R
ribozyme
Guest
Peter Singer is one person who supports it:
utilitarian.net/singer/by/2003----.htm
The others try to be stealthy about it.
- Status
utilitarian.net/singer/by/2003----.htm
The others try to be stealthy about it.
R
ribozyme
Guest
There are other issues that liberals want to keep in the closet:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n23_v49/ai_20088593/pg_2
I decided it is better not to talk about that a long time ago. Better watch some Japanese Yu-Gi-Oh! or read John Rawls instead. Liberals do indeed believe in unpleasant things, and sometimes it is best to overtly lie about it to others and sometimes to yourself even. I guess YOU should NEVER read books that are named after a probability density function. The fruit from the tree of knowledge is SO bitter.
We liberals are unhappy group of people. It is unplesant to live in a world of prevarication.
- “Putting it all together, success and failure in the American economy, and all that goes with it, are increasingly a matter of the genes that people inherit.” - A quote from a book that you should never read.
C
ChristIsTheWay
Guest
R
ribozyme
Guest
It is ironic that one of its co-authors is actually a conservative. He is a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. It is also ironic because that book made me MORE liberal.
D
deb1
Guest
I think that we all hear different things when we say the words, conservative and liberal. When those to the right hear conservative they think of extreme people such as Peter Singer. WHen those to the left hear the word conservative they think of the far, far, far right.
Most of us are moderates, with leanings to one side or the other. I tend to lean toward conservatism or even libertarian. But I certainly can understand and appreciate the opposite view.
Most of us are moderates, with leanings to one side or the other. I tend to lean toward conservatism or even libertarian. But I certainly can understand and appreciate the opposite view.
D
deb1
Guest
I have the opposite view.
I think that most people can make decisions for themselves. I really believe that given the proper tools most humans can rise above poverty.I don’t need someone who thinks that they are smarter then me to decide how I should live my life. I would much rather fail or rise according to my own decisions in life. Even if I fall flat on my face at least I was in charge of my own self
At the same time, I do see the value of a safety net for those in society who can not take care of themselves or who might need help in getting out of a bad situation.
T
THurifer2
Guest
the only people I hear gabbing about “polarization” and “division” are Liberal Democrats. I have NEVER heard a conservative whine about how divided the country is. The reason is the country isn’t anymore divided now than it was 30 years ago.
In fact I asked a conservative co-worker about this so called (and contrived) division and he said…“no I hated the liberals no less 30 years ago than I do now”
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
There are conservative people who have always been opposed to racism and abuse of individual rights.
They are called “libertarians.”
And as a group, they seem to me to be both happy and pessimistic about improving government and society.
But I think pessimists are generally happier than optimists.
They are called “libertarians.”
And as a group, they seem to me to be both happy and pessimistic about improving government and society.
But I think pessimists are generally happier than optimists.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Nope… some libertarians are still racist. If immigration causes them problems, they are willing to be adverse to it and they might advocate state action.
inthesetimes.com/article/continued/3328/floating_utopias/
I do not see anything in libertarian theory about relieving the suffering of the poor… such a principle is inveterate in social liberalism because it is influenced by utilitarian theory which states that we have a moral obligation to reduce suffering. Other manifestations of modern liberalism especially Rawls’ conception of it does not rely on utilitarianism and uses deontology.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
You might find some, somewhere. But less than among conservatives, or even liberals.
Ironically, the extreme libertarians see borders as intrinsically wrong. The Libertarian Party on immigration?
The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#immgr
A quite rational and feasible policy, BTW.
Surprised? You shouldn’t be. That’s what Libertarians believe. Not all Libertarians have the courage to follow their principles. But then, neither do all liberals or conservatives.
The fact that libertarians object to forced integration is based on reality; people tend to spend most of their time with people of their own cultures. That’s not racist; it’s just an observation. Whether or not you think the government has the power to “fix” that kind of behavior, will define where you are on personal freedom.
The problem of disease being transmitted by undocumented immigrants is also a reality, one that would be greatly reduced by not restricting the flow of legitimate workers and capital.
Libertarians point to the fact that freedom of enterprise has, in America, succeeded in reducing suffering. As Hubert Humphrey once said, “I have no problem with anyone getting rich; I just want the same opportunity for everyone.” And that is, according to libertarian principles, the best way for everyone to prosper.
R
ribozyme
Guest
What does it have to say about welfare and other services that the poor cannot afford such as health insurance? Liberals in general do not want them to suffer so they are willing to provide it to them. You have to understand that people will not give enough to charities to provide it them, so using the government as a means to serve the unfortunate is justified.
F
Franciscan
Guest
Don’t you realize that…
- The government cannot solve every individual problem–It would lead to totalitarianism.
- That was never the intent of the Founders.
P.S. Why do *you *care about the poor anyway?
A
AmyS
Guest
What? They are given health insurance. I used to work for a government agency that helped people “in need” it made me more conservative. The only thing I saw created was “Learned Helplessness.”
Conservatives are willing to help too… They don’t all see the government as the save all. They tend to think that the people can take care of the people, and actually they do. Do you realize how much money American people give to Charity?
Actually people would give more if they had more to give. If you were given 1,000,000,000 you would rather give it to the government to disburse to charities or to the charities directly. The government is not necessary in the issue. Orphanages, hospitals, and other charitable organizations were started by the Church, not by the governments. Catholic Chairties (as a whole, not just the one indivdual charity) give more to people in need than any other group combined in the world. That again is not governement.
Jesus was all “pro” tax collector.
A
AmyS
Guest
I believe Conservatives tend to be happier because they tend to be more hopeful and believe that people are more capable than some people would like us to think they are.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I have no problem with a limited amount of assistance, but the problem is that for some, it becomes a way of life. Even liberals like Bill Clinton recognized that assistance that comes with requirements that recipients take steps to help themselves is in the long run, a kinder approach.
True. But note that when Clinton’s reform, reducing benefits, was passed, more people went to work, and fewer were in poverty. A good result, by anyone’s standards.
S
Swan
Guest
Well, there you go again - making logical sense and forcing me to agree with you.
The idea of government aid is that the government is a non-profit org. They already have a nationwide framework that extends to the local level of each town. Moreover, the common good of society is raised when all members are able to contribute. some folks need a hand up sometimes. Kids born into poverty don’t have a level playing field so they need some assistance if they are ever to be productive citizens instead of prison inmates (and we pay for that too, folks, so it’s pay now or pay later). Not to mention the benefits we give to the wealthy and to corporations (corporate welfare???). Kids are born both rich and poor - luck, I guess. Neither is responsible for their condition, yet the poor kids are punished as if they were. Someone said we should give them the tools they need which is all most of us are advocating. We’re not saying let’s give them tons of money so they can eat bonbons all day. Most people in poverty want a way out. Yet conservatives talk like they are living high on welfare - as if that were possible. Childcare for working mothers, decent housing, education opportunities - these aren’t luxuries. Some of these folks are working 3 jobs so the issue is not laziness.
On, as for health insurance, I don’t have it due to a bit of bad luck in the employment sector. Since I’m not destitute I can’t get gov. funded care, so I just do without - and I have a couple of medical conditions that just aren’t being treated.
S
Swan
Guest
I think you are absolutely right. I’ve always been a liberal but now there’s this neo-liberal group and I don’t want to be confused with them so I’ve started saying I’m progressive. Labels can be such a divising factor. We have to say “I’m a _____, by which I mean ___.”
- Status