Liberals vs Conservatives, Who's Smarter?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Both are realities of life.

I know that people use this rhetoric, mostly talking amongst other conservatives, but do you honestly believe that the state can't do anything to alleviate poverty and prevent war?

[Ben Kenobi]

I know that people use this rhetoric, mostly talking amongst other conservatives, but do you honestly believe that the state can't do anything to alleviate poverty and prevent war?

It really depends on how you define things. If by alleviate poverty you mean raise the standard of living, then sure.

If you mean eliminate disparities in wages, then no, there will always be people who make more then other people.

As for war, I think a state can defend citizens, but it cannot prevent war either between itself, or other nations in the world.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It really depends on how you define things. If by alleviate poverty you mean raise the standard of living, then sure.

If you mean eliminate disparities in wages, then no, there will always be people who make more then other people.

The state can have a welfare system and eliminate some disparities in income though, right?

As for war, I think a state can defend citizens, but it cannot prevent war either between itself, or other nations in the world.

I would agree with you if you said that a state WILL NOT prevent war. Prevention to me is up to the people. But I guess that's not conservative. The conservatives that I know, and I'm not saying they are all the same, but I'm just speaking from what I know, aren't the type to prevent any wars. If the nation is at war they support the war.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I would say that the best political theory of what ought to be done is the one saying the government ought to interfere as little as possible. Things like tariffs and national defense and highways all seem to me like pertinent responsibilities for a national government.

Of the rest I can't think of any other responsibilities that cannot be undertaken by the local governments.

But this is silly. Every rational person agrees that the government should interfere as little as possible, which is the same as "as much as is necessary and no more". People just disagree about how much is enough. Unless you have some independent reasons, this is rather a damp squib.

First off I would say that the Good, is to allow man to be free to pursue their own desires.

I want to murder people. That is my desire...

If you were to ask about moral improvement, I'd say that conservatives believe that making a good man is an important ideal, but that is achieved not through coercion but through the willing dedication of men to improve themselves.

Most believe that the traditions work in both senses, that it works in a specific sense, and in a general sense. When a tradition is no longer working in a specific sense, then the conservative is willing to change a tradition (in a manner consistant with their other traditions), in order to make improvements.

None of this is prescriptive. None of it tells us what we ought to do. Again, what do you mean by "works"?

Well let's look at it. Conservatives believe human nature is immutable. They also believe that changing society to improve people will not happen.

So why again would conservatives want to 'achieve a particular society?' I would think they would rather allow people to do what they want, without interference, and allow the people to construct whatever society they want.

Then why do they even bother running for office and annoying the rest of us?

I've said there are certain circumstances where change is dictated and the status quo is untenable.

And how do we tell when this is necessary?

First off, the people who came before us have thought about all these questions as to what works best and how to organise society. These are what traditions are. They have worked in the past and work today. It's like a proven piece of machinery. It works fine, it does the job expected, so we do not need to make improvements even if the improvements would be positive, they are unwarranted.

How so. Surely the fact that they are positive warrants them. At some point no-one had ever built a wooden house, but we lived in mud huts, which did the job after a fashion. Let's universalize the conservative position and enjoy our mud huts.

'Slow change' is not a feature of liberalism. Change because change is an essential feature of progress is a very liberal notion.

No liberal believes that.

There is no greater good, agathon. Most situations are like this, there is a specific good which can be achieved.

ome things just don't make logical sense. Emotion perhaps? Spirituality? There are many things that don't fit into a logical framework that have significant impact on how people make decisions.

In other words, something magically justifies conservative inconsistency.

Conservatives don't make a distinction between the two, concepts of how the world work are one and the same with the beliefs people use to represent the world. That's a very mordern distinction between the two. I guess we should say the beliefs that people have and use to represent the world ought to be consistant with the way the world works.

So you are claiming the right to say "There is no logical contradiction. People who believe and disbelieve the very same thing have nothing wrong with them".

First off, natural rights are possessed by everyone without the necessity of communication. It is enough that you know what your own rights are and what they should be.

But what if I didn't know. It sure would be good if people wrote them down and made them into laws, huh?

Conservatives would argue that you have a moral understanding of these, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and do not need them to be taught in order to understand.

Except that according to you conservatives don't believe in logic, so these truths are self-evident and not self evident at the same time.

In the specific sense. There is no 'greater good.'

No one said there must be. I specifically allowed for a plurality of principles as long as they were coherent.

Hmm, conservatives reject this principle that just because there is a conflict that one must be discarded over the other. It's entirely possible to have a no-win scenario where you must do as best as you can. If liberals believe that by setting up conflicts that they can force conservatives to discard their principles, then I find that a curious notion.

You say that there are "no win" situations, and you say that conflicts do not require one to discard a principle. You then say we must "do as best as we can". Sounds like a contradiction to me.

If we start from the preposition that the world is not logical, then the intellectual merit of the position ought to reject the principle that only logical things have merit.

There are no logical things in the world, there are only logical rules which restrict what it makes sense to say. Without logic there is no meaning, since everything would both mean and not mean what you suppose it to say. You simply cannot escape logic, if you are going to say anything meaningful at all.

I'm trying to enumerate principles that all conservatives agree upon. I know what I believe and what my solution for these questions would be, but I'm asking myself can it be said that every conservative does so?

But you still haven't explained what you think it is. I reckon I could do it, but you wouldn't like the result.

[Ben Kenobi]

The state can have a welfare system and eliminate some disparities in income though, right?

You've dodged the question. Why, if people have all that they need to live, should we take money from the people who have more and give to those who have less?

I agree that poverty can be substantially reduced and the standard of living increased. The folks who are considered 'poor' on average own their own house in the united states, they have a working vehicle, and many kinds of appliances, televisions, etc. These poor live better then most lived in the 50's.

I would agree with you if you said that a state WILL NOT prevent war. Prevention to me is up to the people. But I guess that's not conservative. The conservatives that I know, and I'm not saying they are all the same, but I'm just speaking from what I know, aren't the type to prevent any wars. If the nation is at war they support the war.

Many conservatives who are isolationists oppose the current war, and there are even a few pacifists here and there.

I would contest the point that the nation has a duty to engage in national defense, but that is one area I am not a conservative.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The folks who are considered 'poor' on average own their own house in the united states, they have a working vehicle, and many kinds of appliances, televisions, etc. These poor live better then most lived in the 50's.

What planet are you from? I'm not anywhere near poor, yet my efforts to buy a house resulted in such ridiculous mortage terms, I'd have been a moron to accept them.

People who own homes in L.A. either: (a) brought their homes years ago when prices were somewhat reasonable; (b) are filthy rich; or (c) are spending 30-35% of their incomes on mortgage payments and, if they have a variable interest rate loan, are facing foreclosure.

[Ben Kenobi]

But this is silly. Every rational person agrees that the government should interfere as little as possible, which is the same as "as much as is necessary and no more". People just disagree about how much is enough. Unless you have some independent reasons, this is rather a damp squib.

All conservatives agree upon that national defense, roads, and tariffs and immigration are all federal responsibilities. Beyond that, well there are debates as to what is necessary and unnecessary.

I want to murder people. That is my desire...

Ok. So if everyone wants to murder each other and they succeed...

Yes, you have the right to do as you wish, but you do not have the right to restrict others. Same with murder. You kill a person, and this is one reason why policing is essential, to ensure that everyone is protected from each other.

If as you believe, people are growing better all the time, can you envisage a time where police are unnecessary?

None of this is prescriptive. None of it tells us what we ought to do. Again, what do you mean by "works"?

"All other things being equal, we should favour tradition over innovation. We should follow the example of what has been done before."

Then why do they even bother running for office and annoying the rest of us?

Because if we don't other people come and take stuff from us. So we run to make sure that doesn't happen.

And how do we tell when this is necessary?

Depends on the situation. There's no hard and fast rule which says action must be done, which would be against conservative principles. Mostly common sense. If you can't get to work in your car, you take it in to get fixed. You don't take the car in to get fixed when it's working fine.

How so. Surely the fact that they are positive warrants them. At some point no-one had ever built a wooden house, but we lived in mud huts, which did the job after a fashion. Let's universalize the conservative position and enjoy our mud huts.

Mud huts don't always work. What happens when the weather gets too cold and your hut falls apart? What then?

No liberal believes that.

Really? "Change is an essential feature of progress?" I would challenge you on that.

In other words, something magically justifies conservative inconsistency.

So you are a materialist Agathon?

So you are claiming the right to say "There is no logical contradiction. People who believe and disbelieve the very same thing have nothing wrong with them".

I am saying there is no rule that works in all cases. There are always exceptions. That doesn't mean that there are not absolute truths.

But what if I didn't know. It sure would be good if people wrote them down and made them into laws, huh?

Where do laws give rights Agathon?

Except that according to you conservatives don't believe in logic, so these truths are self-evident and not self evident at the same time.

The principle that men have certain natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is self-evident. Just because we believe in logic, doesn't mean that everything must be logical. The question that I have, is if everything is logical, how can we know things without being taught?

You say that there are "no win" situations, and you say that conflicts do not require one to discard a principle. You then say we must "do as best as we can". Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Rescue two people, both who will die. You have to choose which one will live and which will die. Principle one, you don't choose who lives and who dies, so you do nothing, and let both die, or you choose and save one.

You can't win in that you have to break a principle.

There are no logical things in the world, there are only logical rules which restrict what it makes sense to say. Without logic there is no meaning, since everything would both mean and not mean what you suppose it to say. You simply cannot escape logic, if you are going to say anything meaningful at all.

Again, the same principle which is coming up over and over. Yes, something can have meaning without being logical. Are you saying that without logic no meaning can be conveyed? I don't even have to use words to express myself.

But you still haven't explained what you think it is. I reckon I could do it, but you wouldn't like the result.

I've listed four, but go ahead. I am sincerely interested in what you believe conservatives all agree upon.

[Ben Kenobi]

What planet are you from? I'm not anywhere near poor, yet my efforts to buy a house resulted in such ridiculous mortage terms, I'd have been a moron to accept them.

People who own homes in L.A. either: (a) brought their homes years ago when prices were somewhat reasonable; (b) are filthy rich; or (c) are spending 30-35% of their incomes on mortgage payments and, if they have a variable interest rate loan, are facing foreclosure.

Not all areas are LA. If we define the lower 20 percent income bracket nationally as poor, then that can buy you quite a nice place in the Midwest. This is the problem with measures of inequality, they do not do a very good job of explaining poverty, and every year, the poverty line increases as inflation increases, and as overall wealth increases, the standard of living of the poor increases.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You've dodged the question. Why, if people have all that they need to live, should we take money from the people who have more and give to those who have less?

I agree that poverty can be substantially reduced and the standard of living increased. The folks who are considered 'poor' on average own their own house in the united states, they have a working vehicle, and many kinds of appliances, televisions, etc. These poor live better then most lived in the 50's.

I don't think that I dodged any question. I thought I was the one who asked the question. I'll answer yours though. It's because wages are too low.

But that's beside the question that I asked. Now, back to the point. I asked the question "if conservatives believe that only things that don't work should be fixed." In other words, poverty should be reduced or eliminated, right? Then you said that conservatives don't believe that poverty can be reduced or eliminated. I'm I putting words in your mouth? And now you are saying that poverty can be reduced. But conservatives don't believe that it should be, at least through govt action, am I right?

So there is an example of something that isn't working that conservatives don't want to fix.

So turn to what Agathon said, that conservative like poverty. That seems reasonable to me, becuase I know that Christian churches like to minister to the poor, correct?

Many conservatives who are isolationists oppose the current war, and there are even a few pacifists here and there.

I would contest the point that the nation has a duty to engage in national defense, but that is one area I am not a conservative.

I don't know many conservative pacifists. I know of them, but I don't know any. The conservatives that I know are authoritarian, at least in personality. Not that they don't like democracy, but they have way too much trust in our leaders than I think is good.

[Zkribbler]

I don't know many conservative pacifists. I know of them, but I don't know any. The conservatives that I know are authoritarian, at least in personality. Not that they don't like democracy, but they have way too much trust in our leaders than I think is good.

One of the trouble about talking about conservatism and conservatives, is that the definition of the word has increased so much that it's now almost meaningless.

A classic conservative (e.g. Barry Goldwater) would want a small government, which is highly distructed by the citizenry, who watch it like a hawk.

Many Gingrich/Bush-type supporters have great trust in the governmental leaders and will follow, without question, anything they are told. Bush is often cricized by classic conservatives because he has increased the size of both the government and of governmental spending.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
A classic conservative (e.g. Barry Goldwater) would want a small government, which is highly distructed by the citizenry, who watch it like a hawk.

"Either the Communists will retain the offensive; will lay down one challenge after another; will invite us in local crisis after local crisis to choose between all-out war and limited retreat ... Or we will summon the will and the means for taking the initiative, and wage a war of attrition against them -- and hope, thereby, to bring about the internal disintegration of the Communist empire."

- Barry Goldwater

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think that I dodged any question. I thought I was the one who asked the question. I'll answer yours though. It's because wages are too low.

Oh, I was asking what you meant about reducing poverty? Income disparity or actual poverty. What would be a fair wage when it is clear that almost everyone can afford the necessities of life.

But that's beside the question that I asked. Now, back to the point. I asked the question "if conservatives believe that only things that don't work should be fixed." In other words, poverty should be reduced or eliminated, right?

Couple things here.

1. Is it the responsibility of the government to reduce poverty, in the absolute sense? I don't think that question is a yes. Is it possible for the government to influence absolute poverty rates indirectly through fiscal policies? Yes, that is very much the case. As we see, people have been increasing their standard of living.

Then you said that conservatives don't believe that poverty can be reduced or eliminated. I'm I putting words in your mouth?

Poverty, if it is defined as having a low standard of living can certainly be improved. Poverty defined as income disparity cannot. So it depends on how you define poverty in the first place.

And now you are saying that poverty can be reduced. But conservatives don't believe that it should be, at least through govt action, am I right?

I'm using two different words here for two different concepts. Standard of living and income disparity. They are not the same thing.

So there is an example of something that isn't working that conservatives don't want to fix.

Only if you conflate the two concepts together as 'poverty'.

So turn to what Agathon said, that conservative like poverty. That seems reasonable to me, becuase I know that Christian churches like to minister to the poor, correct?

Very true, but we don't say that the 'poor' are those who have a specific income level. The poor are those who are in need, and the church believes that people ought to voluntarily assist them in getting back on their feet.

The key words here being voluntary assistance, no one is forced to help the poor, and the second that the poor are those who are in need.

Why on earth would we like poverty? We want to help them do better so that they aren't poor.

I don't know many conservative pacifists. I know of them, but I don't know any. The conservatives that I know are authoritarian, at least in personality. Not that they don't like democracy, but they have way too much trust in our leaders than I think is good.

Well you are talking to one. I don't think pacifism is a conservative value, but there are conservatives who are isolationists who oppose the war.

[Ben Kenobi]

One of the trouble about talking about conservatism and conservatives, is that the definition of the word has increased so much that it's now almost meaningless.

A classic conservative (e.g. Barry Goldwater) would want a small government, which is highly distructed by the citizenry, who watch it like a hawk.

Many Gingrich/Bush-type supporters have great trust in the governmental leaders and will follow, without question, anything they are told. Bush is often cricized by classic conservatives because he has increased the size of both the government and of governmental spending.

Again part of the problem with coming up with principles that both Dubya and Goldwater would agree upon. I think I've come up with 5 of them. You are right that Dubya and Goldwater disagree with national education, but they both agree that national defense is a proper role for the state.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Oh, I was asking what you meant about reducing poverty? Income disparity or actual poverty. What would be a fair wage when it is clear that almost everyone can afford the necessities of life.

To me a fair wage is something close to the mean income level with adjustments for education costs, since education isn't paid for always. I think also that some people do fall through the cracks, and it's not all their fault. I think that some people can take advantage of the system better than others, or maybe they just do, but not everyone can take advantage of the system for whatever reason. I don't see the reasons as important.

Couple things here.

1. Is it the responsibility of the government to reduce poverty, in the absolute sense? I don't think that question is a yes. Is it possible for the government to influence absolute poverty rates indirectly through fiscal policies? Yes, that is very much the case. As we see, people have been increasing their standard of living.

The word responsibility is key, because govt doesn't have responsibility unless a law is passed. So either you are for or against such laws, and either you are for or against the reduction or poverty. Conservatives don't want the govt to be responsible, correct? But now that means that there is a problem that conservatives don't want to fix. So I ask again, is conservative the belief that only things that are broken should be fixed, or is it just a reaction to social liberalism.

Poverty defined as income disparity cannot.

We can make improvements, can't we. Most people would be satisfied with some improvements.

Very true, but we don't say that the 'poor' are those who have a specific income level. The poor are those who are in need, and the church believes that people ought to voluntarily assist them in getting back on their feet.

The key words here being voluntary assistance, no one is forced to help the poor, and the second that the poor are those who are in need.

Why on earth would we like poverty? We want to help them do better so that they aren't poor.

But isn't the main reason for helping the poor to minister to them? If there were no poverty that might make things more difficult wouldn't it?

Well you are talking to one. I don't think pacifism is a conservative value, but there are conservatives who are isolationists who oppose the war.

I'm very glad.

[Ben Kenobi]

To me a fair wage is something close to the mean income level

So everyone should make about the same amount of money? Not everyone takes the same risks. Some people take more risks then others, they should be rewarded when they do so.

with adjustments for education costs, since education isn't paid for always. I think also that some people do fall through the cracks, and it's not all their fault. I think that some people can take advantage of the system better than others, or maybe they just do, but not everyone can take advantage of the system for whatever reason. I don't see the reasons as important.

I think we should have incentives to do well, when everyone is paid the same, that removes one of the incentives to work harder. Income disparity isn't a bad thing, not when the total wealth increases, as has been the case in the US. Everyone is richer, although some benefit much more then everyone else.

The word responsibility is key, because govt doesn't have responsibility unless a law is passed. So either you are for or against such laws, and either you are for or against the reduction or poverty.

Depends, once again on how you define poverty. Is it a bad thing that some people are poor. Yes. Is it a problem that some people are unable to afford the necessities of life? Yes. Is it a problem that some people are poorer then other people? No.

Now the next question, is should the government be the solution to the problem? If so, how should the government act in order to best help these people. Is it best to act directly, or indirectly through monetary policy?

Conservatives don't want the govt to be responsible, correct?

Again, it depends on whether we are speaking of the same thing. Yes, the government should not be responsible for ensuring that everyone has the same amount of income. Income disparity is not a problem, it is a benefit.

We can make improvements, can't we. Most people would be satisfied with some improvements.

No, not to income disparity. The only way you can do that is to make everybody poorer, and that is a bad solution. Income disparity isn't a problem. What they want is a better standard of living, and that is what is happening. Really would you rather be able to live better, or rather that you and your neighbour make exactly the same amount?

But isn't the main reason for helping the poor to minister to them?

Look up that word again. 'Ministrations', include by definition helping the person.

I think you mean is the main reason to help the poor is to preach to them?

Definitions of ministration
n. - Assistance in time of difficulty

When you minister someone you provide them assistance in times of hardship.