AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Another response but not responsive to the question.
What makes it a moral right for the government to take what Citizen A earns and give it to Citizen B who chooses not to earn? Is the question too dificult to understand?

Perhaps we could do it this way.

Let's say you have a 4.0 grade average in college and you worked damn hard for it.
Your friend has a 2.0 grade average because he never studies and spends all his time partying and playing games.

You both need a 3.0 to get a minimal job at the place are applying but you can get a much better job with your 4.0 grade point.

Why wouldn't it be okay for the authorities to reduce you to 3.0 and raise him to 3.0 so you would both have at least something?

How about we use a realistic example that actually plays out.

What about the 3.6GPA person who had his college paid for entirely, while the other had a 2.95GPA but had to work full time to go to school? Perhaps it would have played out if the odds were even. Then we could measure effort.

Give someone 100 dollars every year, then give them 75 dollars the next. No matter how you spin it, you didn't take 25 dollars from them.

Person A pays you 75 dollars a year, person B pays 100 dollars a year. Next year they pay 76 dollars and 103 dollars respectively. No matter how you spin it, both people are paying in.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

A valid question that is a component of the original. So you have two principles at stake. The unalienable right of a person to be secure in his person and his property as a fundamental principle and the principle that a moral society does take care of the truly helpless.

But again in the illustration you used, there was no law requiring Barnabas to give his field to the apostles for their work. It was a voluntary act of charity. How can we justify the Apostles deciding that others needed Barnabas's money more than he did and taking it from him without his consent? What moral justification determines that one person's rights supercede another's?

There are two principles. And they can be in conflict. If you wish the easy way out, you can chose one and ignore the other, making a claim that your choice is the superior moral choice. You could, as Ican ridiculously posited above, take all wealth by force or by law and divide it equally. Or you could set law, and enforce that law, where no one or body has any claim at all upon the wealth of others in the community regardless of how much disparity there is and regardless of how much suffering there is.

Either of those two options might be taken by a government. But of course there's no reason at all to limit choice to those black/white extremes, except to take the easy way out of this moral dilemma.

As you know, there are christian (and other) communities which function in a communal manner. They do so "by choice" but that phrasing misleads because they are raised within a community which inculcates such a moral perspective. As you know, there are other nations which, by elective choice, agree to contribute significant portions of their incomes in order to have a society which shares and cares to a far greater extent than the US does presently.

You can, if you wish to keep things simple, decry such an arrangement as being inarguably immoral. I could, if I wished to keep things simple, decry any disparity in wealth as inarguably immoral. And we'd both be simpletons.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I've already conceded your point Cyclop. You believe that it is morally correct to confiscate wealth from anybody who has a lot and give it to anybody who doesn't. You don't care that those receiving Citizen A's wealth greatly outnumber Citizen A but they are the people and its okay to let them decide how much of what Citizen A has they will be allowed to get. And you won't mind the university lowering your grade point and giving some of your credits to somebody else either because after all, you will still have a pretty high grade point and after all, all those who don't earn as good a grades outnumber you so that makes it all perfectly fair.

I've noted all that and you don't have to keep saying it. Just hope that at some point all those Citizen B's will decide that it isn't fair that there be any Citizen A's at all.

(But you still haven't made a case for why it is a moral act to do that.)

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Another response but not responsive to the question.
What makes it a moral right for the government to take what Citizen A earns and give it to Citizen B who chooses not to earn? Is the question too dificult to understand?

Perhaps we could do it this way.

Let's say you have a 4.0 grade average in college and you worked damn hard for it.
Your friend has a 2.0 grade average because he never studies and spends all his time partying and playing games.

You both need a 3.0 to get a minimal job at the place are applying but you can get a much better job with your 4.0 grade point.

Why wouldn't it be okay for the authorities to reduce you to 3.0 and raise him to 3.0 so you would both have at least something?

How about we use a realistic example that actually plays out.

What about the 3.6GPA person who had his college paid for entirely, while the other had a 2.95GPA but had to work full time to go to school? Perhaps it would have played out if the odds were even. Then we could measure effort.

Give someone 100 dollars every year, then give them 75 dollars the next. No matter how you spin it, you didn't take 25 dollars from them.

Person A pays you 75 dollars a year, person B pays 100 dollars a year. Next year they pay 76 dollars and 103 dollars respectively. No matter how you spin it, both people are paying in.

T
K
O

I don't want to change the question to make it easier for you to answer. I want you to tell me that if you study hard and earn a 4.0 grade point average and somebody else didn't study hard and only has a 2.0 grade point average, and there are no other considerations whatsoever, is it okay for the university to take a percentage point from you and give it to the other guy so you will both have decent grade point averages and therefore can qualify to get a job?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I've already conceded your point Cyclop. You believe that it is morally correct to confiscate wealth from anybody who has a lot and give it to anybody who doesn't. You don't care that those receiving Citizen A's wealth greatly outnumber Citizen A but they are the people and its okay to let them decide how much of what Citizen A has they will be allowed to get. And you won't mind the university lowering your grade point and giving some of your credits to somebody else either because after all, you will still have a pretty high grade point and after all, all those who don't earn as good a grades outnumber you so that makes it all perfectly fair.

I've noted all that and you don't have to keep saying it. Just hope that at some point all those Citizen B's will decide that it isn't fair that there be any Citizen A's at all.

(But you still haven't made a case for why it is a moral act to do that.)

Do you still not realize how bad your analogy is?

Quote:

And you won't mind the university lowering your grade point and giving some of your credits to somebody else either because after all, you will still have a pretty high grade point and after all, all those who don't earn as good a grades outnumber you so that makes it all perfectly fair.

An accurate analogy would be to lower the top person to a 3.98 and raise the bottom person to a 2.02. For that is how much taxation reduces the difference in status between the two, Fox. Literally. The rich are still far, far richer than the poor, even after a few tax credits are thrown in.

Your main paragraph is also dumb. N0body has decided a 'maximum income' for the Rich; only a rate of taxation on that income. They can keep earning to their heart's content.

Your arguments have been shown to be pretty wrong on this issue, Fox. Inaccurate questions and an inability to answer others' questions doesn't win a discussion...

It's moral for our government to enforce tax laws which tax people at different rates. It's moral for the citizens of our country to decide what rates they wish people to be taxed at. And if people don't like paying higher taxes, they don't have to work those jobs which will lead them to earn salaries under that level of taxation; I guarantee that there are plenty of others we can find to do the job who will take that money.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
A valid question that is a component of the original. So you have two principles at stake. The unalienable right of a person to be secure in his person and his property as a fundamental principle and the principle that a moral society does take care of the truly helpless.

But again in the illustration you used, there was no law requiring Barnabas to give his field to the apostles for their work. It was a voluntary act of charity. How can we justify the Apostles deciding that others needed Barnabas's money more than he did and taking it from him without his consent? What moral justification determines that one person's rights supercede another's?

There are two principles. And they can be in conflict. If you wish the easy way out, you can chose one and ignore the other, making a claim that your choice is the superior moral choice. You could, as Ican ridiculously posited above, take all wealth by force or by law and divide it equally. Or you could set law, and enforce that law, where no one or body has any claim at all upon the wealth of others in the community regardless of how much disparity there is and regardless of how much suffering there is.

Either of those two options might be taken by a government. But of course there's no reason at all to limit choice to those black/white extremes, except to take the easy way out of this moral dilemma.

As you know, there are christian (and other) communities which function in a communal manner. They do so "by choice" but that phrasing misleads because they are raised within a community which inculcates such a moral perspective. As you know, there are other nations which, by elective choice, agree to contribute significant portions of their incomes in order to have a society which shares and cares to a far greater extent than the US does presently.

You can, if you wish to keep things simple, decry such an arrangement as being inarguably immoral. I could, if I wished to keep things simple, decry any disparity in wealth as inarguably immoral. And we'd both be simpletons.

But like Cyclop and TKO you want to change the question to one that is easier to answer, and that I am not willing to do. We are not talking of what any society may choose to do, agree to do, or even should do. It is unnecessary to use any cmparisons of what other countries or societies do. I am not speaking for or against the merits of any social or political system in particular.

The question as asked is a hard question but it goes to the heart of the core of Conservative principle. What moral principle exists that could authorize the government to confiscate legally acquired private property from one citizen and give it to another? (This presumes that it is not voluntary on the part of the one who is having his property confiscated.)

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You don't seem to be following the discussion or grasping the concept here Parados.

That is a rather condescending statement. And you want to complain about how others treat you? Pull the mote out of your own eye Fox.

Quote:

Let's try a different tactic.

Ok, answer my questions to help clarify your position and lets talk about conservatism since this is supposed to be about conservatism not the bad stuff that liberalism does.

Quote:

How about YOU writing a definition for liberalism and conservatism and let's see how that goes?

This thread is about conservatism so I think it would be off topic to discuss liberalism. You are the conservative. Don't you think you should be able to define your stance in a clear manner that separates it from other political thought? I am merely pointing out that your statements are vague and often contradictory. If you want to get upset with me, fine. Perhaps you could use the questions to refine your position so you can clearly relate it to others. When one of your first points was that conservatism was rational, you set yourself the standard that conservatism should be clear and well thought out. I am acting as interlocutor to help you get to that standard you set. So far what you have laid out isn't clear to anyone that doesn't have your mind set and the contradictions raises questions about how well thought out conservatism is. Are there conservatives that have a clear idea of what they think conservatism is? George Will comes to mind.

Things for you to think about Fox. Do you think conservatives should ever compromise their core principles? If someone does compromise those principles are they still a conservative? What if 2 core principles end up contradicting each other in a given situation? How do you resolve that conflict?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Blatham, your other points are worth discussing though and once we establish the parameters of the initial question I would like to get to them.

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados please forgive me, but I have neither the interest nor inclination to get into one of your dodge and weave discussions. Please feel free to discuss the topic as you wish. But I won't take the bait to go way off elsewhere today. Thank you for understanding.

2 Replies

A highly appropriate place to store this 'cause some things never change.

Quote:

Criminals In The Bush Administration

suzieqq.wordpress.com/ - “Late last year we decided to take stock of all the Bush Administration officials who’d been accused of corruption and/or resigned in the face of scandal. Although we had fun doing it, we altruistically started the project in order to help our friends at Powerline, who professed an inability to think of any Bush officials beset by scandal.
This year´s result, which built on Justin Rood´s original gem, is, like our catalog of the administration´s efforts to disappear information, a staggering monument to the Bush Administration. And it wouldn’t have been possible without TPM’s research hounds, Adrianne Jeffries, Andrew Berger, and Peter Sheehy.A quick note on methodology. Since a complete catalog of administration officials who’ve been accused of some form of corruption or abuse of power would be endless, we tried to maintain a high standard for inclusion. Most of those below were the subjects of criminal probes, but we also included officials who were credibly accused of acts that, if not criminal, were a corruption of office (like the U.S. attorney scandal). And even then, such officials were only included if their accusers had them dead to rights (which is why Karl Rove didn’t make the cut). We also limited ourselves to officials who were either political appointees or whose actions were so political that they were effectively political appointees (like John Tanner).

Enjoy:

Indicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty

* Eric G. Andell - deputy undersecretary in charge of newly created Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (previously senior adviser to Secretary of Education Rod Paige) - pleaded guilty to one count of conflict of interest for using government travel for personal causes and was sentenced to one year of probation, 100 hours of community service, and fined $5,000.

* Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

* Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned in late September 2005 after only two months on the job. On October 17th, he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts, making a false writing and conflict of interest. On February 27, 2007, Crawford was sentenced to to three years of probation and was fined $90,000.

* Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Doyle was arrested on April 4th, 2006 and pleaded no contest on September 19, 2006 to seven counts of use of a computer to seduce a child and sixteen counts of transmitting harmful material to a minor. On November 17th, 2006 Brian Doyle was sentenced to five years in state prison and ten years of probation. He will also need to register as a sex offender.

[read on Macduffs]

http://milesmccabe.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/criminals-in-the-bush-administration/

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Citizen A stayed in school and educated himself, stayed away from illegal activities, waiting until marriage and ability to support a family until he had kids, paid his due in Mcjobs learning a work ethic, acquiring skill sets, and earning references for a better job, then got up every morning, went to work, and did his job to the best of his ability and, as a result of all that, he has prospered.

Citizen B didn't do any of that and now he is poor and disadvantaged and miserable.

The Question is: How is it moral for the government to take confiscate the wealth from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B?

Personally I think this is the best possible starting point for understanding the difference between Conservative thought and Liberal thought.

Yeah, I guess that is a good starting point. Conservatives make up scenarios where everyone that is poor is so because of their personal actions. They fail to understand that 36%of people in poverty are children and 10% are over the age of 65. The also fail to account for health issues, loss or lack of jobs or any other issues that result in poverty. Only 12% of the US population is below the poverty line and almost half of those are not of working age.

That means a better scenario would be that Citizen A, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, work and make money.
They then are asked to help support citizen B who may or may not be lazy but is most likely a single parent with children or a person over 65.

Perhaps the question should be why is it moral to punish children for what conservatives think their parents are doing?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I'll answer your question after you answer mine. But let's say none of the Citizen A's agreed that the government should take their property and give it to Citizen B's. Only the Citizen B's decided that's the way it should be.

So what make it moral to have a law that allows Citizen Bs take what Citizen As earn?

Another false dilemma. There is no NONE of citizen A's agreed. There is Citizen A didn't agree but citizen G, H agreed. Now citizen A wants to claim he has more say than G, H, and B. Why is it moral for citizen A to be part of society but not have to pay what the majority agreed to? Why is citizen A exempted from his social compact? What morality allows him to leech off G, H, and B but not B to leech off of G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and B?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Parados please forgive me, but I have neither the interest nor inclination to get into one of your dodge and weave discussions. Please feel free to discuss the topic as you wish. But I won't take the bait to go way off elsewhere today. Thank you for understanding.

I realize that. Because you prefer to not have your dodging pointed out. You want to not be questioned.

You are right and don't have to defend what you think simply because you are right. When holes in your argument that you say is "rational" are pointed out, you simply accuse those asking the questions of not understanding and then refuse to talk to them any more. Your conservatism is not rational Fox, nor is it defensible as proven by your lack of defense.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

but I have neither the interest nor inclination to get into one of your dodge and weave discussions.

Foxy takes another powder.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Then I'll be blunt Fox. You accuse me of simplifying your question when ironically you question is a dramatic simplification of the larger question.

I'm trying my best here with you Fox, but you're going to have to stop asking me to chase geese and then placing a duck in front of me. My patience has limits.

As for should Person A be given Person B's money. No.

Being that you've taken us away from the tax issue to this question, I'd like to return us there.

I'd like to hear you explain how Person A paying a higher tax for a higher wage than Person B paying a lower one for a lower wage is Person B in any way getting Person A's money. Your logic is flawed.

The truth is that Person A and Person B both pay into a system in which they both should benefit from.

Person A sends their child to a private school, so why should they have to pay taxes to fund a public school.

Person B doesn't benefit from all the infrastructure improvements in the area where Person A's store is located, why should Person B's money go to fix the street lamps and potholes in front of Person A's store?

Neither Person A or B is on welfare, why should they have to pay in?

Because children deserve an education regardless of what tax bracket their parents are in. Because the it's not just the streets we live on and use that deserve repair. Because neither Person A or B benefits from some Person C in extreme poverty with nothing to lose.

"Redistribution" is a false term. Persons A and B must contribute. Our taxes aren't a check list for you to pick what you'd like to pay an not to pay. If it was, I suspect their are a lot more people B in the world who would have zero interest in helping the people A in the world.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

No my logic is that Citizen A prepared himself to prosper, took all necessary steps to prosper, and prospered honorably both ethically and legally.

Citizen B did none of that and has not prospered.

Give me a what moral principle, based on these facts alone, that justifies the government taking property from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B. It is a very simple question. Not complicated at all. I simply don't understand why all you liberals seem to be having such a difficult time answering it.

As if it made any difference, lets pretend they grew up side by side in comparable houses in the same neighborhood and attended the same school. Their parents work in the same factory making the same wages.

The answer has two possible answers:

1) There is no moral justification for the government to take money from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B just because Citizen B has less than Citizen A

or

2. The moral justification is this. . . and then spell out what that moral justification is.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Why exactly do you assume that Person A earned their wages while we simultaneously assume Person B did not. Why do you refer to that as fact? You are using the word logic, but no logic in your words. Leave the emotional subjective argument behind please. This isn't about a moral principle, and if it was, assuming that the poor are deserving of their burden is far from the moral high ground. Perhaps this poor person is deserving of their burden, maybe the next one isn't. Perhaps the rich earn their wage in an honest way, perhaps they do not. I could ask you to cite some moral principal that is based on the assumption that Person A is a total scumbag who exploited anyone and everyone to get their money, and how they should receive any sort of assistance from the government.

As for your question, I answered already. Person B should not be given Person A money. Person A should also not be given Person B money. It has to apply both ways Fox. Not that it matters, because this is not an issue.

You argue that "you liberals" want to redistribute wealth, but that's just not the case of what liberals propose. You characterize it as such, but it's false. You have a choice: You can debate what I say or you can debate what some non-present-to-defend-itself "you liberals" wish I was saying.

I'm saying very clearly that we all pay in and we all should benefit. On top of that, I've yet to hear exactly how you think Person B ever comes in contact with Person A's money. How is government actually redistributing? How? Specifics please.

Person B is still paying their taxes are they not?

I've catered to your questions, but you aren't returning the favor. I've asked you plenty in the last two days with little return on the questions I propose. In general, I think you have a serious issue with reductionism in your arguments. There has to be a way for you to learn how to break ideas into smaller more tangible workable ideas to discuss without reducing people to just conservatives and liberals.

In short: I feel like there is an asymmetry in our dialog. While I'm addressing Foxfyre, Foxfyre seems to be addressing "you liberals" as if that meant that what I say comes with less credibility due to a brand. I don't think conservatives are bad people, I just want to address your ideas, and challenge you to defend them. It feels like when the water gets hot you retreat to a claim that we (the liberals) don't seem to understand the point of the thread or understand the question.

I understand your questions fine and have answered. You don't agree with my answer, but this isn't math class where the answer is known. We are expressing opinions and ideas here about dynamic issues/problems.

I'm not here to say liberalism, progressivism or any other political philosophy is perfect, and I think it's time you admit that conservatism has it's own limitations too. It's obnoxious how you sell conservatism is if it was a fix all for all issues. I think that conservatism has a place in our society much like other political ideas, but as a uniform system it fails.

It's an sleeping pill, which is good if the problem is sleep. However take as many sleeping pills as you like, if you've got a headache, maybe you should take an aspirin. America has a need for a lot of medication. Neither aspirin or sleeping pills alone are going to do what we need.

We need dynamic answers for dynamic problems, but before that we need a bit of honesty.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Your analogy is a logical fallacy Fox.

Citizen B represents only 8% of the population being the 8% of working age adults at or below the poverty line.
Citizen A represents only 5% of the population being the top 5% of wage earners.
That leaves a lot of other citizens 87% that pay taxes and voted to give Citizen B money. Just because Citizen A is a cad and doesn't want to follow the law the majority supported doesn't make him moral.

Your argument is not rational because you based it on a logical fallacy to create a situation that doesn't exist. 60% of the 8% of adults living in poverty live in a family situation most likely with children. Another 15% of the adults in poverty are 65 or older.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/pov/new01_100_01.htm

Of course when you look at the actual numbers for welfare, it is less than 2% of the US families that are receiving it which hurts your argument even more. There is no citizen A giving money to Citizen B. There are 20 taxpayers giving money for every B. The majority of those taxpayers are fine with B getting assistance. Your A is a minority.

What moral principle gives A the right to not give while everyone else is?
What moral principle gives A the right to not give when the majority of the money is going to help children?

To repeat - Your argument is not rational Fox. It is nothing more than a scenario you created to try to make your point It fails on many levels.

0 Replies

Trajectory precisely as I see it. Until the Republican party abandons some unwarranted certainties about america, about itself and about the other party ( not to mention about the rest of the world) it will inevitably continue to drive itself into forms of extremism and failure.

Quote:

A column, like a good movie, should have an arc -- start here, end there and somehow connect the two points. So this column will begin with the speech Condi Rice made to the Republican National Convention in 2000 in praise of George W. Bush and end with Colin Powell's appearance Sunday on "Meet the Press" in praise of Barack Obama. Between the first and the second lie the ruins of the GOP, a party gone very, very wrong.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Bush and now John McCain have constructed a mean, grumpy, exclusive, narrow-minded and altogether retrograde Republican Party. It has the sharp scent of the old Barry Goldwater GOP -- the angry one of 1964 and not the one perfumed by nostalgia -- that is home, by design or mere dumb luck, to those who think that Obama is "The Madrassian Candidate." Karl Rove, take a bow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/20/AR2008102002292.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

But like Cyclop and TKO you want to change the question to one that is easier to answer, and that I am not willing to do...

The question as asked is a hard question but it goes to the heart of the core of Conservative principle. What moral principle exists that could authorize the government to confiscate legally acquired private property from one citizen and give it to another? (This presumes that it is not voluntary on the part of the one who is having his property confiscated.)

There are (so far as I can tell) no moral principles which are absolute. All (like 'do not kill') are subject to negotiation with other moral principles which may conflict (moral obligation to defend your country/family etc). To take the easy way out is to assume an absolute. Which you are doing.

Take your phrase above..."legally acquired private property". Slavery was, of course, legal not long ago and slaves were 'legally acquired private property'. Under your moral absolute, there is no moral principle "which could authorize" the state to take them from their "owner". In 18th century France, a member of the upper classes could, legally, take harvested provisions from those who worked the land possessed by that upper class member, regardless of other considerations such as local starvation or wealth/waste on the part of the aristocrat who took those provisions. There are a near infinite number of examples one might forward here to demonstrate how your moral principle (a valid moral principle) cannot be held as absolute.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know