Conservative Positions

Neither am I, but, luckily, we can vote for members of the government who will, occasionally, represent our views.

I'm not sure many people appreciate the dramatic shift in course that FDR engineered in the 30's, and LBJ turbocharged in the 60's. As a result, they perceive social programs to be, if not the primary function of the government, certainly one of it's top three or four reasons for being.

I have to admit that the New Deal and the Great Society has led to an America which is essentially free of the sort of abject poverty that threatens people's lives. What currently constitutes "poverty" in this country is nothing of the sort when compared to most of the rest of the world.

Of course there has been a stiff price to pay and I do not mean in dollars. Intervention in the somewhat stark, but effective dynamics of a free market society has led to a permanent underclass.

I have no problem with governmental intervention to insure that opportunity is available to all citizens, irrespective of race, religion or creed, but there is a sad irony in the fact that the groups that were intended to benefit the most from the social programs of the 60's represent the majority of the permanent underclass.

Unfortunately, our friends on the Left are not content with the fairly monumental achievements of governmental intervention since 1937. Personally, I believe this is because Leftists are addicted to causes. In the absence of a legitimate overarching societal concern, they will invent one. The plight of the homeless and AIDs are two good examples.
We might be able to simply dismiss this compulsive "do gooding," but for the fact that they have been able to muster political power to support their Jones, and this can and has resulted in governmental edicts: legislation, intervention, encroachment, etc.

I doubt the Left will ever be content, but it is abundantly clear that their ultimate goal (whether articulated or not) is redistribution of wealth to the point where we are all possessed of the same mediocre benefits.

There is an excellent piece in the NY Time Week In Review section for 4/17 which focuses on the fact that Norwegians as a whole believe they are the wealthiest country in the world. They base this on the fact that they have social programs to address virtually all of their personal needs, and the societally endorsed propaganda that nations which are more focused on free markets (see America) are on the brink of ruin.

In reality, Norwegians live lives that are far less affluent than the citizens of their more capitalistic neighbors, and yet they cling to the belief that they are the richest of nations.

For anyone who might disagree with the Left there is the ever-ready pejoratives of "mean spirited," "greedy," "callous," et al.

Despite the effusive adoration of the proletariat by the Left, it is conservatives whose principles are based upon a confidence in the inherent value and potential of the individual. How much regard can there be for the People when all solutions must be developed by the State?

so finn... is what you are saying; " law of the jungle. only the strong survive.." ?

we should go back to the good old days when the under classes were, instead, simply dead ?

i don't think you really believe that.

Conservative Positions
I would like to thank Finn d'Abuzz for the reasoned response to my questions. It gives me a great amount of thinking to do. I'm not leaving the forum just thinking about what was written.

Asherman, a thanks to you also, your post was a great help and made me do the research for SS.

Finally, I appreciate all the help I get in muddling through the chaff.

Regards,

GERROM

Representing conservative philosophy as Social Darwinism is an attempt to oversimplify the point and, frankly, to portray conservatives as heartless.

It is hard to imagine a society the size of ours where numerous citizens will not fall through the web of any conceivable, institutionalized safety net. Protecting each and every citizen not only from the vagaries of fate, and the grimmer consequences of a free market society but from themselves, is an impossible task. It may be desirous to attempt to come close to such an achievement but it is irresponsible to to do without weighing the attendant costs.

Most Liberals are intentionally unfamiliar with the cliche: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Is it a fair trade to preserve a greater number of lives at the expense of a given groups ability to effectively function within society?

It's a facile declaration that every single life is worth any societal consequence. Reality tells us that this is simply not the case, and it is irresponsible to insist that it is.

So, while it is quite glib to accuse conservatives of Social Darwinism and to champion the rights of each and every individual, it is also a hollow position.

It is somewhat ironic that Liberals insist on a cost benefit analysis for social programs that contemplates costs only in terms of dollars.

no intent to make you appear "heartless" finn. just clarifying that you did not indeed go with the "law" theory.

the way i look at social services are as a safety net and a place to get a running start back into society.

some people take advantage of it, of course. but most really are in need of a hand up. to me, the problam isn't that we have social services, but that we don't have a better system of gate keeping to insure that those who really are milking the system don't get on, or stay once found out.

i thought clinton's 2 year welfare to work approach was a great way to begin a reform of the system.

I appreciate your desire to clarify my arguments.

Social programs are a safety net and should be a way to boost up those who cannot climb societal rungs through no fault of their own.

Unfortunately, current social programs are not designed to provide opportunities to those who have been denied them by societal flaws, but to provide such people with an economic floor. It is not a matter of race or nationality. Provide people with the basics of life (which in the 21st century includes color television and a night out on the town) at no discernible cost, and, for most of them, you take away the incentive to strive for improvement.

The flaw is in the programs and not their execution. It is unrealistic to expect bureaucracies to function as effective Gatekeepers.

We all wish to provide aide to the people who truly need it, but we must face the fact that, currently, we are unable to be so surgically clean. The debate therefore comes down to whether we accept that some people will be unjustly enriched to foster this goal, or that some people who truly need our help will fall through the cracks to avoid a debiting drain on our resources.

My problem is not with those who argue that unfortunate excess is acceptable in the advancement of the basic desire that the needy have their needs met. My consternation is reserved for those who not only refuse to recognize the cost of their idealism, but insist upon framing the debate in Manichean terms --- where the opposition equates to cruel and heartless greed.

Ultimately the American people will determine just how generous we should be as a nation. American generosity knows no bounds when it responds to true need. That Americans may question the validity of the needs they subsidize is a reflection of rationality, not mean-spiritedness.

I believe both conservatives and liberals believe a moral people do have concern for and take care of the most helpless and unfortunate of society. Ideology comes into play in how that is done.

Conservatives generally adopt the Lockean view of private property in which generosity is a personal and voluntary thing. Conservatives will generally promote and encourage charity--in fact the huge lion's share of social service agencies targeted to help the poor were founded and are maintained by mostly conservatives--but conservatives believe all benevolence proceeding from government has potential to be coercive. Thus the best and least dangerous benevolence is individually voluntary.

Liberals tend to see government as the best vehicle to address and solve social problems and promote a conviction that it is right and just to confiscate private wealth toward that end.

Summarized:

Conservatives believe charity results from voluntary contributions of their own money.

Liberals believe charity results from taking from the rich to give to the poor.

Conservative Positions
Although I have a lot of reading to do, I could not resist another post, for I do not wish to lose the momentum of my inquiry.

If we can, as suggested above by Foxfyre, boil down the difference between conservative and liberal thought regarding social programs, by the type of delivery system, how can those, who can be defined as requiring legitimate assistance, how can those, who depend of this charity have any hope of life?

In the US, with its power structure, is there not a more efficacious way to accomplish this task.

My fear is that this subject gets tangled with the old 50's redistribution of the wealth communism dogma.

You can get a good picture of this when you realize that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could single handily solve the chronic, hardcore, deserving poor in the US, if not in the world.

Charity is good, Americans are very generous, but charity is like the company who gives you a bonus every year instead of a raise. The company gives you a bonus because your salary is very low. The company never gives you a raise, just the bonus. You never are able to raise above a certain level in wages. You run the risk that you may not get the bonus for whatever reason.

If, however timidly, the conservatives and liberals agree that we have an obligation for social programs, what Foxfyre's point made was the discussion should be about the type of delivery system required by these programs not their content. Could this not be the basis for a broader consensus/policy between conservatives and liberals. What do you think?

Foxfyre's suggestion that charity was a core belief, but it is the not an answer as it lacks a consistency/reliability factor. We need some distribution method that would have dignity, personal growth, and the component where there was no recidivism that meets the core belief of charity.

Regards,


I

GERROM,
You said..."You can get a good picture of this when you realize that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could single handily solve the chronic, hardcore, deserving poor in the US, if not in the world."

That isnt true.
This country has already spent several TRILLION dollars trying to wipe out poverty,but the percentage rate of poverty remains the same.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet COMBINED couldnt finance this countries social programs for a month,let alone the worlds.

you're right, mm.

but i still feel like bill gates owes me money over windows 2000/me...

Me too DTOM. That program caused me more grief than all the combined computers and software I've used since PCs first came out.

why don't they rename it "lost drivers 2000/me" ???

DTOM,
This is a first.
I AGREE with you.
I got rid of my Windows 98 and bought that POS call+ed Windows ME.
Boy,was that a mistake.

see? there's always hope !

dunno, dude. i tried windows xp on my mom's dell and found new weirds; like the desktop icons/ shortcuts would have just disappeared the next time i booted it. and still had problems with drivers for stuff like scanners and printers.

try the newer mac os. it's stable, there's a ton of s/w available for it (including "business" apps like office, quickbooks etc.) and for those that have been using windows, you can "prefer" to search your drive in a cascading fashion.

they just put out a little starter box for 499. you can use your existing monitor, usb keyboard and mouse.

btw, thanks for your continued involvement on the "real stories" thread. it's important that people hear the soldier's side of the story. :wink:

I prefer doggy! WOOF WOOF

Any one remember that old 2 Live Crew song?

DTOM writes


How do you get by with a Mac when the huge majority of the free world use Windows? If I sent you a CD written on a Windows OS, could you read it on your Mac? I mean how do you work with the rest of the world?

wow, it's been a long time since i've had to think about that. it was a problem up until about '95 when an app called "mac opener" Was released to deal with that issue. imperfect solution. but soon there after it was dealt with by apple and the problem went away. then, of course, the issue became the compatibility between a file created in a windows version of an app and reading that in the mac version. it was quite a bloody campaign, but eventually we've gotten to parity between the platforms.

part of the problem was the reluctance of apple to toss their code to anybody that wanted it the way that microsoft did. but, it turned out to be a silver lining in that in the 16 or so years i've been using macs, there's only been one or two major outbreaks of viruses.

but, my luck, the worst one was floating around the internet, and be downloaded onto the mac drive (which did pretty much notheing there) and would spread to the "media" drives of the non-linear (computer based) film/video editing systems that i used to rent. i had 30 company systems and usually several sub-rented going, each carried an average of 3-4 hundred gigs of additional media storage. and what the virus would do was swim around and randomly eat up information, which rendered the digitized footage useless.

all because the editor just had to surf the net (against our warnings of mayhem..) which in turn killed the box.

wanna have real fun ? try explaining that to universal studios at 2am the night before a premier.

but, i've run my business off a mac for years and use the same software as everyone else does, quickbooks, ms office, filemaker,adobe and a host of creative applications.

and from what i understand, more and more companies are moving into macs, i believe because they network so quick and easy.

unlike the dell/windows setup at the last company i worked for. every, single day... ppphhhhtttttttt! 'hey! i can't print my orders dude!"

LOL, well me being barely computer literate, most of that went right over my head. I haven't tried to run anything produced on a Mac for a long time, but just remember is was problematic before everybody I work with--different company divisions, support services, and all our clients--started using Windows.

Anyhow sounds like you have lived/are living an interesting life DTOM

Conservative Positions
Although I want to keep focused on my quest, I could not help answering your MAC question. MAC has always been able to "read" PC disks. There are of course some problems with the data concerning the type of fonts in the early years, but that has almost gone away if your careful how you write the PC stuff. MS Word translates smoothly.

MAC has always been a better machine, but in this society the best doesn't always rise to the top.

Regards,

Re: Conservative Positions


Wow. That one sentence could lead to volumes of discussion. Instead, I will just disagree.