Which conservative principles should liberals understand or at least recognize?

[oFrosty]

Time for homework, young leftist. Look up William Graham Sumner's "The Forgotten Man" and be prepared to defend the position that C would have his money confiscated and given to D to make A and B feel better about themselves.

Ooh, interesting. I like this.

What if A and B formed a plan to remedy D's suffering, inviting C's participation but without relying on C's participation or money?

Could you (or a willing conservative) work with those people, even if they were liberals, to help remedy D's suffering?

[oFrosty]

One of the liberal's great icons had a name for many of them: Useful Idiots.

If you truly want to understand American Conservatism, you first need to understand the true nature of modern liberalism.

You guys have had your way for 5 years and things are worse than ever.

Detroit was the model city of LBJ's Great Society, it's current state certainly doesn't look like compassion to me.

First, understand and know what you are and then own it.

Then you may begin to understand American Conservatism instead of simply engaging in Sophist debate.

Where do you recommend I go to learn about modern liberalism?

Additionally, what if these 'useful idiots' had an alternative avenue for compassion, which was more effective, as opposed to simply supporting taxation and welfare? Would they be liberals still?

[Duke Nukum]

Where do you recommend I go to learn about modern liberalism?

Additionally, what if these 'useful idiots' had an alternative avenue for compassion, which was more effective, as opposed to simply supporting taxation and welfare? Would they be liberals still?

I do not understand your question. If they would quit reaching into my pocket and ruining the free market, then I they would probably be capitalists, entrepreneurs, and all of those other things liberals hate unless someone like Michael Moore or Steve Jobs is one.

Did you know that liberal Steve Jobs cut all of Apple's charitable donations when he came back to head Apple and even after the company became profitable again, he never reinstated those charitable programs.

He understood the purpose of business. And was a Useful Idiot in that he supported the dog collar analogy I posted earlier in this thread.

Personally, I do not understand how a compassionate Marxist liberals can be a millionaire. Should all they have go to a general store to be redistributed based on need? I don't know who determines need and how the 'wealth' is distributed, but there it is.

[Dori]

I don't know who determines need and how the 'wealth' is distributed, but there it is.

I like that.  Good place to start too.  Define what the "need" is that taxpayers should support.

Wealth is subjective.  It means different things to different people.

Also, is someone's monitary wealth really anyone else's business? 

 

[oFrosty]

I like that.  Good place to start too.  Define what the "need" is that taxpayers should support.

Wealth is subjective.  It means different things to different people.

Also, is someone's monitary wealth really anyone else's business?

Is food, water, shelter a right? Whether it is or isn't, should the taxpayers support people who cannot afford it?

I suppose the question really comes down to the quality of that food, water, and shelter. Also, the effects of the quality of that food should be considered. If poor people are only eating Big Macs and french fries, they're going to have major health issues, somebody else is going to have to pay for it or at the very least be forced to decided whether they should pay for it.

[Duke Nukum]

I like that.  Good place to start too.  Define what the "need" is that taxpayers should support.

Wealth is subjective.  It means different things to different people.

Also, is someone's monitary wealth really anyone else's business? 

Quite right to question that. I always see wealth as a state of being and get confused when liberals and Marxists speak of redistributing it.  Wealth may be created or destroyed by attempting to redistribute it but that's it. I don't even think it can be maintained. Like the Mana in the desert, if it isn't fresh it isn't wealth.

[Duke Nukum]

Is food, water, shelter a right? Whether it is or isn't, should the taxpayers support people who cannot afford it?

I suppose the question really comes down to the quality of that food, water, and shelter. Also, the effects of the quality of that food should be considered. If poor people are only eating Big Macs and french fries, they're going to have major health issues, somebody else is going to have to pay for it or at the very least be forced to decided whether they should pay for it.

Who's regulations keep the poor poor?

What if, suddenly, the 'poor' found their own power and didn't need the liberal power structure any more?

How do you think liberals and progressives and Marxists would be with that?

One only needs to look to 0bama, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, even Nixon was a big time liberal and gave us such chains and collars as OSHA and the EPA.

How much do you think Big Government has impacted the life of the poor? Kept them poor?

And what about Ronald McDonald House charities? Would you bleed McDonald's to the point where they couldn't support that charity anymore?

And then what steps in to take the place of private sector charity?

Free collars, anyone!

Anyway, it has been interesting. I'm out for a while.

[marv]

Is food, water, shelter a right? No.

Whether it is or isn't, should the taxpayers support people who cannot afford it? That depends on the cause of the need.

I suppose the question really comes down to the quality of that food, water, and shelter. Never.

 Also, the effects of the quality of that food should be considered. If poor people are only eating Big Macs and french fries, they're going to have major health issues, somebody else is going to have to pay for it or at the very least be forced to decided whether they should pay for it. A Big Mac with fries is a tasty meal.

If I came to you with my hand out and asked you for $500, would you give it to me without question or condition?

[oFrosty]

If I came to you with my hand out and asked you for $500, would you give it to me without question or condition?

The condition we're talking about is hunger. I would give you $10 for a good meal. If you were a sketchy-looking dude, or got the impression that you would blow the money on drugs, I would rather take you to a nice restaurant. I would much prefer to give you the capacity to feed yourself — grow your own food or work with other people to garden and cook together. The thing I wouldn't do is pretend your not there.

But that's me, and I don't think it's fair to demand that of everybody.

[Toastedturningtidelegs]

So is the ideal country one with no need for empathy? What is your opinion of those who feel it is their responsibility to help those who never learned this lesson or are simply unable to take care of themselves? How should those people go about doing that?

Haha ok. So, how do we deal with irresponsible people? (Whether via government or other means?)

Did you miss this part of my post?

I personally am more than willing to help a person better themselves so they can get to that but I will not supplement their income so they can jerk off for the rest of their lives!

Empathy is fine to a point. You may help them to your hearts content as long as it is "you" helping them and not "you" taking something from someone else(against their will) to help them.Whether you like it or not that is called stealing.  I would help a person who didn't learn that lesson with the caveat that this help I give you has an end and if at any point I see that person not using my help to get themselves to a place of self sufficiency that help would end. As far as those who can't take care of themselves? I have no problem helping those folks.I do have a problem with the Federal Government running these programs because in my opinion outside of the interstate highway system and the military the government can "**** up a cup of coffee!" I know as a liberal you think they are the end all be all to existence....I however don't.Faith based orgs are so much better at this stuff than you guys are.

[oFrosty]

I know as a liberal you think they are the end all be all to existence.

If I don't think those programs are the "end all be all to existence," am I not a liberal?

[Dori]

Is food, water, shelter a right? Whether it is or isn't, should the taxpayers support people who cannot afford it?

A right? Humans would have died out a long time ago, including most Americans, who were not capeable of providing those things for themselves.  

I hope in your studies you have read American history.  Not the government stuff, but about the majority of the people themselves.    
The real pioneers.  [/quote]

I suppose the question really comes down to the quality of that food, water, and shelter. Also, the effects of the quality of that food should be considered. If poor people are only eating Big Macs and french fries, they're going to have major health issues, somebody else is going to have to pay for it or at the very least be forced to decided whether they should pay for it.

By poor, I'm assuming you don't mean stupid.  Even little kids in school learn about nutrition, it's not brain surgery.  However, you can't legislate stupidity.  You could however, control what they purchase with food stamps.

[USA4ME]

"Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism."

Especially given the claimed viewpoints of the modern-day liberal.  There's very little that citizens acting individually or in groups could not accomplish that the left "claims" they wish would happen via gov't oversight.  And it could be done more effectively and efficiently.

You are hitting on what I believe precisely. Big Dog, you asked which principle guides my life the most from this list — this is it.

Since you're piggybacking on my response, just what part of "citizens acting individually or in groups" without gov't oversight are you not getting?  I though I was pretty clear.  "Voluntary community" means that either I alone, or others with whom I agree to participate, see to the needs of those who can't otherwise do for themselves and assist them.  "Involuntary collectivism" has the gov't stepping in and collecting money from me via taxes to redistribute to others.

For example, an older widow lady in my neighborhood had issues with her home and needed some help generally getting it back in shape.  A group of us in the neighborhood got together and agreed to help.  We inspected the home to see what she needed to have fixed, we pooled our money and resources, and we met one Saturday morning and spent the better part of the day fixing her home and maintaining her yard.  That was voluntary community.

Involuntary collectivism would have had her calling up some gov't agency, dealing with a bunch of beauracracy, and then having a bunch of people she didn't even know invade her home and yard, and at that probably only do a half descent job at 3 times the cost.

Now, take that principle and apply it elsewhere.  Easy enough.

.

[Big Dog]

I'm going out for dinner and bluegrass music. I'll be back to spank this useful idiot tomorrow.

[J P Sousa]

I read through all this.......stuff and come to the conclusion something has been overlooked.

As a Christian, yes those that liberals seem to want to eliminate, I give to my church because my church takes care of people or at least as many people as it can given today's political climate.

THE GOVERNMENT, I am convinced, is trying to squeeze out churches and replace them with big government slavery.

YES it's slavery. Tax people so people have less money to give to those churches and the people in need become dependent and thus SLAVES to the government. The government wastes about $0.40 out of every dollar collected to provide welfare and other programs.

Look at all the money given to the "green energy" B-S. Who benefitted ???? Political contributors benefitted.
Many of these projects went bankrupt BUT the political contributors got their money.

So conservatives are very generous to helping people we just object to being forced to give money to a
government that wastes MORE than it helps.

And THAT is my conservative principle.

[rich_t]

I read through all this.......stuff and come to the conclusion something has been overlooked.

As a Christian, yes those that liberals seem to want to eliminate, I give to my church because my church takes care of people or at least as many people as it can given today's political climate.

THE GOVERNMENT, I am convinced, is trying to squeeze out churches and replace them with big government slavery.

YES it's slavery. Tax people so people have less money to give to those churches and the people in need become dependent and thus SLAVES to the government. The government wastes about $0.40 out of every dollar collected to provide welfare and other programs.

Look at all the money given to the "green energy" B-S. Who benefitted ???? Political contributors benefitted.
Many of these projects went bankrupt BUT the political contributors got their money.

So conservatives are very generous to helping people we just object to being forced to give money to a
government that wastes MORE than it helps.

And THAT is my conservative principle.

H5

[oFrosty]

Since you're piggybacking on my response, just what part of "citizens acting individually or in groups" without gov't oversight are you not getting?  I though I was pretty clear.  "Voluntary community" means that either I alone, or others with whom I agree to participate, see to the needs of those who can't otherwise do for themselves and assist them.  "Involuntary collectivism" has the gov't stepping in and collecting money from me via taxes to redistribute to others.

What makes you think I'm not getting it?

For example, an older widow lady in my neighborhood had issues with her home and needed some help generally getting it back in shape.  A group of us in the neighborhood got together and agreed to help.  We inspected the home to see what she needed to have fixed, we pooled our money and resources, and we met one Saturday morning and spent the better part of the day fixing her home and maintaining her yard.  That was voluntary community.

That's awesome.

Involuntary collectivism would have had her calling up some gov't agency, dealing with a bunch of beauracracy, and then having a bunch of people she didn't even know invade her home and yard, and at that probably only do a half descent job at 3 times the cost.

You're conflating involuntary collectivism with bad government execution, but I agree with your point.

[chitownchica]

I don't think so either.
Suppose it is a single mother, working two jobs over full time at minimum wage, struggling to take care of her two kids, with no family or friends to go to for help, trying to get her kids a good education and out of the poverty that they are stuck in so they can have a better future for themselves.

Liberals say, "taxes for welfare," which honestly as the conservative knows, don't help at all and take from people who earned that money.

Dori, how do you think this mother should be helped, if at all?

And to others, if you don't think this mother should be helped, why? Is she a lazy employee, jerking off all day, not working hard enough? Is it not a realistic example? Does she not deserve it?

I'm looking for a perspetive with which I go about helping these people in a way that makes conservatives happy.

Re the bolded above - One idea would be to allow for school choice through vouchers. There are determined students in our country who are trapped in failing schools. Many liberals are against this idea. Can you explain that?

[USA4ME]

What makes you think I'm not getting it?

Because if you were getting it, questions you asked here:

I'm wondering what the conservative perspective on how good-hearted people can help those who are struggling to feed themselves? What are some ways to do this, when government welfare is out of the question?

Suppose it is a single mother, working two jobs over full time at minimum wage, struggling to take care of her two kids, with no family or friends to go to for help, trying to get her kids a good education and out of the poverty that they are stuck in so they can have a better future for themselves...how do you think this mother should be helped...?

… would have been things that the understanding of “voluntary community” would have answered.  I understand voluntary community and immediately knew the answers just by its definition.

You're conflating involuntary collectivism with bad government execution, but I agree with your point.

I expect bad gov't execution.  Having me pay taxes in order to fund it when I know voluntary community would be more effective and efficient is a form of involuntary collectivism.

.

[JohnnyReb]

I expect bad gov't execution.  Having me pay taxes in order to fund it when I know voluntary community would be more effective and efficient is a form of involuntary collectivism.

.

But think of the hundreds of thousands of poor government workers (gov. workers  ) that would lose their jobs. That money is being better spent on keeping the government workers up and insuring their middle class retirement and healthcare than some lower class democrat voter.......does that truth deserve a sarcasm tag?

[Eupher]

...snip...

I don't think conservatives think paying taxes doesn't help those who truly need it.  I don't like the way the system is abused and used as a way of enslaving people, which is very much a liberal plan.  

...snip again...

I'm all for breaking the cycle of dependency.  It's generational, and we are now in the thrid generation of that mentality.  If it takes taxes to break that cycle in this current generation, then so be it.  Once that's successful, then pull back on the welfare.  But able bodied people should not be getting handouts without having to put some work into getting them. And the same goes for prisoners.  They need to be working to pay for their keep.  

I like that you used the term "plan." And then inferred to the need for such a plan with your reference to "cycle of dependency" which is absolutely-spot on.

But you are deluding yourself if you think Congress has such a plan. They have nothing but the need to see themselves reelected.

That's what this has come to. We have a huge chunk of our population who are accustomed to having their every need fulfilled by the state. Their attitude is, "You owe me."

Screw that. I owe these shitsticks nothing.

So then you think that it's okay to raise taxes to address this problem that's taken three entire generations to develop. And then you think, rather naively IMHO, that politicians will "pull back" on the welfare, which is the very carrot they use to convince the sheeple that it is they, and only they, who can see the light.

That's not a good plan, Dori.

[Big Dog]

You are hitting on what I believe precisely. Big Dog, you asked which principle guides my life the most from this list — this is it.

If you truly believed it, you would oppose government redistribution programs.

Since your very next post said, "Should government have faith that people will have personal responsibility?", and you then wrote "So if the US government stopped helping poor people feed themselves", you have shown that you believe in a benevolent paternalistic central government which is intended to be the great fixer for every individual's problems- which tells us clearly that you are either ignorant or a liar.

Own one- you choose.

[Big Dog]

Kid, you are not Socrates. It's time to stop with the round-and-round questions and start make statements.

Your homework assignment: Clearly articulate your opinion, without the use of the question mark.

[rich_t]

Kid, you are not Socrates. It's time to stop with the round-and-round questions and start make statements.

Your homework assignment: Clearly articulate your opinion, without the use of the question mark.

Don't hold your breathe while waiting for that to happen.

[txradioguy]

I am interested in what conservatives think liberals should consider more in their perspective.

The Constitution.