jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
I read your last post, Mercutio, in that "Something Random" thread, and I couldn't help but think how small a gulf really separates you from the dogmatic religious conservatives that you loath, at least as far a mind set goes. Did you not consider that the suddenly lowered esteem in which you now hold your coworker simply because of a "W" bumper sticker is no different than the type of thinking the person in your class exhibited towards the transsexual student simply because she was a transsexual? You're both wrong, and you're both ignorant, and sadly I don't think of you as an ignorant person at all except for this. Quite the contrary, actually, based on your wide range of interests, and general depth of knowledge and abilities. I'll even go so far as to call you a Renaissance man of sorts, although not quite in the same league as Tannin, but then Tannin's been at it for 15 or so more years than you have. In light of all that, I find your outright dismissal of anything conservative astonishing, to say the least, and rigid clinging to liberal dogma even more astonishing. There is nothing entirely right or entirely wrong about either type of thinking. What both philosophies have in common is that taken to their extremes, they both result in societies with little of the individual freedom you love. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, will if left to their own devices create a society where anything not in the Bible/Torah/Koran is illegal (see Iran or Afghanistan pre-2001 for good examples). On the other hand, liberals will create a society where individuals are entirely controlled by the government, and most of their productive output is taken in the form of taxes to be used solely for the good of the "collective". Any actions or thought processes which interfere with this will be illegal, and the state will even pass laws prohibiting certain actions which are deemed "harmful" to either the individual or the collective. This may start with seemingly harmless laws like requiring seat belts, prohibiting sidewalk cycling, or requiring auto insurance. It will eventually progress to prohibiting any actions at all which interfere with the harmony of the collective (see "1984" for a good example of this). I wouldn't care to live in either type of society, nor would you I think.
There is both good and bad in all ideologies. It's a pity you can't see that. It is up to the thinking person to adopt the good while discarding the bad. Witness the People's Republic of China in the last twenty years for a good example of this. They knew that a collective economy wouldn't work as individuals will tend to be less productive when most of their output goes for the good of the "collective", so they adopted the best parts of a free market economy. However, they retained enough of their collective economy to ensure good medical care and education for all. They also retained most of their rigid control over information so as to prevent corrupt Western ideas of free sex and individualism from upsetting their traditional family structure. And then they controversially implemented a birth control policy to prevent overpopulation and famine from ruining their economy. These were in my opinion good compromises. They will eventually get the comforts and technology of Western nations without the crime, depravity, broken families, AIDS, or many other problems currently faced in places like the US. There's no arguing that the whole rights without responsibilities thing pushed by liberals has caused a whole host of problems we face now, including runaway lawsuit costs. By the same token the dogmatic clinging to a free market economy, and obsession with profit, of dogmatic conservatives has resulted in the US having the most unequal distribution of wealth of all first world nations, and failing to adopt alternative energy sources or modes of transportation. In many ways, we've let the extremists run the show-first the liberals in the 1960's, 70's and much of the 80's, and since then more and more the conservatives. We've adopted the worst parts of both philosophies rather than the best. I don't much care for the results. If New York City starts to go downhill again I'm quite likely to leave the US forever and become a citizen of the PRC. I may give up some of my free speech rights, but at least I know I'll get decent health care, be free from crime, and not be subject to a continual torrent of offensive, mindless commercialism and sexual images from the media. To me it's a more than equitable tradeoff.
Since you may be biased I'll try to explain what I see good and bad in both philosophies. Let's start with conservatism. I fully agree with you that religious conservatism is bad-very bad. I don't want our lawmakers prohibiting something that may be potentially highly beneficial like human cloning simply because it's "against God's will". This is completely asinine thinking. I also think treating married couples differently under the law in terms of taxation and benefits is wrong. This doesn't mean I think same-sex couples should be given the same benefits. Rather, I think nobody should get them. You earn a given amount of money-you pay the same taxes. You don't get insurance benefits from your employer for your spouse or family unless you pay extra. After all, why should a married person have the company pay more for their health insurance (to cover their family) than it does for a single person? This is unequal treatment. You don't get a tax deduction for your children or your spouse. I'm completely at odds with conservatives on the "special benefits" they love for married couples and children. It's wrong.
However, there are many good things about conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism. You don't spend more than you have for starters. Admittedly, current Republicans provide a horrible example of this even though this is allegedly a core part of their philosophy. Second, you don't tax at such high rates that people, especially those who are already wealthy, have a disincentive to work. Third, you don't give government benefits forever to those who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If you do, eventually the ranks of the "disabled" will increase to the point that it brings society down with it. After all, what incentive is there for someone to work when all of their neighbors are getting the same things for "free" from the government. The only problem is that it isn't really free-someone has to pay, and the more they pay the more they will resent it. Fourth, you don't make asinine laws to protect idiots from themselves. These laws only end up costing society money to enforce, and yet more money as people stop taking responsibility for their own actions. Sure, in the long run a few more people might die, but many more will learn to take responsibility for their actions. Witness the current state of driving as a good example of why we shouldn't protect people from themselves. Insurance, safety devices, and larger vehicles have insulated drivers from the financial and physical consequences of their driving, or are at least perceived to. As a result, driving habits are the worst I have ever seen, and despite the (false) perceptions of freedom from the consequences of their poor driving habits by most drivers we now have 50,000 killed plus 2 million injured each year. Ditto for drugs that let people continue to function without facing the consequences of the very unhealthy lifestyles that they're leading. Sooner or later the drugs will cause massive problems of their own.
Now we have the other side of coin-liberalism. Here again, I'll start with the bad. I've already covered high taxes, entitlements with no responsibility, excessive regulations to protect idiots from themselves, and isolating a person from the consequences of their actions. I'll start with social liberalism. This includes the ideas that anything which feels good is OK, and all "lifestyles" are equally valid. These ideas are harmful in small doses, very dangerous in the extreme. The first has resulted in the widespread use of sex solely for recreation. This in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be any more harmful than cycling for recreation except that human physiology didn't suddenly change with the free sex movement of the 1960s. People can still become pregnant, people can still get sexually transmitted diseases, people don't always use protection in the heat of passion, such protection always 100% effective, and sex can become very addictive. Since you're an intelligent person I won't even go into the negative aspects of all of these things other than to mention a few key words-unwanted children, AIDS, broken families, divorces. To add to the problem, the free sex movement has resulted in a societal obsession with sex that has prevented healthy interaction between males and females. Thanks to the prevalence of sex in the media, it is difficult to interact with a person of the opposite sex without there being sexual overtones, at least on a subconscious level. This has prevented real friendships from developing prior to the relationship becoming sexual. In part because of this, and also because of unrealistic sexual expectations thanks to the media, most marriages end in failure.
The second part is even worse, and not because homosexuals or transsexuals are "against God's will" (remember, I'm no more religious than you are). I'll preface this by admitting that I don't particularly understand how two people of the same sex could be physically attracted to each other, and on some level I find the whole idea somewhat repulsive. And I feel this way despite the fact that I come from a culture (Italian) where it is socially acceptable for men to kiss and hug. I consider it OK as well, but I don't understand sexual feelings between two members of the same sex. In fact, I really find it impossible to have sexual feelings towards most of the opposite sex as well. I'm very specific in what I like, so maybe that explains in part my revulsion at the whole idea. Anyway, while accepting homosexuals as just another orientation isn't necessarily that harmful, nor is even allowing them to marry, the real question is where does it end? Once homosexual couples start to seem "normal", you'll have those on the fringes wanting their own special rights. Maybe it'll start with three-way marriages. Next somebody might suddenly think that liking children is simply another orientation, and have laws against pedophilia taken off the books. After that, you'll start to have middle-aged men marrying five-year old child brides. And soon after somebody will want to legitimize a sexual relationship with, say, a horse. Don't think this alternative lifestyles thing will stop with homosexuals. It won't. And I don't think I need to spell out for you how harmful legitimizing the other types of behavior I mentioned would be.
Now on to what is good about liberalism. First and foremost is the idea of helping those who are down on their luck. I never took fault with this part of liberalism is theory. It is always good to try to help. The problem is in the details. How do you help a person without making them dependent? How much help do you give before those who pay their own way become resentful? How do you prevent fraud? How do you prevent administrative costs from eating up most of the money given towards the program? How do you determine who is eligible and who isn't? Finally, how much can the government realistically do before the tax burden has a negative effect on the economy? It was the fact that entitlements were/are taken to excess which is the real problem of liberalism, not the idea that the government can do something to help. FDR said it best when he called welfare a narcotic. In the end you have to have hard limits on entitlement programs, and the best safety net is simply a forced savings account which a person can draw on in hard times. Very small administrative costs, and a hard limit to how long you can draw from it.
Second is the idea that free enterprise should to some extent be regulated for the good of society as a whole. Left to its own devices, free enterprise will increase the gap between the rich and poor, and destroy natural resources in the interests of short-term profit. Therefore, some regulations to require livable wages are in order. Even more important are very strong environmental regulations which require businesses to leave things the way they found them (and that includes the air). Destroying the environment is in the long-term counterproductive to profits, and in fact to life in general. Equally important is the idea that some enterprises are so important to general public welfare that they should not be run by private enterprise. This includes, or should include, the generation of electricity, transportation, housing, food. These should be government run to strict quality standards, and should be sold to the public at cost, and not a penny more. Sadly, we don't do this. As a result, electricity, food, and especially housing are increasing in price far faster than wages are. And because of lack of strict standards, publicly-funded transportation has been a mixed bag.
I'm sure my lists on both ideologies are by no means exhaustive, but I hope I made my initial point-adhering rigidly to any one dogma is inherently ignorant. And, BTW, this took me over two hours to write.
There is both good and bad in all ideologies. It's a pity you can't see that. It is up to the thinking person to adopt the good while discarding the bad. Witness the People's Republic of China in the last twenty years for a good example of this. They knew that a collective economy wouldn't work as individuals will tend to be less productive when most of their output goes for the good of the "collective", so they adopted the best parts of a free market economy. However, they retained enough of their collective economy to ensure good medical care and education for all. They also retained most of their rigid control over information so as to prevent corrupt Western ideas of free sex and individualism from upsetting their traditional family structure. And then they controversially implemented a birth control policy to prevent overpopulation and famine from ruining their economy. These were in my opinion good compromises. They will eventually get the comforts and technology of Western nations without the crime, depravity, broken families, AIDS, or many other problems currently faced in places like the US. There's no arguing that the whole rights without responsibilities thing pushed by liberals has caused a whole host of problems we face now, including runaway lawsuit costs. By the same token the dogmatic clinging to a free market economy, and obsession with profit, of dogmatic conservatives has resulted in the US having the most unequal distribution of wealth of all first world nations, and failing to adopt alternative energy sources or modes of transportation. In many ways, we've let the extremists run the show-first the liberals in the 1960's, 70's and much of the 80's, and since then more and more the conservatives. We've adopted the worst parts of both philosophies rather than the best. I don't much care for the results. If New York City starts to go downhill again I'm quite likely to leave the US forever and become a citizen of the PRC. I may give up some of my free speech rights, but at least I know I'll get decent health care, be free from crime, and not be subject to a continual torrent of offensive, mindless commercialism and sexual images from the media. To me it's a more than equitable tradeoff.
Since you may be biased I'll try to explain what I see good and bad in both philosophies. Let's start with conservatism. I fully agree with you that religious conservatism is bad-very bad. I don't want our lawmakers prohibiting something that may be potentially highly beneficial like human cloning simply because it's "against God's will". This is completely asinine thinking. I also think treating married couples differently under the law in terms of taxation and benefits is wrong. This doesn't mean I think same-sex couples should be given the same benefits. Rather, I think nobody should get them. You earn a given amount of money-you pay the same taxes. You don't get insurance benefits from your employer for your spouse or family unless you pay extra. After all, why should a married person have the company pay more for their health insurance (to cover their family) than it does for a single person? This is unequal treatment. You don't get a tax deduction for your children or your spouse. I'm completely at odds with conservatives on the "special benefits" they love for married couples and children. It's wrong.
However, there are many good things about conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism. You don't spend more than you have for starters. Admittedly, current Republicans provide a horrible example of this even though this is allegedly a core part of their philosophy. Second, you don't tax at such high rates that people, especially those who are already wealthy, have a disincentive to work. Third, you don't give government benefits forever to those who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If you do, eventually the ranks of the "disabled" will increase to the point that it brings society down with it. After all, what incentive is there for someone to work when all of their neighbors are getting the same things for "free" from the government. The only problem is that it isn't really free-someone has to pay, and the more they pay the more they will resent it. Fourth, you don't make asinine laws to protect idiots from themselves. These laws only end up costing society money to enforce, and yet more money as people stop taking responsibility for their own actions. Sure, in the long run a few more people might die, but many more will learn to take responsibility for their actions. Witness the current state of driving as a good example of why we shouldn't protect people from themselves. Insurance, safety devices, and larger vehicles have insulated drivers from the financial and physical consequences of their driving, or are at least perceived to. As a result, driving habits are the worst I have ever seen, and despite the (false) perceptions of freedom from the consequences of their poor driving habits by most drivers we now have 50,000 killed plus 2 million injured each year. Ditto for drugs that let people continue to function without facing the consequences of the very unhealthy lifestyles that they're leading. Sooner or later the drugs will cause massive problems of their own.
Now we have the other side of coin-liberalism. Here again, I'll start with the bad. I've already covered high taxes, entitlements with no responsibility, excessive regulations to protect idiots from themselves, and isolating a person from the consequences of their actions. I'll start with social liberalism. This includes the ideas that anything which feels good is OK, and all "lifestyles" are equally valid. These ideas are harmful in small doses, very dangerous in the extreme. The first has resulted in the widespread use of sex solely for recreation. This in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be any more harmful than cycling for recreation except that human physiology didn't suddenly change with the free sex movement of the 1960s. People can still become pregnant, people can still get sexually transmitted diseases, people don't always use protection in the heat of passion, such protection always 100% effective, and sex can become very addictive. Since you're an intelligent person I won't even go into the negative aspects of all of these things other than to mention a few key words-unwanted children, AIDS, broken families, divorces. To add to the problem, the free sex movement has resulted in a societal obsession with sex that has prevented healthy interaction between males and females. Thanks to the prevalence of sex in the media, it is difficult to interact with a person of the opposite sex without there being sexual overtones, at least on a subconscious level. This has prevented real friendships from developing prior to the relationship becoming sexual. In part because of this, and also because of unrealistic sexual expectations thanks to the media, most marriages end in failure.
The second part is even worse, and not because homosexuals or transsexuals are "against God's will" (remember, I'm no more religious than you are). I'll preface this by admitting that I don't particularly understand how two people of the same sex could be physically attracted to each other, and on some level I find the whole idea somewhat repulsive. And I feel this way despite the fact that I come from a culture (Italian) where it is socially acceptable for men to kiss and hug. I consider it OK as well, but I don't understand sexual feelings between two members of the same sex. In fact, I really find it impossible to have sexual feelings towards most of the opposite sex as well. I'm very specific in what I like, so maybe that explains in part my revulsion at the whole idea. Anyway, while accepting homosexuals as just another orientation isn't necessarily that harmful, nor is even allowing them to marry, the real question is where does it end? Once homosexual couples start to seem "normal", you'll have those on the fringes wanting their own special rights. Maybe it'll start with three-way marriages. Next somebody might suddenly think that liking children is simply another orientation, and have laws against pedophilia taken off the books. After that, you'll start to have middle-aged men marrying five-year old child brides. And soon after somebody will want to legitimize a sexual relationship with, say, a horse. Don't think this alternative lifestyles thing will stop with homosexuals. It won't. And I don't think I need to spell out for you how harmful legitimizing the other types of behavior I mentioned would be.
Now on to what is good about liberalism. First and foremost is the idea of helping those who are down on their luck. I never took fault with this part of liberalism is theory. It is always good to try to help. The problem is in the details. How do you help a person without making them dependent? How much help do you give before those who pay their own way become resentful? How do you prevent fraud? How do you prevent administrative costs from eating up most of the money given towards the program? How do you determine who is eligible and who isn't? Finally, how much can the government realistically do before the tax burden has a negative effect on the economy? It was the fact that entitlements were/are taken to excess which is the real problem of liberalism, not the idea that the government can do something to help. FDR said it best when he called welfare a narcotic. In the end you have to have hard limits on entitlement programs, and the best safety net is simply a forced savings account which a person can draw on in hard times. Very small administrative costs, and a hard limit to how long you can draw from it.
Second is the idea that free enterprise should to some extent be regulated for the good of society as a whole. Left to its own devices, free enterprise will increase the gap between the rich and poor, and destroy natural resources in the interests of short-term profit. Therefore, some regulations to require livable wages are in order. Even more important are very strong environmental regulations which require businesses to leave things the way they found them (and that includes the air). Destroying the environment is in the long-term counterproductive to profits, and in fact to life in general. Equally important is the idea that some enterprises are so important to general public welfare that they should not be run by private enterprise. This includes, or should include, the generation of electricity, transportation, housing, food. These should be government run to strict quality standards, and should be sold to the public at cost, and not a penny more. Sadly, we don't do this. As a result, electricity, food, and especially housing are increasing in price far faster than wages are. And because of lack of strict standards, publicly-funded transportation has been a mixed bag.
I'm sure my lists on both ideologies are by no means exhaustive, but I hope I made my initial point-adhering rigidly to any one dogma is inherently ignorant. And, BTW, this took me over two hours to write.
