Fundamental Differences

[Trollbait]

It seems to me that there is a general disconnect between the "conservatives" and the "liberals" on this site.

It appears that generally speaking the liberals will argue from a position of "empathy" or emotion.

Let me get this straight: If you were walking down the street and saw a man who was hungry you would stop and offer him a meal. If you did not have enough to provide his meal you would stop me as I was walking by and demand that I also provide for this mans meal.

If I refused you would hold a gun to my head and demand that I pay.

How is this fair?

How is it not mere thievery to deny me the right to choose where to bestow my benevolence if at all?

Make note that I did not say it was a bad thing to feed this man...I would rather have the choice to do so, however.

[Lurker]

I assume this was sparked by my post here.

We live in a society. Every individual doesn't get to decide how every penny of public money is spent. That doesn't mean anyone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do something against your will when, for example, tax money is spent keeping buses running or clinics open or unemployment benefits going. Your analogy of two individuals walking down a road doesn't apply at all.

My point to Embar wasn't that he should be forced to do anything -that's decided by popular vote and the legislature- but that he shouldn't assume money wasn't needed for a service just because he himself wasn't affected by cuts to that service.

[Harlowe]

How many times is this question going to be asked, and did it really need it's own thread when it's been asked/posed numerous times here already? I've seen this "gun to the head" scenario mentioned so many times here it's getting boring. It's not a logical argument, nor an honest question, so what's the point.

We constantly pay for various things we don't believe in on both sides of the fence. It's part of governing a body of people with differing political views and ideology.

So in essense, all our heads have guns pointed to them or none of them do. The fundamental difference is purely in what individuals want to pay for and what they do not. But either way, all people will pay for things they do not think they should have to pay for.

[Trollbait]

I agree that services are necessary. I strongly disagree as to the extent of those services even when the majority agrees to them.

The fundamental difference is NOT in what services we should pay for and which we should not. It is a matter of how much control of our lives and economics we cede to the government. Libertarians know this. Even small "L" libertarians.

Government should not be in the business of empathy because it then exposes itself to the subjective nature of said empathy.

When my empathy does not match your empathy who is to say what is right? The government or the individual?

Our founders said the individual.

You cannot follow the rule of law and at the same time rule by your empathy. You cannot apply the subjective to the objective.

I am free to feel compassion for people on a personal level and be as charitable as I wish but when I am forced to be compassionate and charitable by another I am not free.

[Harlowe]

First we should always be looking for ways to be more efficient and self-sufficient, and helping others to be self-sufficient. Many services have little to do with empathy and even less to do with control over our lives. In fact many programs have more selfish aims than "empathy" or "emotion", but the overall health, saftey and welfare of our people.

You don't speak for nor understand an entire group, so don't claim to be. Just like SicTim, our little "l" libertarian views are about personal freedoms and choices. Our idea of smaller government and what should be cut would be a great deal different than what your choices would be.

And again, empathy has little to do with it. It's about values. What you value and what others value. What you want the governement to spend money on and what others do. What someone else finds useful or valuable can not be honestly dismissed as "emotional empathetic" while yours is somehow superior and should carry greater merit.

Everyone's views on what should be done are based on what they personally believe is better for the greater good of their country, to insinuate anything less is not only arrogant, but ignorant. Americans, whether conservative or liberal all want the country to flourish and thrive and to be proud of their country. The sides have their different view of what that picture looks like and how to get there.

[Lurker]

^ What Harlowe said.

I hardly know where to begin deconstructing what you posted, Jecks. You seem hung up on the word "empathy", but I used that word to describe Embar's lack of it, not anything related to government.

Also, the notion that our Founders said individual power should supercede everything flies in the face of the system they set up. The individual power is at the ballot box. If you don't like the values and priorities of enacted legislation you are free to vote the elected officials out of office. You aren't free to just pick and choose which laws you want to follow. The Whiskey Rebellion and how it was handled proved that from the beginning.

The part about not being a nation of laws if we have societal values, or the part about not being free just because your tax dollars are used for something you don't support... I really don't know how to respond to that. It just strikes me as so backwards and wrong.

Nobody is forcing you to feel anything. If you don't like the priorities that society has then vote for people with different priorities.

[Partha]

I'd merely point out that I don't like paying money for boondoggle weapons systems or giving my Congressman health care when he won't give me the same offer, either. It doesn't mean that someone's putting a gun to my head to make me buy an Osprey for the government.

Further, you seem to think that 'empathy' is the only force that drives the 'liberals' on the board. It's not.

[Kulaf]

Well you know what they say......teach a man to build a fire and he's warm for a day.......set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

[Ddrak]

Government, or collective organization, exists to provide society as a whole with benefits that outweigh the collective cost to the individuals. On the example of feeding a starving man, if the collective cost of a meal is less than the cost to society of letting the man starve, and if you cannot rely on individual philanthropy to do the same, then it makes good sense for a government to provide that service at a collective cost to the society as a whole. It's a simple function of enlightened self-interest, which is the basis for any democratic system of governance.

This is a very subjective point, and the source of healthy debate on the role of government. What is the real cost of allowing the man to starve? To present a more "real" case, consider socialized health care systems. You have to balance the cost to society of people not being able to afford health care (subjective, and relatively high) with the fiscal cost of having to tax everyone and provide a subjectively basic level of care. There's no objective answer.

Dd

[Partha]

This is a very subjective point, and the source of healthy debate on the role of government. What is the real cost of allowing the man to starve? To present a more "real" case, consider socialized health care systems. You have to balance the cost to society of people not being able to afford health care (subjective, and relatively high) with the fiscal cost of having to tax everyone and provide a subjectively basic level of care. There's no objective answer.

You can say subjective, but the data says that places like Australia and the Western European nations with some form of socialized medicine spend less than we do and get a better outcome (longer lives). Wouldn't you agree that arguing 'subjectivity' in the face of hard data is silly?

[Ddrak]

You can say subjective, but the data says that places like Australia and the Western European nations with some form of socialized medicine spend less than we do and get a better outcome (longer lives). Wouldn't you agree that arguing 'subjectivity' in the face of hard data is silly?

If the US stopped forcing hospitals to care for everyone that walked into an emergency room with no cash to pay for treatment then you wouldn't be spending more. The problem is you've already defined that it's not ok for people to not have access to medical treatment no matter what their financial system is, but haven't set up an infrastructure to support it beyond making hospitals deal with unpaid bills.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I personally am all for denying treatment for those who cannot pay......or at least offer trade in the form of chickens.

[Trollbait]

So in essence you are saying that it all really hinges on whose value system we wish to shove down peoples collective throats.

Ddrak actually has it right. It is a matter of enlightened self interest. The operative is the phrase "and if you cannot rely on individual philanthropy to do the same". I would amend that to "and if you cannot rely on individual or collective philanthropy to do the same". Liberals tend to disregard non-governmental philanthropy as ineffective or useless seemingly unaware that government involvement in such endeavors is a fairly recent development and they do not give such non-governmental efforts a chance. Nature abhors a vacuum. In the absence of government intervention I submit that people will generally tend to each other.

That Lurker used the phrase "individual power" when I used no such phrase is very telling. I meant individual freedom and right, not power. You cannot use an individuals right to vote as an excuse to stifle his or her freedom. Tyranny of the majority is still Tyranny.

Do I believe in letting a man starve? No.

Will I force another to pay for his meal? No.

[Lurker]

That Lurker used the phrase "individual power" when I used no such phrase is very telling. I meant individual freedom and right, not power. You cannot use an individuals right to vote as an excuse to stifle his or her freedom. Tyranny of the majority is still Tyranny.

Then we've lived under tyranny since the country was founded. There's no substantive difference between our elected officials taxing whiskey to pay war debts and anything we're doing today.

Maybe your argument would make more sense if I knew the scope of it. This started as a discussion about cuts to public transportation. When you say you are being tyranically forced by the majority to do things against your will... what are you talking about? Should government have no role in public transportation? Education? Health care? Social safety nets of any kind? I'm assuming wars of choice are still awesome uses of public funds in your opinion and there's no tyranny involved in that, right?

As Jon Stewart said, "I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing [an election]."

[Harlowe]

I thought this topic was brought up due to the discussion on transportation, not welfare and philanthropy. Not sure how philanthropy is going to help mass public transportation. But it appears this is actually just another thread started by Jecks to go off on a "this is what the foolish liberals think" tangent. Conservatives are the evil Mr. Smithers and Liberals are all fornicating on our forefather's graves while burning the American Flag. It's so much easier when we can create caricatures of the other side, we don't have to listen. I would venture to guess neither side is the expert on what the other thinks, in fact I would bet both wear blinders with regard to seeing the other point of view with any degree of rationality. Much better to create boogeymen. Just like Partha likes going after the "Glibertarians", Jecks likes doing his own version of the red scare and liberals are the doom of our capitalist social order and all things Americana.

Oh well.....lets just continue enjoying the sound of our own voices shall we. We do that best in this area of the board.

[Lurker]

Hey, I'm trying to understand his point of view. Hopefully he can clarify the scope of his argument. I think his point has been lost in all this "gun to my head" and "tyranny" nonsense. It's democracy, not tyranny.

This part might be his core point.

Nature abhors a vacuum. In the absence of government intervention I submit that people will generally tend to each other.

Which is certainly true. But the counter point is also true. In the absence of individual private intervention society will fill the vacuum and assist people through legislation passed by the majority. And there are many problems that are not suited to private individual solutions. Jecks said Ddrak has it right, and he does... but I'd wager that Ddrak doesn't think individual philanthropy is a good solution to our health care problems, for example. Ddrak considers single payer great policy; Jecks would call it "Tyranny". Last I checked Ddrak isn't a "liberal".

So if his point is that tyranny is democratically elected officials passing legislation that allocates tax dollars to public services, I'll have to disagree and call that nonsense. If his point is that some problems could be handled without governement intervention, I agree, but I'd like to hear what exactly he means by that.

[Trollbait]

This started as a discussion about cuts to public transportation.

Umm...no....it didn't. This thread has nothing to do wit public transportation cuts. That is your assumption and it is wrong.

The title of the thread is Fundamental Differences.

If you can see nothing wrong in socializing nearly every aspect of our lives then there is really nothing more to discuss.

I am sure the rest of the board sees Harlowe's lies for what they are. Libertarian, indeed. Laughable.

[Fobbon Lazyfoot]

n the absence of government intervention I submit that people will generally tend to each other

Call me cynical, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I have a broken tooth and no dental insurance. The government won't take care of me, so guess who gets to? That's right, YOU GUYS!

I take cash or check.

[Partha]

If you can see nothing wrong in socializing nearly every aspect of our lives then there is really nothing more to discuss.

Hyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-perbole does not help your argumentationals.

[Partha]

I personally am all for denying treatment for those who cannot pay......or at least offer trade in the form of chickens.

Until, of course, the first time some hospital denies care to an old woman and her son comes back with a gun.