rush say that, but I don't get to listen to him much. My
father
> >has been saying that for decades. Not sure who originated it.
>
> So Rush has got the best of you? Using implications in place of
> definite statements is a shallow trick politicians have been using for
> years. Take note of the fact that everyone is aware of it.
> Make a statement, or don't.
I am not sure what you two mean by "got the best of (me)". Rush is an
excellent source of information but I am usually busy making piles of money
when his show is on. My understanding of conservatism was solidified long
before I had ever heard of him. There is little we disagree on, so if you
wish to believe that I am enslaved to his ideology go right ahead.
>
> >> > I saw a fascinating interview a
> >> > few weeks ago between Rosie O'Donnell and Bill O'Reilly. Rosie was
> >> detailing
> >> > how 9/11 had changed how she looked at the world. She did not change
her
> >> > opinions on issues, she merely understood them in a different way.
> >>
> >> Didn't see it, so not sure what you're talking about here.
> >
> >A rabid liberal beginning to see the world through conservative eyes.
>
> More rambling.
> Further, your attempt to support your "argument" with a
> pseudo-religous anecdote borders on humourous. Implying superiority
> useing the "I was just like you once!" of Baptists and Jehovah's
> Witnesses hasn't worked for quite some time, nor is it working for
> you. Your sentence is a blatant attempt to gain some "high ground," as
> if you are everyman. Once more you make an implication instead of
> making a point; as usual your implication is based entirely on your
> own experiences.
And all of your points thus far have been attempting to belittle the way I
state things. Why are you avoiding the real argument in my liberal-fear
theory?
Incorrect. In vitro fertalization does not utilize sexual intercourse. A
better one would be 100% of people die.
>
> Your attempt at weaving semantics to suit your claims is preposterous.
> Who decides when "too early" is? You? And you make this declaration
> only after the convict commits another crime no doubt. Further, you
> still have shown no evidence to support anything.
>
These were merely examples to illuminate my point. If you disagree then just
say so. Demanding proof in a philosophy debate is a waste of time.
Actually I see 3 or 4 movies a week, but that is part of what I do to rake
in those giant piles of money.
If you have any desire to understand people you need to understand what it
is they do and do not value. Perhaps you believe it can be done some other
way.
Thoughtful observation. You both are asking for the contents of a book that
I am currently writing, using you guys as a free sounding board. I'll be
happy to send you a free copy when it is published. It should make good
kindling if you have a fireplace. Until then some of the mythical
characteristics can be found in this thread.
>
> >on this thread to see if I can distill something coherent from my
rambling.
>
> Good luck.
Thanks, I will need it.
I do not fear death at all, but that doesn't mean I would like it to happen
soon. I'm looking forward to it because there is the possibility that all
these unanswerable questions will be answered on the other side. However, I
would much prefer to work on my theories for a few more decades before that
happens. Survival should be motivated by a will to make the world a better
place, not by a fear of not being in it.
It was worth a try. Since you are liberal it may be a completely foriegn
concept to be motivated by anything but fear.
It is interesting how you avoided all of my original contentions about
liberals and fear and spent your time being a critic of the way I was
responding to the other poster. As is typical, political arguments tend to
travel far off topic. You should have responded to my original response to
you, which I would genuinely appreciate.
>
> <big snip>
>
>
> Yes, I noticed this thread was still alive and couldn't help myself.
> Though you may be a lost cause.
As long as you are not a lost cause, that is what is important.
>
> -Roy Anderson
Russ Rose
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 23:47:01 GMT, "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Douglas E Gogerty" <DougG...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:cvb0eus74a5f6pepn...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2002 04:04:54 GMT, Roy Anderson
> >> <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
> >> >free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
> >> >would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
> >> >(those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
> >> >
> >> >Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
> >> >intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
> >> >Professors) tend to be liberal?
> >> >
> >>
> >> A conservative pursuit would be to obtain and hold onto wealth.
> >
> >That is a human pursuit. Conservatives are just better at it.
> >
>
> Well, you couldn't be more wrong. The human pursuit is the same as
> all animals, to survive.
Is that the only human pursuit?
> In a modern capitalist society, generally
> speaking that means acquiring some sort of money to pay for the
> necessities of survival. Conservatives put this pursuit above all
> other things.
This is your outside opinion of what a conservative values. I am
conservative and money is far below love, family, education, writing, etc.
Always has been, always will be.
> Liberals believe that with wealth comes responsibility
> and thus attempt to share the wealth. Ted Turner comes to mind here.
>
Ted is still a billionaire isn't he? He must need all that extra money if he
is hanging on to it. Liberals still need to pursue it in order to get it and
give it away. Therefore it is a human pursuit. Conservatives also give money
to worthy causes, they just don't hire a publicist to tell the world about
it. I will agree that liberals in government are much more generous with
other people's money. That's why they always want more.
> >> A
> >> liberal pursuit is to change the world for the better.
> >
> >Also a general human pursuit which conservatives are better at. Liberals
are
> >better at pretending the world is better because of their changes.
> >
>
> How can a group dedicated to keeping things exactly the way they are
> be better at changing the world for the better?
Again, this is your outside opinion of what a conservative values. Was
Welfare Reform "keeping things exactly the way they are"? Privatizing Social
Security? SDI? Free Trade?Eisenhower's Interstate system? Kennedy's trip to
the moon? I realize these may be things you think were wrong to do, but can
you deny they're radical changes? Yes, JFK was very conservative by today's
standards.
> The only way this
> would be possible is if the world were perfect.
>
> >> These are more
> >> fair assumptions than yours.
> >
> >Unproductive observation deleted...
> >
> Read: I cannot debate on this information, so I am just deleting it.
Sorry, it was an inside joke to Mr. Anderson.
Sorry, that was another inside joke.
How can you claim to be a realist of any type and have such a narrow and
incorrect view of conservatives?
Noting your quote from ST IV, I'm curious. Do you think Gene Rodenberry was
liberal or conservative?
Douglas E Gogerty
wrote:
>
>"Douglas E Gogerty" <DougG...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:u6f2euk715db60ud0...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 May 2002 23:47:01 GMT, "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Douglas E Gogerty" <DougG...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:cvb0eus74a5f6pepn...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 10 May 2002 04:04:54 GMT, Roy Anderson
>> >> <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Is it a fair assumption to say that the successful capitalists which a
>> >> >free-market environment breeds tend to be conservative? Or perhaps it
>> >> >would be a fairer assumption to say that the 2nd generation rich
>> >> >(those born into wealth) tend to be conservative?
>> >> >
>> >> >Is it a fair assumption to say that the majority of educated
>> >> >intellectuals found in most Universities and Colleges (aka, the
>> >> >Professors) tend to be liberal?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> A conservative pursuit would be to obtain and hold onto wealth.
>> >
>> >That is a human pursuit. Conservatives are just better at it.
>> >
>>
>> Well, you couldn't be more wrong. The human pursuit is the same as
>> all animals, to survive.
>
>Is that the only human pursuit?
>
Certainly not, but it is a primary pursuit.
>> In a modern capitalist society, generally
>> speaking that means acquiring some sort of money to pay for the
>> necessities of survival. Conservatives put this pursuit above all
>> other things.
>
>This is your outside opinion of what a conservative values. I am
>conservative and money is far below love, family, education, writing, etc.
>Always has been, always will be.
>
It is a great over generalization. It is just exactly how your are
characterizing Liberals.
>> Liberals believe that with wealth comes responsibility
>> and thus attempt to share the wealth. Ted Turner comes to mind here.
>>
>
>Ted is still a billionaire isn't he? He must need all that extra money if he
>is hanging on to it. Liberals still need to pursue it in order to get it and
>give it away. Therefore it is a human pursuit. Conservatives also give money
>to worthy causes, they just don't hire a publicist to tell the world about
>it. I will agree that liberals in government are much more generous with
>other people's money. That's why they always want more.
>
I think liberals are definitely more for redistribution of wealth.
IE, taking money from those who can most afford to spending it on
those that have the least. "Spending other people's money," as you
put it.
However, you put love, family, education, writing, etc above money,
but you instantly characterize liberals as wanting to spend other
people's money. This is just as incorrect a statement as saying that
obtaining money is a primary concern of conservatives.
>> >> A
>> >> liberal pursuit is to change the world for the better.
>> >
>> >Also a general human pursuit which conservatives are better at. Liberals
>are
>> >better at pretending the world is better because of their changes.
>> >
>>
>> How can a group dedicated to keeping things exactly the way they are
>> be better at changing the world for the better?
>
>Again, this is your outside opinion of what a conservative values. Was
>Welfare Reform "keeping things exactly the way they are"? Privatizing Social
>Security? SDI? Free Trade?Eisenhower's Interstate system? Kennedy's trip to
>the moon? I realize these may be things you think were wrong to do, but can
>you deny they're radical changes? Yes, JFK was very conservative by today's
>standards.
"Welfare Reform" is an attempt to make things the way the were. IE,
entitlements were put in against their will, and they want to make it
the way it was. Privitization of Social Security is the same thing.
SDI, and the Interstate is a national security issue, and was
supported on both sides. JFK was NOT conservative by today's
standards. Just look at the Peace Corps to establish that.
I'm about as middle of the road as you can get. I was greatly
generalizing about the views of conservatives. However, my
characterization of conservatives much better fit in general terms
than the original poster's generalizations.
I could say that conservatives are for less government. However, it
isn't correct to say that liberals are for more government.
(Althought this is a common characterization) Further, conservatives
are generally for strong national defense (larger government in that
case). However, liberals are NOT for a weak national defense. These
are issues that generally categorize liberals and conservatives, but
they are not defining issues. Thus, if you look at motivations for
doing something, you can kind of tell which side of the fence they lie
on.
Why does someone become a stock broker? Is it to change the world?
Or is it to earn lots of money? It isn't likely that anyone would
change the world as a stock broker, but you could certainly believe
that they are in the business to earn lots of money. Thus, I would
definitely say that there are more conservative stock brokers than
liberal ones. The statistics would confirm this characterization, and
thus, it makes a pretty good measure.
It is not to say that all stock brokers are conservative. And, it
isn't to say that all conservatives have an obsession with money.
However, it is a good yardstick...
Similarly, look at environmentalists. They are obviously liberal
right? Why? Is it because they want more government regulations?
What if companies did a good job of interal policing? That would be
fine with environmentalists. Do they wish more government spending?
It would be fine with them if it has private funding. Thus, that
isn't it. They want to change the world for the better. Thus, it is
a liberal pursuit. My assessment makes a good yardstick as to what
professions are liberal and which are more conservative.
It is not perfect. Police are difficult to judge. Lawyers are also
difficult to characterize. But, for most occupations, it makes a
decent yardstick.
Thus, since most newspaper reporters get into the business to change
the world, the press has a liberal lean...
>Noting your quote from ST IV, I'm curious. Do you think Gene Rodenberry was
>liberal or conservative?
>
"Save the whales" in Star Trek IV seems to indicate that he was a
liberal. I use it because I am from Iowa. (And I laughed for about 15
minutes when I first heard him say it...)
Russ Rose
You claimed I was wrong and stated "The human pursuit is... to survive", an
implication that "obtaining and holding wealth" is not one.
>
> >> In a modern capitalist society, generally
> >> speaking that means acquiring some sort of money to pay for the
> >> necessities of survival. Conservatives put this pursuit above all
> >> other things.
> >
> >This is your outside opinion of what a conservative values. I am
> >conservative and money is far below love, family, education, writing,
etc.
> >Always has been, always will be.
> >
>
> It is a great over generalization. It is just exactly how your are
> characterizing Liberals.
You are making broad generalizations based on a stereotypical view of
conservatives. I am merely trying to inform you that those generalizations
are incorrect.
>
> >> Liberals believe that with wealth comes responsibility
> >> and thus attempt to share the wealth. Ted Turner comes to mind here.
> >>
> >
> >Ted is still a billionaire isn't he? He must need all that extra money if
he
> >is hanging on to it. Liberals still need to pursue it in order to get it
and
> >give it away. Therefore it is a human pursuit. Conservatives also give
money
> >to worthy causes, they just don't hire a publicist to tell the world
about
> >it. I will agree that liberals in government are much more generous with
> >other people's money. That's why they always want more.
> >
>
> I think liberals are definitely more for redistribution of wealth.
> IE, taking money from those who can most afford to spending it on
> those that have the least. "Spending other people's money," as you
> put it.
>
> However, you put love, family, education, writing, etc above money,
> but you instantly characterize liberals as wanting to spend other
> people's money. This is just as incorrect a statement as saying that
> obtaining money is a primary concern of conservatives.
>
You agree that "liberals are definitely more for redistribution of wealth"
but it is "incorrect" when I "characterize liberals as wanting to spend
other people's money". I fail to see the difference.
>
> >> >> A
> >> >> liberal pursuit is to change the world for the better.
> >> >
> >> >Also a general human pursuit which conservatives are better at.
Liberals
> >are
> >> >better at pretending the world is better because of their changes.
> >> >
> >>
> >> How can a group dedicated to keeping things exactly the way they are
> >> be better at changing the world for the better?
> >
> >Again, this is your outside opinion of what a conservative values. Was
> >Welfare Reform "keeping things exactly the way they are"? Privatizing
Social
> >Security? SDI? Free Trade?Eisenhower's Interstate system? Kennedy's trip
to
> >the moon? I realize these may be things you think were wrong to do, but
can
> >you deny they're radical changes? Yes, JFK was very conservative by
today's
> >standards.
>
> "Welfare Reform" is an attempt to make things the way the were. IE,
> entitlements were put in against their will, and they want to make it
> the way it was.
No, they were attempting to make it more effective in getting people on
their feet. Going back to the way things were would be eliminating the
program.
> Privitization of Social Security is the same thing.
No, it is an attempt to convert a poor money transfer program into the
highly successful private retirement programs such as the 401K. Don't bother
bringing up Enron, those people were stupid not to be diversified.
> SDI, and the Interstate is a national security issue, and was
> supported on both sides.
The liberals are still trying to kill SDI.
> JFK was NOT conservative by today's
> standards.
Strong anti-communist, tax cuts, increased defense spending - how is this
different from Reagan?
Do you really think "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you
can do for your country" is the basis for social welfare programs?
> Just look at the Peace Corps to establish that.
The Peace Corps is remarkably similar to the missionaries (religious
conservatives) of the past centuries.
"The Peace Corps has been fortunate to enjoy strong bipartisan support in
Congress," says Peace Corps Director Mark Gearan.
quoted from http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/01/16/us/us.6.html
Were you more liberal or conservative in the past?
> However, my
> characterization of conservatives much better fit in general terms
> than the original poster's generalizations.
>
> I could say that conservatives are for less government. However, it
> isn't correct to say that liberals are for more government.
Really?
> (Althought this is a common characterization) Further, conservatives
> are generally for strong national defense (larger government in that
> case). However, liberals are NOT for a weak national defense.
President Carter allowed the military to fall into such disrepair it was
criminal.
> These
> are issues that generally categorize liberals and conservatives, but
> they are not defining issues. Thus, if you look at motivations for
> doing something, you can kind of tell which side of the fence they lie
> on.
>
> Why does someone become a stock broker? Is it to change the world?
> Or is it to earn lots of money? It isn't likely that anyone would
> change the world as a stock broker, but you could certainly believe
> that they are in the business to earn lots of money.
It depends on how you define change. Without the stock market, and the money
grubbing brokers that make it work so well, our economy would not be
anywhere near what it is. This would impact all technological progress
including medicine and agriculture. It would also reduce our nation's
ability to provide food and disaster aid worldwide. They have also helped to
fund the very comfortable retirement of millions of people.
> Thus, I would
> definitely say that there are more conservative stock brokers than
> liberal ones. The statistics would confirm this characterization, and
> thus, it makes a pretty good measure.
>
> It is not to say that all stock brokers are conservative. And, it
> isn't to say that all conservatives have an obsession with money.
> However, it is a good yardstick...
It would be interesting to see the actual head count, but you may be
correct. More positively representative conservative groups would be
firefighters and career military. They may not change the world, but they
make it a better place to live.
>
> Similarly, look at environmentalists. They are obviously liberal
> right? Why? Is it because they want more government regulations?
> What if companies did a good job of interal policing? That would be
> fine with environmentalists. Do they wish more government spending?
> It would be fine with them if it has private funding. Thus, that
> isn't it. They want to change the world for the better. Thus, it is
> a liberal pursuit. My assessment makes a good yardstick as to what
> professions are liberal and which are more conservative.
So those (radical) environmentalists who fight logging want to change the
world for the better. The forests become overgrown, dry out and millions of
acres go up in smoke. Certainly their intentions are good, but do you call
that a better world?
>
> It is not perfect. Police are difficult to judge. Lawyers are also
> difficult to characterize. But, for most occupations, it makes a
> decent yardstick.
>
> Thus, since most newspaper reporters get into the business to change
> the world, the press has a liberal lean...
>
> >Noting your quote from ST IV, I'm curious. Do you think Gene Rodenberry
was
> >liberal or conservative?
> >
>
> "Save the whales" in Star Trek IV seems to indicate that he was a
> liberal. I use it because I am from Iowa. (And I laughed for about 15
> minutes when I first heard him say it...)
I personally don't know, but I have always seen it as moral and enlightened
whichever way he leaned.
Douglas E Gogerty
wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Is that the only human pursuit?
>> >
>>
>> Certainly not, but it is a primary pursuit.
>
>You claimed I was wrong and stated "The human pursuit is... to survive", an
>implication that "obtaining and holding wealth" is not one.
>
The difference between Liberals and Conservatives are the ways they go
about the primary pursuit of survival. If you want, conservatives are
concerned with their groups survival above all other groups, and
liberals are concerned with the survival of everybody regardless of
group affiliation.
>>
>> It is a great over generalization. It is just exactly how your are
>> characterizing Liberals.
>
>You are making broad generalizations based on a stereotypical view of
>conservatives. I am merely trying to inform you that those generalizations
>are incorrect.
>
And you are doing the same with liberals, and I am trying to inform
you that those generalizations are incorrect. I am not necessarily a
good person to debate the intricasies of liberalism since I'm am not
that liberal.
>>
>> I think liberals are definitely more for redistribution of wealth.
>> IE, taking money from those who can most afford to spending it on
>> those that have the least. "Spending other people's money," as you
>> put it.
>>
>> However, you put love, family, education, writing, etc above money,
>> but you instantly characterize liberals as wanting to spend other
>> people's money. This is just as incorrect a statement as saying that
>> obtaining money is a primary concern of conservatives.
>>
>
>You agree that "liberals are definitely more for redistribution of wealth"
>but it is "incorrect" when I "characterize liberals as wanting to spend
>other people's money". I fail to see the difference.
>
"Spend other people's money" has the implication that they do not care
where the money comes from. This is a conservative point of view.
Redistribution of wealth is taking money from those that can afford to
have money taken away from them, and given to those that are in need
of assistance. There is a BIG difference there.
>>
>> "Welfare Reform" is an attempt to make things the way the were. IE,
>> entitlements were put in against their will, and they want to make it
>> the way it was.
>
>No, they were attempting to make it more effective in getting people on
>their feet. Going back to the way things were would be eliminating the
>program.
>
There are forces that will not allow them to repeal it. We do not
live in a vacuum. There is no way that they could eliminate the
program, so the compromise is to adjusting it.
>> Privitization of Social Security is the same thing.
>
>No, it is an attempt to convert a poor money transfer program into the
>highly successful private retirement programs such as the 401K. Don't bother
>bringing up Enron, those people were stupid not to be diversified.
>
Ah! But if everybody had private SS accounts, how many of them
wouldn't make stupid mistakes such as Enron? We're talking millions
of unsavvy investers here. Further, the comfort of retirement would
depend greatly on the status of the stock market when entering the job
market and exitting the job market.
Also, what happens when they run out of money? SS's problem is that
you are guaranteed for life. Private accounts certainly wouldn't
guarantee that. Thus, you will have a percentage of retiree's that
cannot rejoin the job force, but have no money. Are they going to be
allowed to starve? What is going to happen to them?
>> SDI, and the Interstate is a national security issue, and was
>> supported on both sides.
>
>The liberals are still trying to kill SDI.
>
Simply because of budget, not because of defense.
>> JFK was NOT conservative by today's
>> standards.
>
>Strong anti-communist, tax cuts, increased defense spending - how is this
>different from Reagan?
Equal rights movement, affirmative action, bussing... That sounds
pretty different to me.
>
>Do you really think "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you
>can do for your country" is the basis for social welfare programs?
>
I can see that you are confusing Republicans and Democrats with
Conservatives and Liberals. The balanced budget has become a
Democratic issue, but was once a Republican issue. However, it is
neither a liberal or conservative issue. It is an issue of
convenience. Defense is one of those issues that is neither liberal
or conservative. Everybody wants a strong national defense. The
difference lies in how each side thinks it is best to go about this.
Don't let the conservative pundits confuse the issues. For instance
SDI made sence when the Soviet Union was our primary enemy. They had
advanced nuclear technology, and SDI would be a good defense against
that. However, this threat is greatly reduced with the collapse of
the Soviet Union. Therefore, is SDI a viable solution for an altered
world order? This is the debate going on.
>> Just look at the Peace Corps to establish that.
>
>The Peace Corps is remarkably similar to the missionaries (religious
>conservatives) of the past centuries.
>
>"The Peace Corps has been fortunate to enjoy strong bipartisan support in
>Congress," says Peace Corps Director Mark Gearan.
>quoted from http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/01/16/us/us.6.html
>
>
But the movement is still a liberal one. Whether it is supported in a
bipartisan manner or not. How many conservatives join the Peace
Corps?
>> >> No, the author is a pragmatic realist rather than an idealogically
>> >> strapped capitalist.
>> >
>> >Sorry, that was another inside joke.
>> >
>> >How can you claim to be a realist of any type and have such a narrow and
>> >incorrect view of conservatives?
>> >
>>
>> I'm about as middle of the road as you can get. I was greatly
>> generalizing about the views of conservatives.
>
>Were you more liberal or conservative in the past?
>
I have waffled between them. I see benefits and drawbacks from both
points of view. I understand that there MUST be a balance between
both ideologies, otherwise there is going to be trouble.
>> However, my
>> characterization of conservatives much better fit in general terms
>> than the original poster's generalizations.
>>
>> I could say that conservatives are for less government. However, it
>> isn't correct to say that liberals are for more government.
>
>Really?
>
Yes. "Big government" and "Tax and Spend Liberal" are conservative
buzz words. They have little basis in reality. Liberals have a view
of what government should and shouldn't do, just as conservatives do.
Yes, the government for liberals would be generally larger because
they think that government has more duties that conservatives.
However, they would be happy as long as the items on their agenda were
done without government intervention. It is just that they are
generally not done without government intervention.
>> (Althought this is a common characterization) Further, conservatives
>> are generally for strong national defense (larger government in that
>> case). However, liberals are NOT for a weak national defense.
>
>President Carter allowed the military to fall into such disrepair it was
>criminal.
>
How many wars were the US involved in between 1976 and 1980? How many
times were we attacked by the USSR in that time frame? I think the
country was defended just fine in that time period.
>> These
>> are issues that generally categorize liberals and conservatives, but
>> they are not defining issues. Thus, if you look at motivations for
>> doing something, you can kind of tell which side of the fence they lie
>> on.
>>
>> Why does someone become a stock broker? Is it to change the world?
>> Or is it to earn lots of money? It isn't likely that anyone would
>> change the world as a stock broker, but you could certainly believe
>> that they are in the business to earn lots of money.
>
>It depends on how you define change. Without the stock market, and the money
>grubbing brokers that make it work so well, our economy would not be
>anywhere near what it is. This would impact all technological progress
>including medicine and agriculture. It would also reduce our nation's
>ability to provide food and disaster aid worldwide. They have also helped to
>fund the very comfortable retirement of millions of people.
>
That is all well and good, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a
conservative pursuit. I see the benefits that comes with
conservatism. I do not negate them. But all this is lost on the
liberal mind set.
>> Thus, I would
>> definitely say that there are more conservative stock brokers than
>> liberal ones. The statistics would confirm this characterization, and
>> thus, it makes a pretty good measure.
>>
>> It is not to say that all stock brokers are conservative. And, it
>> isn't to say that all conservatives have an obsession with money.
>> However, it is a good yardstick...
>
>It would be interesting to see the actual head count, but you may be
>correct. More positively representative conservative groups would be
>firefighters and career military. They may not change the world, but they
>make it a better place to live.
>
>>
>> Similarly, look at environmentalists. They are obviously liberal
>> right? Why? Is it because they want more government regulations?
>> What if companies did a good job of interal policing? That would be
>> fine with environmentalists. Do they wish more government spending?
>> It would be fine with them if it has private funding. Thus, that
>> isn't it. They want to change the world for the better. Thus, it is
>> a liberal pursuit. My assessment makes a good yardstick as to what
>> professions are liberal and which are more conservative.
>
>So those (radical) environmentalists who fight logging want to change the
>world for the better. The forests become overgrown, dry out and millions of
>acres go up in smoke. Certainly their intentions are good, but do you call
>that a better world?
>
It would be a more natural world. Fires are natures way. Some
species of plants require fires to germinate. Better? That is a
judgement call. However, both sides are dealing with history.
Logging means clear cutting large sections of forest. In the past,
this meant clear cutting but not replanting. Thus, the environmental
impact was greatly negative. Now, loggers replant trees. However,
the demand for timber is so great that trees hardly get time to
establish themselves before they are cut down again.
Conservatives have their crazy ideas to, that if looked at in depth
they would seem just as contradictory as the environmentalist. Here,
the conservatives have gutted the public transportation budgets. "The
people that use them should fund them." This kind of attitude is
prevelent in several conservative governments. The problem is, that
public transportation NEEDS to be cheap. It needs to be convenient.
It needs to be a great benefit in order for people to overlook the
down sides of public transportation, and use it. However, for me and
large numbers of others, it isn't any of those things. It is cheaper
for me to drive than it is for me to take the bus. Plus, I can come
and go as I please. Thus, all those people not taking public
transportation are competing with each other on the roads. Traffic is
a nightmare. The only solution that has not been tried to ease
traffic congestion is cheaper public transportation. The solution
that would work.
Russ Rose
> On Thu, 16 May 2002 03:22:03 GMT, "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> >
> >> >Is that the only human pursuit?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Certainly not, but it is a primary pursuit.
> >
> >You claimed I was wrong and stated "The human pursuit is... to survive",
an
> >implication that "obtaining and holding wealth" is not one.
> >
>
> The difference between Liberals and Conservatives are the ways they go
> about the primary pursuit of survival. If you want, conservatives are
> concerned with their groups survival above all other groups, and
> liberals are concerned with the survival of everybody regardless of
> group affiliation.
Are your sure liberals want everyone to survive? They sure work hard to keep
the murder of 1.5 million babies every year "safe and legal". (I don't
oppose this because it is mostly the offspring of liberals being sucked into
the medical ShopVac.)
So you think I am saying that liberals want to spend the money of people
that don't have any.
>
> >>
> >> "Welfare Reform" is an attempt to make things the way the were. IE,
> >> entitlements were put in against their will, and they want to make it
> >> the way it was.
> >
> >No, they were attempting to make it more effective in getting people on
> >their feet. Going back to the way things were would be eliminating the
> >program.
> >
>
> There are forces that will not allow them to repeal it. We do not
> live in a vacuum. There is no way that they could eliminate the
> program, so the compromise is to adjusting it.
>
There were strong forces that did not want it changed at all, yet it did.
How about this for a generalization; "liberals judge their success by how
many people they help, conservatives judge their success by how many people
no longer need anyone's help."
> >> Privitization of Social Security is the same thing.
> >
> >No, it is an attempt to convert a poor money transfer program into the
> >highly successful private retirement programs such as the 401K. Don't
bother
> >bringing up Enron, those people were stupid not to be diversified.
> >
>
> Ah! But if everybody had private SS accounts, how many of them
> wouldn't make stupid mistakes such as Enron? We're talking millions
> of unsavvy investers here. Further, the comfort of retirement would
> depend greatly on the status of the stock market when entering the job
> market and exitting the job market.
The funds would be automatically diversified. As you approach retirement age
your risk level should decrease accordingly, from securities toward bonds
for example. If you have no faith in the future of US businesses, who
exactly do you expect will be paying for the SocSec program if they fail?
Right now it is dependent completely on current wage earners paying for
current retirees. If businesses fail there won't be enough wage earners to
support the retirees.
>
> Also, what happens when they run out of money? SS's problem is that
> you are guaranteed for life. Private accounts certainly wouldn't
> guarantee that. Thus, you will have a percentage of retiree's that
> cannot rejoin the job force, but have no money. Are they going to be
> allowed to starve? What is going to happen to them?
With only $500K saved in a retirement account one could retire indefinitely
on $25K per year without decreasing the principal of their account. This
$500K could then be passed down to children's accounts so they could retire
at a higher level or earlier. SocSec currently pays out around half this
amount. The government count siphon a small percentage of earned interest in
order to cover those that fall through the cracks.
>
> >> SDI, and the Interstate is a national security issue, and was
> >> supported on both sides.
> >
> >The liberals are still trying to kill SDI.
> >
>
> Simply because of budget, not because of defense.
Really?
>
> >> JFK was NOT conservative by today's
> >> standards.
> >
> >Strong anti-communist, tax cuts, increased defense spending - how is this
> >different from Reagan?
>
> Equal rights movement, affirmative action, bussing... That sounds
> pretty different to me.
Conservatives are against equal rights? Civil rights legislation would not
have passed with conservatives. Don't forget it was the original Republican
that freed the slaves. Another radical change to add to the list.
>
> >
> >Do you really think "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what
you
> >can do for your country" is the basis for social welfare programs?
> >
>
> I can see that you are confusing Republicans and Democrats with
> Conservatives and Liberals. The balanced budget has become a
> Democratic issue, but was once a Republican issue. However, it is
> neither a liberal or conservative issue. It is an issue of
> convenience. Defense is one of those issues that is neither liberal
> or conservative. Everybody wants a strong national defense. The
> difference lies in how each side thinks it is best to go about this.
This is the essence of my argument. We do not differ in goals, just the
route taken. When emotional intentions are assigned to the solutions they
sometimes become the issue, often by design. Welfare reform was cold,
heartless, mean-spirited, racist, etc. Sometimes that is enough to kill the
attempt, but in this case it turned out to be the best thing for most of
these people and the economy.
> Don't let the conservative pundits confuse the issues. For instance
> SDI made sence when the Soviet Union was our primary enemy. They had
> advanced nuclear technology, and SDI would be a good defense against
> that. However, this threat is greatly reduced with the collapse of
> the Soviet Union. Therefore, is SDI a viable solution for an altered
> world order? This is the debate going on.
>
You have it backwards. SDI against 20,000 warheads and thousands of decoys
would be useless. Against a few launched by someone who doesn't care about
retaliation is the most important defense issue today. There is also an
incredible amount of valuable research, such as AI, that is being funded in
this pursuit that is useful outside the military application. Going to the
moon wasn't just about the trip. It was about giving people something
productive to work towards together.
> >> Just look at the Peace Corps to establish that.
> >
> >The Peace Corps is remarkably similar to the missionaries (religious
> >conservatives) of the past centuries.
> >
> >"The Peace Corps has been fortunate to enjoy strong bipartisan support in
> >Congress," says Peace Corps Director Mark Gearan.
> >quoted from http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/01/16/us/us.6.html
> >
> >
>
> But the movement is still a liberal one. Whether it is supported in a
> bipartisan manner or not. How many conservatives join the Peace
> Corps?
Plenty. That same article above mentions three current Republican
Congressmen that served in the Peace Corps. You're doing that stereotype
thing again.
>
> >> >> No, the author is a pragmatic realist rather than an idealogically
> >> >> strapped capitalist.
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, that was another inside joke.
> >> >
> >> >How can you claim to be a realist of any type and have such a narrow
and
> >> >incorrect view of conservatives?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'm about as middle of the road as you can get. I was greatly
> >> generalizing about the views of conservatives.
> >
> >Were you more liberal or conservative in the past?
> >
>
> I have waffled between them. I see benefits and drawbacks from both
> points of view. I understand that there MUST be a balance between
> both ideologies, otherwise there is going to be trouble.
Somewhere between Gore and Buchanan lies the truth? I'll go with that.
>
> >> However, my
> >> characterization of conservatives much better fit in general terms
> >> than the original poster's generalizations.
> >>
> >> I could say that conservatives are for less government. However, it
> >> isn't correct to say that liberals are for more government.
> >
> >Really?
> >
>
> Yes. "Big government" and "Tax and Spend Liberal" are conservative
> buzz words. They have little basis in reality. Liberals have a view
> of what government should and shouldn't do, just as conservatives do.
> Yes, the government for liberals would be generally larger because
> they think that government has more duties that conservatives.
> However, they would be happy as long as the items on their agenda were
> done without government intervention. It is just that they are
> generally not done without government intervention.
Who insisted that the baggage screeners become federal employees?
>
> >> (Althought this is a common characterization) Further, conservatives
> >> are generally for strong national defense (larger government in that
> >> case). However, liberals are NOT for a weak national defense.
> >
> >President Carter allowed the military to fall into such disrepair it was
> >criminal.
> >
>
> How many wars were the US involved in between 1976 and 1980? How many
> times were we attacked by the USSR in that time frame? I think the
> country was defended just fine in that time period.
You don't fight any wars if you back down all the time. I don't remember the
USSR ever attacking the US directly. But I do remember when they invaded
Afganistan and not being too worried about our reaction. Communism continued
to spread unimpeded into Central America. I also remember the increase in
terrorism, hijackings, hostage takings and a certain embarassing failed
rescue mission in Iran. The biggest problem was the abysmal morale within
the military. Had there been a war it is unlikely we would have prevailed.
Defending our borders has had little to do with national defense since the
War of 1812.
>
> >> These
> >> are issues that generally categorize liberals and conservatives, but
> >> they are not defining issues. Thus, if you look at motivations for
> >> doing something, you can kind of tell which side of the fence they lie
> >> on.
> >>
> >> Why does someone become a stock broker? Is it to change the world?
> >> Or is it to earn lots of money? It isn't likely that anyone would
> >> change the world as a stock broker, but you could certainly believe
> >> that they are in the business to earn lots of money.
> >
> >It depends on how you define change. Without the stock market, and the
money
> >grubbing brokers that make it work so well, our economy would not be
> >anywhere near what it is. This would impact all technological progress
> >including medicine and agriculture. It would also reduce our nation's
> >ability to provide food and disaster aid worldwide. They have also helped
to
> >fund the very comfortable retirement of millions of people.
> >
>
> That is all well and good, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a
> conservative pursuit. I see the benefits that comes with
> conservatism. I do not negate them. But all this is lost on the
> liberal mind set.
>
Agreed.
Freedom is the key. Forcing people to use public transportation just isn't
American. You would be better off forcing people to live near their jobs.
Forcing people who have no use for it pay for it is just plain liberal.
Carlos
to those of today. Newt and Fallwell just don't strike me as good
examples. I wonder how many Rex Reeds can dance on the head of a pin?
On Thu, 16 May 2002 21:13:16 GMT, "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com>
Russ Rose
"Carlos" <quet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0859eukq87v04keq4...@4ax.com...
> Boy, 401 lines so that one conservative can equate the Reps of 150 ago
> to those of today. Newt and Fallwell just don't strike me as good
> examples. I wonder how many Rex Reeds can dance on the head of a pin?
>
Oh great, another liberal with a mind full of stereotypes.
Where's the substance? At least the others tried.
Roy Anderson
wrote:
>Boy, 401 lines so that one conservative can equate the Reps of 150 ago
>to those of today. Newt and Fallwell just don't strike me as good
>examples. I wonder how many Rex Reeds can dance on the head of a pin?
>
I know.
I gave up completely when he proposed that proof and references had no
place in a philosophy debate.
*rolls eyes*
-Roy Anderson
Russ Rose
Yet you never even attempted to provide any "proof" that I was wrong that
liberalism is motivated by fear. Perhaps you were too scared?
*snickers*
Do you actually think you can argue facts and figures regarding beliefs?
>
> -Roy Anderson
Douglas E Gogerty
>> The difference between Liberals and Conservatives are the ways they go
>> about the primary pursuit of survival. If you want, conservatives are
>> concerned with their groups survival above all other groups, and
>> liberals are concerned with the survival of everybody regardless of
>> group affiliation.
>
>Are your sure liberals want everyone to survive? They sure work hard to keep
>the murder of 1.5 million babies every year "safe and legal". (I don't
>oppose this because it is mostly the offspring of liberals being sucked into
>the medical ShopVac.)
>
Once again, this is NOT a liberal pursuit. It happens to be a fact
that the political party most associated with liberals has sided with
the "pro choice" group. However, a very liberal organization is
completely against abortion. Namely, the Catholic Church. Thus, to
say it is a liberal position to be for abortion cannot be justified
with the facts.
>> >You agree that "liberals are definitely more for redistribution of
>wealth"
>> >but it is "incorrect" when I "characterize liberals as wanting to spend
>> >other people's money". I fail to see the difference.
>> >
>>
>> "Spend other people's money" has the implication that they do not care
>> where the money comes from. This is a conservative point of view.
>> Redistribution of wealth is taking money from those that can afford to
>> have money taken away from them, and given to those that are in need
>> of assistance. There is a BIG difference there.
>
>So you think I am saying that liberals want to spend the money of people
>that don't have any.
>
That is the implication of the phrase "spending other people's money."
Where it is understood with "redistribution of wealth" that the intent
is to take from the wealthy and give to the unfortunate. (Intent and
reality are different things...)
>>
>> >>
>> >> "Welfare Reform" is an attempt to make things the way the were. IE,
>> >> entitlements were put in against their will, and they want to make it
>> >> the way it was.
>> >
>> >No, they were attempting to make it more effective in getting people on
>> >their feet. Going back to the way things were would be eliminating the
>> >program.
>> >
>>
>> There are forces that will not allow them to repeal it. We do not
>> live in a vacuum. There is no way that they could eliminate the
>> program, so the compromise is to adjusting it.
>>
>
>There were strong forces that did not want it changed at all, yet it did.
>How about this for a generalization; "liberals judge their success by how
>many people they help, conservatives judge their success by how many people
>no longer need anyone's help."
>
There is probably some truth to that. It may be a fair
generalization...
>> >> Privitization of Social Security is the same thing.
>> >
>> >No, it is an attempt to convert a poor money transfer program into the
>> >highly successful private retirement programs such as the 401K. Don't
>bother
>> >bringing up Enron, those people were stupid not to be diversified.
>> >
>>
>> Ah! But if everybody had private SS accounts, how many of them
>> wouldn't make stupid mistakes such as Enron? We're talking millions
>> of unsavvy investers here. Further, the comfort of retirement would
>> depend greatly on the status of the stock market when entering the job
>> market and exitting the job market.
>
>The funds would be automatically diversified. As you approach retirement age
>your risk level should decrease accordingly, from securities toward bonds
>for example. If you have no faith in the future of US businesses, who
>exactly do you expect will be paying for the SocSec program if they fail?
>Right now it is dependent completely on current wage earners paying for
>current retirees. If businesses fail there won't be enough wage earners to
>support the retirees.
>
That is NOT how Social Security works. The idea behind social
security is to put money away, and use it when you retire. The
problem has been that people have lived longer than they have worked,
and the interest earned on the Social Security funds has not kept up
with inflation. Thus, to pay for this insufficiency of funds, they
had to take money from current workers. This is the problem with
social security.
Your proposed plan was not suggested by any candidate or political
party. In fact, social security could be changed to earn higher
returns, and make your idea unneeded.
I have plenty of faith in American Business. However, recessions
happen. I know many 401K's that have lost value in the last 3 years.
It is because the stock market was high, and getting in with prices so
high was expensive. Then, the market fell during the recession.
Thus, plans have lost value in the last couple of years. The
likelyhood of this happening over a 30 year period is not great, but
the market could be flat for extended periods. (In a broad sense)
Thus, the amount earned could be less than the amount needed to
continue living at a level that a person has grown accustom.
>>
>> Also, what happens when they run out of money? SS's problem is that
>> you are guaranteed for life. Private accounts certainly wouldn't
>> guarantee that. Thus, you will have a percentage of retiree's that
>> cannot rejoin the job force, but have no money. Are they going to be
>> allowed to starve? What is going to happen to them?
>
>With only $500K saved in a retirement account one could retire indefinitely
>on $25K per year without decreasing the principal of their account. This
>$500K could then be passed down to children's accounts so they could retire
>at a higher level or earlier. SocSec currently pays out around half this
>amount. The government count siphon a small percentage of earned interest in
>order to cover those that fall through the cracks.
>
That is assuming a 5% return on investment. It also assumes that
someone can save about $10K a year to get to that $500K. How many
people can save that much? How many people making $25K a year can
save 40% of their income on retirement? There are millions of people
earning $25K and less. They would be lucky to put away $100K which
would get them $5K per year by your figures. Thus, there would be
millions of people falling through your cracks.
>>
>> >> SDI, and the Interstate is a national security issue, and was
>> >> supported on both sides.
>> >
>> >The liberals are still trying to kill SDI.
>> >
>>
>> Simply because of budget, not because of defense.
>
>Really?
>
>>
>> >> JFK was NOT conservative by today's
>> >> standards.
>> >
>> >Strong anti-communist, tax cuts, increased defense spending - how is this
>> >different from Reagan?
>>
>> Equal rights movement, affirmative action, bussing... That sounds
>> pretty different to me.
>
>Conservatives are against equal rights? Civil rights legislation would not
>have passed with conservatives. Don't forget it was the original Republican
>that freed the slaves. Another radical change to add to the list.
>
No conservatives are not against equal rights. However, part of the
equal rights movement was affirmative action. Part of the equal
rights movement was integration. Part of the equal rights movement
was bussing. THESE parts of the equal rights movement are liberal in
nature.
As far as Lincoln was concerned he only freed the slaves because it
was a political necessity. In fact, he freed no slaves in the North.
He only freed the slaves in the Confederacy. Slavery ended for the
same reason that slavery ended in all civilizations. It is more cost
effective to pay a person for doing a job, than to make sure they have
enough to eat, a place to live, etc. It is cheaper to pay them a set
salary, and have them worry about living expenses.
>>
>> >
>> >Do you really think "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what
>you
>> >can do for your country" is the basis for social welfare programs?
>> >
>>
>> I can see that you are confusing Republicans and Democrats with
>> Conservatives and Liberals. The balanced budget has become a
>> Democratic issue, but was once a Republican issue. However, it is
>> neither a liberal or conservative issue. It is an issue of
>> convenience. Defense is one of those issues that is neither liberal
>> or conservative. Everybody wants a strong national defense. The
>> difference lies in how each side thinks it is best to go about this.
>
>This is the essence of my argument. We do not differ in goals, just the
>route taken. When emotional intentions are assigned to the solutions they
>sometimes become the issue, often by design. Welfare reform was cold,
>heartless, mean-spirited, racist, etc. Sometimes that is enough to kill the
>attempt, but in this case it turned out to be the best thing for most of
>these people and the economy.
>
However, there WILL be side effects. The system in place had
problems, there is no denying that. However, don't expect that
everything will go along smoothly from here on out. One of the big
problems was generalization. In order to avoid having to review each
case, some short cuts were taken to streamline the process. This will
always happen and there will people that fall through the cracks. Do
we err on the conservative side and reduce the cost of the program and
help fewer marginal people, or do we err on the liberal side and make
sure everyone that needs it gets covered, but abuses are common and
the program is costly?
>> Don't let the conservative pundits confuse the issues. For instance
>> SDI made sence when the Soviet Union was our primary enemy. They had
>> advanced nuclear technology, and SDI would be a good defense against
>> that. However, this threat is greatly reduced with the collapse of
>> the Soviet Union. Therefore, is SDI a viable solution for an altered
>> world order? This is the debate going on.
>>
>
>You have it backwards. SDI against 20,000 warheads and thousands of decoys
>would be useless. Against a few launched by someone who doesn't care about
>retaliation is the most important defense issue today. There is also an
>incredible amount of valuable research, such as AI, that is being funded in
>this pursuit that is useful outside the military application. Going to the
>moon wasn't just about the trip. It was about giving people something
>productive to work towards together.
>
Ah, but who will have such a warhead? What is the likelyhood that
they would have the capabilty to launch a missle and we wouldn't know
about it? Could the patriot missle be modified to be just as
effective as SDI? These are the questions that are being asked. This
is the debate. It is the fact that it is going to be an
extraordinarily expensive proposition and it MUST be 100% effective.
We don't want to shoot down someones space project, and we don't want
a missle to get through. What is the likelyhood of these two
occurances? Is there a better way?
>> >> Just look at the Peace Corps to establish that.
>> >
>> >The Peace Corps is remarkably similar to the missionaries (religious
>> >conservatives) of the past centuries.
>> >
>> >"The Peace Corps has been fortunate to enjoy strong bipartisan support in
>> >Congress," says Peace Corps Director Mark Gearan.
>> >quoted from http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/01/16/us/us.6.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>> But the movement is still a liberal one. Whether it is supported in a
>> bipartisan manner or not. How many conservatives join the Peace
>> Corps?
>
>Plenty. That same article above mentions three current Republican
>Congressmen that served in the Peace Corps. You're doing that stereotype
>thing again.
>
Semi-stereotype. How many conservatives? You mentioned one... I
would still say that a vast majority of the members of the Peace Corps
are liberal.
>> >Were you more liberal or conservative in the past?
>> >
>>
>> I have waffled between them. I see benefits and drawbacks from both
>> points of view. I understand that there MUST be a balance between
>> both ideologies, otherwise there is going to be trouble.
>
>Somewhere between Gore and Buchanan lies the truth? I'll go with that.
>
There are plenty of more Liberal people than Gore. Ralph Nader comes
to mind. Buchanan is a good choice on the right...
>>
>> >> However, my
>> >> characterization of conservatives much better fit in general terms
>> >> than the original poster's generalizations.
>> >>
>> >> I could say that conservatives are for less government. However, it
>> >> isn't correct to say that liberals are for more government.
>> >
>> >Really?
>> >
>>
>> Yes. "Big government" and "Tax and Spend Liberal" are conservative
>> buzz words. They have little basis in reality. Liberals have a view
>> of what government should and shouldn't do, just as conservatives do.
>> Yes, the government for liberals would be generally larger because
>> they think that government has more duties that conservatives.
>> However, they would be happy as long as the items on their agenda were
>> done without government intervention. It is just that they are
>> generally not done without government intervention.
>
>Who insisted that the baggage screeners become federal employees?
>
That is because it was not being handled properly by private
enterprise. It was being done by the airport, and there were no
standards of operation. There was no consistancy. Some airports were
more secure than others. How do you ensure that these things happen?
You either take complete control, you set up an oversight commission,
or you leave it as is saying it is good enough. In this climate, the
second two were not seen as going far enough. It is a specific case,
and is not the norm. If private enterprise handles things well, then
the government doesn't have to step in. For example, each city has
its local law enforcement group. Each locality does a good job, and
the government has rarely stepped in. Thus, local policemen are not
federal employees...
>>
>> >> (Althought this is a common characterization) Further, conservatives
>> >> are generally for strong national defense (larger government in that
>> >> case). However, liberals are NOT for a weak national defense.
>> >
>> >President Carter allowed the military to fall into such disrepair it was
>> >criminal.
>> >
>>
>> How many wars were the US involved in between 1976 and 1980? How many
>> times were we attacked by the USSR in that time frame? I think the
>> country was defended just fine in that time period.
>
>You don't fight any wars if you back down all the time. I don't remember the
>USSR ever attacking the US directly. But I do remember when they invaded
>Afganistan and not being too worried about our reaction. Communism continued
>to spread unimpeded into Central America. I also remember the increase in
>terrorism, hijackings, hostage takings and a certain embarassing failed
>rescue mission in Iran. The biggest problem was the abysmal morale within
>the military. Had there been a war it is unlikely we would have prevailed.
>Defending our borders has had little to do with national defense since the
>War of 1812.
>
>>
Remember Viet Nam? This was the post-viet nam era. There was a huge
anti-military attitude in the country. Military morale would have
been low no matter what. The increase in terrorism, hijackings,
hostage takings, etc are simply in your imagination. There were
tensions in the Middle East then, as now. Do I blame those incidents
on George W. Bush? You can't have it both ways. I can equate the
failed hostage rescue with the story in Black Hawk Down, or with the
events in Grenada or Panama.
How many of those countries are still communist? Why would a
political choice by a sovereign nation concern us? I realize they are
close in proximity, but the government chose to make communism evil.
They couldn't say the USSR had an evil form of government and such and
such country is not.
The US policy towards Central America in the 70's and 80's was
idiotic. We'll befriend a ruthless regime because it is capitalistic,
and be against a locally widely supported government because it is
not. Support for the Contras was counter productive, and did a great
deal to garner support for their existing government and fed a large
anti-American sentiment in the region. We have constantly supported
the sovereingty of nations, however, if we disagree with them, we
expect them to bend to our wishes rather than their own self interest.
You don't have to look any further than El Salvador and Nigaragua for
proof of that.
>>
>> That is all well and good, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a
>> conservative pursuit. I see the benefits that comes with
>> conservatism. I do not negate them. But all this is lost on the
>> liberal mind set.
>>
>
>Agreed.
>
>>
You totally missed the point. They may not USE it themselves, but
they would benefit from it. No one would be forcing anyone to use
public transportation, but the benefits of using it have to be at a
certain level. IE the drawbacks have to be outweighed by the
benefits. Thus, no force would be necessary because the service would
proclaim its own benefits.
I am a perfect example, it is cheaper for me to commute by my own
vehicle than it is to take the bus. So, why would I give up the
benefit of leaving when I want, taking less time to get home, etc when
there is no cost benefit? Thus, I am another motorist on the road
competing for a limited amount of road capacity. Thus, gas prices are
higher, road ware is greater, polution is higher, etc. If more people
would ride public transportation, that would lessen all of those, AND
benefit those that chose not to use public transportation. Not only
would the freeways be less crowded, gas prices would be lower,
construction costs would be lower, etc. It is definitely a liberal
idea, but that doesn't make it a bad idea. That is the point...
Russ Rose
> >>
> >> The difference between Liberals and Conservatives are the ways they go
> >> about the primary pursuit of survival. If you want, conservatives are
> >> concerned with their groups survival above all other groups, and
> >> liberals are concerned with the survival of everybody regardless of
> >> group affiliation.
> >
> >Are your sure liberals want everyone to survive? They sure work hard to
keep
> >the murder of 1.5 million babies every year "safe and legal". (I don't
> >oppose this because it is mostly the offspring of liberals being sucked
into
> >the medical ShopVac.)
> >
>
> Once again, this is NOT a liberal pursuit. It happens to be a fact
> that the political party most associated with liberals has sided with
> the "pro choice" group. However, a very liberal organization is
> completely against abortion. Namely, the Catholic Church. Thus, to
> say it is a liberal position to be for abortion cannot be justified
> with the facts.
The Catholic church is the most conservative Christian church out there.
They're still against birth control for goodness sake.
>
> >> >You agree that "liberals are definitely more for redistribution of
> >wealth"
> >> >but it is "incorrect" when I "characterize liberals as wanting to
spend
> >> >other people's money". I fail to see the difference.
> >> >
> >>
> >> "Spend other people's money" has the implication that they do not care
> >> where the money comes from. This is a conservative point of view.
> >> Redistribution of wealth is taking money from those that can afford to
> >> have money taken away from them, and given to those that are in need
> >> of assistance. There is a BIG difference there.
> >
> >So you think I am saying that liberals want to spend the money of people
> >that don't have any.
> >
>
> That is the implication of the phrase "spending other people's money."
> Where it is understood with "redistribution of wealth" that the intent
> is to take from the wealthy and give to the unfortunate. (Intent and
> reality are different things...)
How much money makes one "wealthy"?
Every penny collected today for SocSec is used either to pay current social
security recipients or general obligations of the federal government. There
is no money being "put away" for future recipients because President LBJ
pooled SocSec accounts into the general fund so he could show a "balanced
budget" for his last year in office. The liberal deficit spending that
followed destroyed any concept that SocSec was a retirement account. The
problem is that the goverment is running it.
>
> Your proposed plan was not suggested by any candidate or political
> party. In fact, social security could be changed to earn higher
> returns, and make your idea unneeded.
Privatizing social security was not proposed? It was one of Bush 43's major
campaign issues. Even Reagan was headed in that direction with IRA's
>
> I have plenty of faith in American Business. However, recessions
> happen. I know many 401K's that have lost value in the last 3 years.
> It is because the stock market was high, and getting in with prices so
> high was expensive. Then, the market fell during the recession.
> Thus, plans have lost value in the last couple of years. The
> likelyhood of this happening over a 30 year period is not great, but
> the market could be flat for extended periods. (In a broad sense)
> Thus, the amount earned could be less than the amount needed to
> continue living at a level that a person has grown accustom.
Diversification and risk tolerance are all part of the investment strategy.
In desperate times the principal can be invaded. Think about what old people
used to do before SocSec. Families used to be a lot closer because the old
were more dependent on their children. My parents would not need any social
security because my siblings and I would take care of them if their private
retirement funds somehow disappeared. The government should be the last
place one should seek help.
>
> >>
> >> Also, what happens when they run out of money? SS's problem is that
> >> you are guaranteed for life. Private accounts certainly wouldn't
> >> guarantee that. Thus, you will have a percentage of retiree's that
> >> cannot rejoin the job force, but have no money. Are they going to be
> >> allowed to starve? What is going to happen to them?
> >
> >With only $500K saved in a retirement account one could retire
indefinitely
> >on $25K per year without decreasing the principal of their account. This
> >$500K could then be passed down to children's accounts so they could
retire
> >at a higher level or earlier. SocSec currently pays out around half this
> >amount. The government count siphon a small percentage of earned interest
in
> >order to cover those that fall through the cracks.
> >
>
> That is assuming a 5% return on investment. It also assumes that
> someone can save about $10K a year to get to that $500K. How many
> people can save that much? How many people making $25K a year can
> save 40% of their income on retirement? There are millions of people
> earning $25K and less. They would be lucky to put away $100K which
> would get them $5K per year by your figures. Thus, there would be
> millions of people falling through your cracks.
$2000 a year would easily get you to that number. You are not taking into
consideration the compounding of interest. That's about 10% savings which is
what everyone should be doing anyway. Currently the government is taking 15%
of your paycheck specifically for SocSec. You only see 7.5%, but your
employer matches that in your name so it is considered part of your
compensatation. Shifting that into private accounts is all that is needed to
have financial security. No new savings necessary.
If you choose to believe that, you are free to do so. I disagree but it is
way off topic.
Make people self reliant and there will be no need for the program at all.
>
> >> Don't let the conservative pundits confuse the issues. For instance
> >> SDI made sence when the Soviet Union was our primary enemy. They had
> >> advanced nuclear technology, and SDI would be a good defense against
> >> that. However, this threat is greatly reduced with the collapse of
> >> the Soviet Union. Therefore, is SDI a viable solution for an altered
> >> world order? This is the debate going on.
> >>
> >
> >You have it backwards. SDI against 20,000 warheads and thousands of
decoys
> >would be useless. Against a few launched by someone who doesn't care
about
> >retaliation is the most important defense issue today. There is also an
> >incredible amount of valuable research, such as AI, that is being funded
in
> >this pursuit that is useful outside the military application. Going to
the
> >moon wasn't just about the trip. It was about giving people something
> >productive to work towards together.
> >
>
> Ah, but who will have such a warhead? What is the likelyhood that
> they would have the capabilty to launch a missle and we wouldn't know
> about it?
China has a couple dozen. North Korea may have some. Iran may have some.
> Could the patriot missle be modified to be just as
> effective as SDI? These are the questions that are being asked. This
> is the debate.
The Patriot would be (and was) ineffective because it was merely altering
the ballistic course of a projectile. On a battlefield this would mean
falling into a no-man's-land between the two armies. Would it matter if the
nuclear warhead hit New York or fell somewhere short on Long Island? The
only effective way to destroy them would be in the ascent phase.
> It is the fact that it is going to be an
> extraordinarily expensive proposition and it MUST be 100% effective.
How much money is it worth to keep Manhattan from glowing in the dark for
10,000 years?
Are the police 100% effective? How about the FBI and CIA? Does this mean
these organizations should not exist?
> We don't want to shoot down someones space project, and we don't want
> a missle to get through. What is the likelyhood of these two
> occurances? Is there a better way?
>
A legitimate space launch is thoroughly researched and announced because of
the complexity of space traffic control. It is extremely unlikely that an
accident would happen, and the fault of the launcher if it did.
> >> >> Just look at the Peace Corps to establish that.
> >> >
> >> >The Peace Corps is remarkably similar to the missionaries (religious
> >> >conservatives) of the past centuries.
> >> >
> >> >"The Peace Corps has been fortunate to enjoy strong bipartisan support
in
> >> >Congress," says Peace Corps Director Mark Gearan.
> >> >quoted from http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/01/16/us/us.6.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> But the movement is still a liberal one. Whether it is supported in a
> >> bipartisan manner or not. How many conservatives join the Peace
> >> Corps?
> >
> >Plenty. That same article above mentions three current Republican
> >Congressmen that served in the Peace Corps. You're doing that stereotype
> >thing again.
> >
>
> Semi-stereotype. How many conservatives? You mentioned one... I
> would still say that a vast majority of the members of the Peace Corps
> are liberal.
I don't know where to verify such information so we'll agree to disagree.
>
> >> >Were you more liberal or conservative in the past?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have waffled between them. I see benefits and drawbacks from both
> >> points of view. I understand that there MUST be a balance between
> >> both ideologies, otherwise there is going to be trouble.
> >
> >Somewhere between Gore and Buchanan lies the truth? I'll go with that.
> >
>
> There are plenty of more Liberal people than Gore. Ralph Nader comes
> to mind. Buchanan is a good choice on the right...
I hope we never find out just how liberal Gore is.
>
> >>
> >> >> However, my
> >> >> characterization of conservatives much better fit in general terms
> >> >> than the original poster's generalizations.
> >> >>
> >> >> I could say that conservatives are for less government. However, it
> >> >> isn't correct to say that liberals are for more government.
> >> >
> >> >Really?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes. "Big government" and "Tax and Spend Liberal" are conservative
> >> buzz words. They have little basis in reality. Liberals have a view
> >> of what government should and shouldn't do, just as conservatives do.
> >> Yes, the government for liberals would be generally larger because
> >> they think that government has more duties that conservatives.
> >> However, they would be happy as long as the items on their agenda were
> >> done without government intervention. It is just that they are
> >> generally not done without government intervention.
> >
> >Who insisted that the baggage screeners become federal employees?
> >
>
> That is because it was not being handled properly by private
> enterprise. It was being done by the airport, and there were no
> standards of operation. There was no consistancy. Some airports were
> more secure than others. How do you ensure that these things happen?
> You either take complete control, you set up an oversight commission,
> or you leave it as is saying it is good enough. In this climate, the
> second two were not seen as going far enough. It is a specific case,
> and is not the norm. If private enterprise handles things well, then
> the government doesn't have to step in.
Can you tell me exactly what those baggage screeners did wrong on Sept 11?
It was in the rules that short knives and box cutters were allowed. It would
not have mattered if they were Secret Service agents as longs as the rules
allowed knives and box cutters to be carried on board. The liberals seized
the opportunity to expand the government, just like they are trying to do
with health care.
> For example, each city has
> its local law enforcement group. Each locality does a good job, and
> the government has rarely stepped in. Thus, local policemen are not
> federal employees...
But they are already government employees.
Reagan turned it around in a very short amount of time and he had Beruit to
deal with.
> The increase in terrorism, hijackings,
> hostage takings, etc are simply in your imagination. There were
> tensions in the Middle East then, as now. Do I blame those incidents
> on George W. Bush? You can't have it both ways. I can equate the
> failed hostage rescue with the story in Black Hawk Down, or with the
> events in Grenada or Panama.
Black Hawk Down is an excellent example of a poor understanding of the
military. Clinton decreased the forces in theatre and the expanded the
mission. I do not attribute this to liberalism since Clinton was one of the
most successfully conservative presidents ever. I remember Greneda, Panama,
and the Libya missions as enourmous successes.
>
> How many of those countries are still communist? Why would a
> political choice by a sovereign nation concern us? I realize they are
> close in proximity, but the government chose to make communism evil.
> They couldn't say the USSR had an evil form of government and such and
> such country is not.
You believe communism is not evil?
>
> The US policy towards Central America in the 70's and 80's was
> idiotic. We'll befriend a ruthless regime because it is capitalistic,
> and be against a locally widely supported government because it is
> not. Support for the Contras was counter productive, and did a great
> deal to garner support for their existing government and fed a large
> anti-American sentiment in the region. We have constantly supported
> the sovereingty of nations, however, if we disagree with them, we
> expect them to bend to our wishes rather than their own self interest.
> You don't have to look any further than El Salvador and Nigaragua for
> proof of that.
>
If the people of Nicaragua wanted the communist government, why the did they
vote against it the first opportunity they were given to do so?
The one time in my life where I could have taken advantage of public
transportation, and would have prefered it, the combined operating schedule
of bus and train would have limited my work day to 5 and 1/2 hours. I am all
for public transportation, but I don't think government is the best at
running such enterprises.
Ville V. Särkkälä
neo-nazi's point of view. However I, as a Finnish citizen, have always
perceived the US as a very rightist (if that's the correct term)
country. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And the claim that
it's governed by a group of jews is just absurd.
If I remember correctly, America is a democratic country.
Ville V. Särkkälä
(forgive the spelling)
Douglas E Gogerty
wrote:
>>
>> Once again, this is NOT a liberal pursuit. It happens to be a fact
>> that the political party most associated with liberals has sided with
>> the "pro choice" group. However, a very liberal organization is
>> completely against abortion. Namely, the Catholic Church. Thus, to
>> say it is a liberal position to be for abortion cannot be justified
>> with the facts.
>
>The Catholic church is the most conservative Christian church out there.
>They're still against birth control for goodness sake.
>
Within itself it is conservative. Politically it is very liberal,
which is the context we are working in.
>> >> "Spend other people's money" has the implication that they do not care
>> >> where the money comes from. This is a conservative point of view.
>> >> Redistribution of wealth is taking money from those that can afford to
>> >> have money taken away from them, and given to those that are in need
>> >> of assistance. There is a BIG difference there.
>> >
>> >So you think I am saying that liberals want to spend the money of people
>> >that don't have any.
>> >
>>
>> That is the implication of the phrase "spending other people's money."
>> Where it is understood with "redistribution of wealth" that the intent
>> is to take from the wealthy and give to the unfortunate. (Intent and
>> reality are different things...)
>
>How much money makes one "wealthy"?
>
What difference does it make? More than the average. More than the
median. More than enough to live comfortably.
>> >
>> >The funds would be automatically diversified. As you approach retirement
>age
>> >your risk level should decrease accordingly, from securities toward bonds
>> >for example. If you have no faith in the future of US businesses, who
>> >exactly do you expect will be paying for the SocSec program if they fail?
>> >Right now it is dependent completely on current wage earners paying for
>> >current retirees. If businesses fail there won't be enough wage earners
>to
>> >support the retirees.
>> >
>>
>> That is NOT how Social Security works. The idea behind social
>> security is to put money away, and use it when you retire. The
>> problem has been that people have lived longer than they have worked,
>> and the interest earned on the Social Security funds has not kept up
>> with inflation. Thus, to pay for this insufficiency of funds, they
>> had to take money from current workers. This is the problem with
>> social security.
>
>Every penny collected today for SocSec is used either to pay current social
>security recipients or general obligations of the federal government. There
>is no money being "put away" for future recipients because President LBJ
>pooled SocSec accounts into the general fund so he could show a "balanced
>budget" for his last year in office. The liberal deficit spending that
>followed destroyed any concept that SocSec was a retirement account. The
>problem is that the goverment is running it.
>
First of all, the biggest deficit spending occurred during the Reagan
years. You can push the numbers around all you want, you can place
blame wherever you want, but deficit spending is not the fault of
liberals. Deficit spending is a bi-partisan effort.
The Clinton administration did wonders with Social Security to make it
more of a retirement account.
>>
>> Your proposed plan was not suggested by any candidate or political
>> party. In fact, social security could be changed to earn higher
>> returns, and make your idea unneeded.
>
>Privatizing social security was not proposed? It was one of Bush 43's major
>campaign issues. Even Reagan was headed in that direction with IRA's
>
It was NOT the system that you submitted. His proposal was to let
individuals control where their money went. His proposal was to have
individuals choose what companies they invested in. There were many
problems with proposal, that it will never be enacted...
>>
>> I have plenty of faith in American Business. However, recessions
>> happen. I know many 401K's that have lost value in the last 3 years.
>> It is because the stock market was high, and getting in with prices so
>> high was expensive. Then, the market fell during the recession.
>> Thus, plans have lost value in the last couple of years. The
>> likelyhood of this happening over a 30 year period is not great, but
>> the market could be flat for extended periods. (In a broad sense)
>> Thus, the amount earned could be less than the amount needed to
>> continue living at a level that a person has grown accustom.
>
>Diversification and risk tolerance are all part of the investment strategy.
>In desperate times the principal can be invaded. Think about what old people
>used to do before SocSec. Families used to be a lot closer because the old
>were more dependent on their children. My parents would not need any social
>security because my siblings and I would take care of them if their private
>retirement funds somehow disappeared. The government should be the last
>place one should seek help.
>
I guess that is a valid point of view. It would take a lot of
adaptation, and I don't think it would be implementable.
How are you going to coordinate 200 million investors? Make sure they
are diversified, determine which company gets the great benefit of
having 200 million investors steered their way. It sounds like
make-up for social security...
>> No conservatives are not against equal rights. However, part of the
>> equal rights movement was affirmative action. Part of the equal
>> rights movement was integration. Part of the equal rights movement
>> was bussing. THESE parts of the equal rights movement are liberal in
>> nature.
>>
>> As far as Lincoln was concerned he only freed the slaves because it
>> was a political necessity. In fact, he freed no slaves in the North.
>> He only freed the slaves in the Confederacy. Slavery ended for the
>> same reason that slavery ended in all civilizations. It is more cost
>> effective to pay a person for doing a job, than to make sure they have
>> enough to eat, a place to live, etc. It is cheaper to pay them a set
>> salary, and have them worry about living expenses.
>>
>
>If you choose to believe that, you are free to do so. I disagree but it is
>way off topic.
>
History proves it every time. Greeks, Romans, etc. All slave holding
civilizations. But, yes, off topic.
>> >This is the essence of my argument. We do not differ in goals, just the
>> >route taken. When emotional intentions are assigned to the solutions they
>> >sometimes become the issue, often by design. Welfare reform was cold,
>> >heartless, mean-spirited, racist, etc. Sometimes that is enough to kill
>the
>> >attempt, but in this case it turned out to be the best thing for most of
>> >these people and the economy.
>> >
>>
>> However, there WILL be side effects. The system in place had
>> problems, there is no denying that. However, don't expect that
>> everything will go along smoothly from here on out. One of the big
>> problems was generalization. In order to avoid having to review each
>> case, some short cuts were taken to streamline the process. This will
>> always happen and there will people that fall through the cracks. Do
>> we err on the conservative side and reduce the cost of the program and
>> help fewer marginal people, or do we err on the liberal side and make
>> sure everyone that needs it gets covered, but abuses are common and
>> the program is costly?
>
>Make people self reliant and there will be no need for the program at all.
>
You must provide benefits for self reliance. Thus, people will choose
self reliance over its alternatives. What are the benefits for
digging ditches for a living over doing nothing and making the same
wages? Self reliance requires that all workers in America earn a
living wage. Self reliance requires that every able body person can
find a job. 0 unemployment. Self reliance requires a great deal...
>>
>> >> Don't let the conservative pundits confuse the issues. For instance
>> >> SDI made sence when the Soviet Union was our primary enemy. They had
>> >> advanced nuclear technology, and SDI would be a good defense against
>> >> that. However, this threat is greatly reduced with the collapse of
>> >> the Soviet Union. Therefore, is SDI a viable solution for an altered
>> >> world order? This is the debate going on.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You have it backwards. SDI against 20,000 warheads and thousands of
>decoys
>> >would be useless. Against a few launched by someone who doesn't care
>about
>> >retaliation is the most important defense issue today. There is also an
>> >incredible amount of valuable research, such as AI, that is being funded
>in
>> >this pursuit that is useful outside the military application. Going to
>the
>> >moon wasn't just about the trip. It was about giving people something
>> >productive to work towards together.
>> >
>>
>> Ah, but who will have such a warhead? What is the likelyhood that
>> they would have the capabilty to launch a missle and we wouldn't know
>> about it?
>
>China has a couple dozen. North Korea may have some. Iran may have some.
>
That is all true. But, that does not change the issue. It is not a
"let us gut national security by not funding SDI", it is a complex
issue. It is a balance between need, capability, and funding.
>> Could the patriot missle be modified to be just as
>> effective as SDI? These are the questions that are being asked. This
>> is the debate.
>
>The Patriot would be (and was) ineffective because it was merely altering
>the ballistic course of a projectile. On a battlefield this would mean
>falling into a no-man's-land between the two armies. Would it matter if the
>nuclear warhead hit New York or fell somewhere short on Long Island? The
>only effective way to destroy them would be in the ascent phase.
>
I understand the Patriot wouldn't be a workable solution in its
current configuration. However, it is a tangible technology. It
isn't perfect, but it is a present technology. It does not rely on
technology that doesn't currently exist.
>> It is the fact that it is going to be an
>> extraordinarily expensive proposition and it MUST be 100% effective.
>
>How much money is it worth to keep Manhattan from glowing in the dark for
>10,000 years?
>Are the police 100% effective? How about the FBI and CIA? Does this mean
>these organizations should not exist?
>
Can you guarantee its effectiveness? Can SDI protect us against, for
instance, a suicide bomber with a nuclear device? Can SDI protect us
against submarine launched missles? Even ones launched off the coast
of New York City? SDI has limited capabilities. What are the odds of
any of these contingiencies?
No organization is 100% effective. However, SDI MUST be. Otherwise,
with its narrow band of capabilities, it is useless. We may get some
valuable research from it, but spend billions of dollars on a system
that we cannot trust doesn't sound like a worthwile system.
>> We don't want to shoot down someones space project, and we don't want
>> a missle to get through. What is the likelyhood of these two
>> occurances? Is there a better way?
>>
>
>A legitimate space launch is thoroughly researched and announced because of
>the complexity of space traffic control. It is extremely unlikely that an
>accident would happen, and the fault of the launcher if it did.
>
So, do we disarm the SDI during the launch? Doesn't this sound like a
perfect time to coordinate an attack?
He has a record. He is pretty liberal. However, Nader is even more
to the left.
There is plenty of blame to go around for Sept 11. However, there
were some airports that didn't allow such things on board. (Despite
any rules or conventions to the contrary) There was no consistency.
There was a lack of consequences for lax security. There was little
oversight. There were a lot of problems with the way things were
done, and 9/11 took advantage of those holes. How can we insure that
if a security hole is discovered that it is patched in all locales?
How can we insure that the baggage handlers do their job? Is it
overboard? Probably. But is it totally unjustifiable? No. Is it
the liberals fault? Only if America is 65% liberal...
>> For example, each city has
>> its local law enforcement group. Each locality does a good job, and
>> the government has rarely stepped in. Thus, local policemen are not
>> federal employees...
>
>But they are already government employees.
>
There is hardly a country wide occupation that isn't government
supported in one way or another. It is difficult to give example of
an occupation that has country wide impact, but is locally managed.
>> >
>> >You don't fight any wars if you back down all the time. I don't remember
>the
>> >USSR ever attacking the US directly. But I do remember when they invaded
>> >Afganistan and not being too worried about our reaction. Communism
>continued
>> >to spread unimpeded into Central America. I also remember the increase in
>> >terrorism, hijackings, hostage takings and a certain embarassing failed
>> >rescue mission in Iran. The biggest problem was the abysmal morale within
>> >the military. Had there been a war it is unlikely we would have
>prevailed.
>> >Defending our borders has had little to do with national defense since
>the
>> >War of 1812.
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> Remember Viet Nam? This was the post-viet nam era. There was a huge
>> anti-military attitude in the country. Military morale would have
>> been low no matter what.
>
>Reagan turned it around in a very short amount of time and he had Beruit to
>deal with.
>
He managed with the help of the press to vilify the Soviet Union.
Thus, turn focus away from the past and turn it to a new villain.
>> The increase in terrorism, hijackings,
>> hostage takings, etc are simply in your imagination. There were
>> tensions in the Middle East then, as now. Do I blame those incidents
>> on George W. Bush? You can't have it both ways. I can equate the
>> failed hostage rescue with the story in Black Hawk Down, or with the
>> events in Grenada or Panama.
>
>Black Hawk Down is an excellent example of a poor understanding of the
>military. Clinton decreased the forces in theatre and the expanded the
>mission. I do not attribute this to liberalism since Clinton was one of the
>most successfully conservative presidents ever. I remember Greneda, Panama,
>and the Libya missions as enourmous successes.
>
They just happened to be a success. Blaiming the failure of rescuing
the hostages on Carter is ludicrous. The rescue operation could have
been a success, but things went wrong. These missions I mentioned
could have gone wrong too. (They did have their problems, but nothing
catostrophic)
Most conservatives are completely anti-Clinton. They fail to
recognize what a conservative force he was. He was still liberal in
ways. Politically, I agree with a lot of what Clinton implemented.
You are astute to recognize it.
>>
>> How many of those countries are still communist? Why would a
>> political choice by a sovereign nation concern us? I realize they are
>> close in proximity, but the government chose to make communism evil.
>> They couldn't say the USSR had an evil form of government and such and
>> such country is not.
>
>You believe communism is not evil?
>
Communism isn't inherantly evil. It is just an alternate form of
government. (One that was never truly implemented.) The USSR was a
totalitarian dictatorship in the guise of communism. Even
totalitarian dictatorships are not inherantly evil. You have to look
at the leaders to determine their dangers.
>>
>> The US policy towards Central America in the 70's and 80's was
>> idiotic. We'll befriend a ruthless regime because it is capitalistic,
>> and be against a locally widely supported government because it is
>> not. Support for the Contras was counter productive, and did a great
>> deal to garner support for their existing government and fed a large
>> anti-American sentiment in the region. We have constantly supported
>> the sovereingty of nations, however, if we disagree with them, we
>> expect them to bend to our wishes rather than their own self interest.
>> You don't have to look any further than El Salvador and Nigaragua for
>> proof of that.
>>
>
>If the people of Nicaragua wanted the communist government, why the did they
>vote against it the first opportunity they were given to do so?
>
Because of abject poverty that the communist promised to rid the
country of, but failed miserably to do so. This may have had
something to do with the US embargo...
So, if the public transportation system had a schedule that fit your
needs, then you would ride it. If the public transportation system
had enough funding to have more reasonable hours for you, you would
have taken it. Think of how many cars could be taken off the highway
with a change of the way public transportation works.
Public transportation is not a profitable business. The mode of
transportation is expensive (bus, train, etc.) Operating expenses are
high. If you increase the number of stops to benefit more people, it
lengthens the commute. If you shorten the commute then there may not
be enough people to support the route. At the very least, it must
have a government subsidy in order to survive. If it had to be
profitable, it wouldn't be available because it would be too expensive
to ride.
So, what is government's job?
Russ Rose
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 22:43:36 GMT, "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Once again, this is NOT a liberal pursuit. It happens to be a fact
> >> that the political party most associated with liberals has sided with
> >> the "pro choice" group. However, a very liberal organization is
> >> completely against abortion. Namely, the Catholic Church. Thus, to
> >> say it is a liberal position to be for abortion cannot be justified
> >> with the facts.
> >
> >The Catholic church is the most conservative Christian church out there.
> >They're still against birth control for goodness sake.
> >
>
> Within itself it is conservative. Politically it is very liberal,
> which is the context we are working in.
Politically? I didn't realize they were political. Aside from pro-life, what
politics are they involved in?
>
> >> >> "Spend other people's money" has the implication that they do not
care
> >> >> where the money comes from. This is a conservative point of view.
> >> >> Redistribution of wealth is taking money from those that can afford
to
> >> >> have money taken away from them, and given to those that are in need
> >> >> of assistance. There is a BIG difference there.
> >> >
> >> >So you think I am saying that liberals want to spend the money of
people
> >> >that don't have any.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That is the implication of the phrase "spending other people's money."
> >> Where it is understood with "redistribution of wealth" that the intent
> >> is to take from the wealthy and give to the unfortunate. (Intent and
> >> reality are different things...)
> >
> >How much money makes one "wealthy"?
> >
>
> What difference does it make? More than the average. More than the
> median.
Median household income is around $40K. So a family bringing in $42K is
wealthy? The "poor" in this country have cars, microwaves, Playstation, etc.
> More than enough to live comfortably.
"More than enough to live comfortably" in Montana is a lot different than
living comfortably in Manhattan or Silicon Valley.
The President doesn't spend any money, only Congress does. Liberal Congress
of the 60's, 70's, and 80's --> deficit spending. Conservative Congress of
the 90's --> balanced budget.
>
> The Clinton administration did wonders with Social Security to make it
> more of a retirement account.
>
Such as? If that is true then why was Gore's main campaign issue "saving
social security"?
>
> >>
> >> Your proposed plan was not suggested by any candidate or political
> >> party. In fact, social security could be changed to earn higher
> >> returns, and make your idea unneeded.
> >
> >Privatizing social security was not proposed? It was one of Bush 43's
major
> >campaign issues. Even Reagan was headed in that direction with IRA's
> >
> It was NOT the system that you submitted. His proposal was to let
> individuals control where their money went. His proposal was to have
> individuals choose what companies they invested in. There were many
> problems with proposal, that it will never be enacted...
>
Control where it went within "acceptable" plans, similar to 401K's. You
could not invest it all in LoseAllYourDough.com. Very little of what gets
proposed on the campaign trail is implemented as is. Compromising between no
privatization and full privatization is about where my plan falls.
> >>
> >> I have plenty of faith in American Business. However, recessions
> >> happen. I know many 401K's that have lost value in the last 3 years.
> >> It is because the stock market was high, and getting in with prices so
> >> high was expensive. Then, the market fell during the recession.
> >> Thus, plans have lost value in the last couple of years. The
> >> likelyhood of this happening over a 30 year period is not great, but
> >> the market could be flat for extended periods. (In a broad sense)
> >> Thus, the amount earned could be less than the amount needed to
> >> continue living at a level that a person has grown accustom.
> >
> >Diversification and risk tolerance are all part of the investment
strategy.
> >In desperate times the principal can be invaded. Think about what old
people
> >used to do before SocSec. Families used to be a lot closer because the
old
> >were more dependent on their children. My parents would not need any
social
> >security because my siblings and I would take care of them if their
private
> >retirement funds somehow disappeared. The government should be the last
> >place one should seek help.
> >
>
> I guess that is a valid point of view. It would take a lot of
> adaptation, and I don't think it would be implementable.
>
Certainly worked before 1930.
We are already doing this with 401K's. It would merely be an expansion of
what is working very well with reasonable limitations.
>
> >> No conservatives are not against equal rights. However, part of the
> >> equal rights movement was affirmative action. Part of the equal
> >> rights movement was integration. Part of the equal rights movement
> >> was bussing. THESE parts of the equal rights movement are liberal in
> >> nature.
> >>
> >> As far as Lincoln was concerned he only freed the slaves because it
> >> was a political necessity. In fact, he freed no slaves in the North.
> >> He only freed the slaves in the Confederacy. Slavery ended for the
> >> same reason that slavery ended in all civilizations. It is more cost
> >> effective to pay a person for doing a job, than to make sure they have
> >> enough to eat, a place to live, etc. It is cheaper to pay them a set
> >> salary, and have them worry about living expenses.
> >>
> >
> >If you choose to believe that, you are free to do so. I disagree but it
is
> >way off topic.
> >
>
> History proves it every time. Greeks, Romans, etc. All slave holding
> civilizations. But, yes, off topic.
I was disagreeing with your assessment of Lincoln, not disagree with your
"cost effective" statement. The moral component was very clear in Lincoln's
opinions and actions.
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I
can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never
understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to
act officially upon this judgment and feeling."
--President A. Lincoln April 4, 1864
Pride? Self-esteem? Survival?
> Self reliance requires that all workers in America earn a
> living wage. Self reliance requires that every able body person can
> find a job. 0 unemployment. Self reliance requires a great deal...
>
No, it just requires a person who chooses not to work to find a willing
sponsor, not an excessively generous government. This would require
accountability to that sponsor, something current welfare recipients do no
have. Unemployment insurance is a separate thing and I am not against it.
Agreed.
> >> Could the patriot missle be modified to be just as
> >> effective as SDI? These are the questions that are being asked. This
> >> is the debate.
> >
> >The Patriot would be (and was) ineffective because it was merely altering
> >the ballistic course of a projectile. On a battlefield this would mean
> >falling into a no-man's-land between the two armies. Would it matter if
the
> >nuclear warhead hit New York or fell somewhere short on Long Island? The
> >only effective way to destroy them would be in the ascent phase.
> >
>
> I understand the Patriot wouldn't be a workable solution in its
> current configuration. However, it is a tangible technology. It
> isn't perfect, but it is a present technology. It does not rely on
> technology that doesn't currently exist.
The Patriot system is missile based and even if range were increased to
intercontinental range, it would have to be fired before the opposing
missile is launched in order to prevent its ballistic energy from reaching
the target. Also, the mere proposition of SDI was an enormous weapon in
ending the cold war. Deploying a somewhat effective system may be enough of
a deterent to any would be launchers.
>
> >> It is the fact that it is going to be an
> >> extraordinarily expensive proposition and it MUST be 100% effective.
> >
> >How much money is it worth to keep Manhattan from glowing in the dark for
> >10,000 years?
> >Are the police 100% effective? How about the FBI and CIA? Does this mean
> >these organizations should not exist?
> >
>
> Can you guarantee its effectiveness? Can SDI protect us against, for
> instance, a suicide bomber with a nuclear device?
Obviously not, but neither would a modified Patriot.
> Can SDI protect us
> against submarine launched missles? Even ones launched off the coast
> of New York City? SDI has limited capabilities. What are the odds of
> any of these contingiencies?
High for suicide, low for submarines. We control the seas, don't bother
thinking otherwise.
>
> No organization is 100% effective. However, SDI MUST be. Otherwise,
> with its narrow band of capabilities, it is useless. We may get some
> valuable research from it, but spend billions of dollars on a system
> that we cannot trust doesn't sound like a worthwile system.
>
As I said before, its deterent properties may be enough.
> >> We don't want to shoot down someones space project, and we don't want
> >> a missle to get through. What is the likelyhood of these two
> >> occurances? Is there a better way?
> >>
> >
> >A legitimate space launch is thoroughly researched and announced because
of
> >the complexity of space traffic control. It is extremely unlikely that an
> >accident would happen, and the fault of the launcher if it did.
> >
>
> So, do we disarm the SDI during the launch? Doesn't this sound like a
> perfect time to coordinate an attack?
SDI would always be human authorized, just as our retalliatory ICBMs are.
I'm not so sure. Nader did not have the communist Chinese government
contributing to his campaign. "No controlling legal authority..."
FAA regulations and inspections would be enough if they were enforced.
Liberals wanted it, conservatives did not. The people don't vote with polls.
>
> >> For example, each city has
> >> its local law enforcement group. Each locality does a good job, and
> >> the government has rarely stepped in. Thus, local policemen are not
> >> federal employees...
> >
> >But they are already government employees.
> >
>
> There is hardly a country wide occupation that isn't government
> supported in one way or another. It is difficult to give example of
> an occupation that has country wide impact, but is locally managed.
Food, regulated by the FDA.
Drugs, regulated by the FDA.
Broadcast media, regulated by the FCC.
Utilities, regulated by the DOE.
Etc, etc, etc....
If MTV stops bleeping Ozzy, should the government take over all cable
companies?
Same old villian. Reagan used leadership as opposed to Carter's "feeling"
his way forward.
>
> >> The increase in terrorism, hijackings,
> >> hostage takings, etc are simply in your imagination. There were
> >> tensions in the Middle East then, as now. Do I blame those incidents
> >> on George W. Bush? You can't have it both ways. I can equate the
> >> failed hostage rescue with the story in Black Hawk Down, or with the
> >> events in Grenada or Panama.
> >
> >Black Hawk Down is an excellent example of a poor understanding of the
> >military. Clinton decreased the forces in theatre and the expanded the
> >mission. I do not attribute this to liberalism since Clinton was one of
the
> >most successfully conservative presidents ever. I remember Greneda,
Panama,
> >and the Libya missions as enourmous successes.
> >
>
> They just happened to be a success. Blaiming the failure of rescuing
> the hostages on Carter is ludicrous. The rescue operation could have
> been a success, but things went wrong. These missions I mentioned
> could have gone wrong too. (They did have their problems, but nothing
> catostrophic)
It failed because the equipment available was inferior and ill maintained
for the mission.
>
> Most conservatives are completely anti-Clinton. They fail to
> recognize what a conservative force he was. He was still liberal in
> ways. Politically, I agree with a lot of what Clinton implemented.
> You are astute to recognize it.
>
Plus he was so entertaining!
> >>
> >> How many of those countries are still communist? Why would a
> >> political choice by a sovereign nation concern us? I realize they are
> >> close in proximity, but the government chose to make communism evil.
> >> They couldn't say the USSR had an evil form of government and such and
> >> such country is not.
> >
> >You believe communism is not evil?
> >
>
> Communism isn't inherantly evil. It is just an alternate form of
> government. (One that was never truly implemented.) The USSR was a
> totalitarian dictatorship in the guise of communism. Even
> totalitarian dictatorships are not inherantly evil. You have to look
> at the leaders to determine their dangers.
>
I never use "communism" in the utopian sense and I should have qualified my
statement as such. Picture where nations like Russia, China, and even Cuba
would be if they had gone the democratic route instead of the communist one.
It is evil to the core because it denies the natural yearnings of the human
being, freedom and liberty.
> >>
> >> The US policy towards Central America in the 70's and 80's was
> >> idiotic. We'll befriend a ruthless regime because it is capitalistic,
> >> and be against a locally widely supported government because it is
> >> not. Support for the Contras was counter productive, and did a great
> >> deal to garner support for their existing government and fed a large
> >> anti-American sentiment in the region. We have constantly supported
> >> the sovereingty of nations, however, if we disagree with them, we
> >> expect them to bend to our wishes rather than their own self interest.
> >> You don't have to look any further than El Salvador and Nigaragua for
> >> proof of that.
> >>
> >
> >If the people of Nicaragua wanted the communist government, why the did
they
> >vote against it the first opportunity they were given to do so?
> >
> Because of abject poverty that the communist promised to rid the
> country of, but failed miserably to do so. This may have had
> something to do with the US embargo...
>
So the poor communist country could not achieve prosperity for all without
the help of a democratic nation? That is a brilliant insight. What will
communism do if it manages to swallow all the democratic nations? Who will
support them then?
Public transportation has a lot of downsides aside from cost and bad
scheduling. There is a safety factor that I imagine will only increase in
the future. There is a convenience factor in bad weather and distance one
lives from routes. Can you really go grocery shopping for a family on a bus?
There is also a hygiene factor that may be impossible to escape.
>
> So, what is government's job?
>
"...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity..."
Providing general welfare, transportation, and retirement benefits are
strangely absent and in many ways deplete the "blessings of liberty".