Lola wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
Yup, lots of specifics of giving your and my money to people who don't have any, helping people avoid the consequences of the choices they made, no incentives to encourage business to do the right thing but only punishing any who don't; more government mandates and regulation, and not one single suggestion of personal accountability or responsibility and/or government providing an environment where people are encouraged to make better choices so that they can grow the economy and provide for themselves.
Foxfire, I "feel ya." (we've been watching The Wire.) The economy does need a balance like incentives and all that stuff. However they need to be made available with a sense of responsibility for those who are victims of capitalism gone wild. Your idea that poverty or mental illness or drug addiction are a matter of choice is disturbingly immature. Even though I've heard this idea before, it always shocks me. I won't elaborate further because to do so would be belaboring the obvious. But if you need a clarification, listen to Obama for the next few months. It will be educational.
Lola I have never EVER said that people intentionally choose poverty or any kind of illness or drug addiction. I haven't EVER said that hese things cannot happen to people through no fault of their own.
I HAVE said that the choices we make can lead to any of these. And I have said there is no Constitutional basis for the government to require Citizen A who makes good choices to support Citizen B who didn't. Do not confuse mutually shared public facilities and infrastructure as a matter of practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness with those other things. And do not confuse compassion for the poor, the elderly, the sick, the lame, the disabled, the challenged, the disadvantaged as synonymous with government services.
I believe with all my heart that both conservatives and liberals care about all these things. The difference is that the conservative is more likely to deal with it voluntarily out of his/her own pocket, time, talent, and personal resources. I have devoted a good deal of my adult life, sometimes as vocation and sometimes as a volunteer, working in fields that address those issues you listed. I have dealt with more than my fair share within my own family.
But what I have contributed I have contributed as a conservative. I 100% believe that people who do not withhold benevolence are both blessed and benefitted by what they give.
The liberal is more likely to want the government to require me to deal with it by confiscating my wealth to give to somebody else. This is why I resist a President like Obama who promises that the government will provide no matter what circumstances created the need. I think this is the most ineffective, inefficient, and sometimes counter productive way to deal with human needs.
I see valid roles for government and I see roles that are better assumed in the private sector.
I would be thrilled to discuss these various concepts on perhaps the Conservatism in 2008 and Beyond thread. If I can't make my case for my point of view against a reasoned argument for the opposing point of view, then I can't. But I've always believe that an opinon or concept that cannot be defended without demonizing somebody is simply not worth holding anyway.
For God's sake CI; are you trying to make Nimh's head explode? McCarthy wasn't wrong about how dangerous Communism was; his error was in attributing everything remotely socialistic to communism... not unlike you and Deist are doing right now.
