Is liberalism a mild form of insanity?

[Wolfhnd]

Democracy didn't just thrive thanks to science because the people were more educated. Democracy was turned to by many out of war fatigue and economic doom. Millions died in war, millions died slaves, and millions died from plague before Europe turned the corner.

 

Yes I was saying that science needs democracy to some extent.

 

People blame unstable democracies, technologies and weak monarchies for the millions who died in the world wars but I think if you look at the 40 million who died as a result of mongol expansion you can see that science, technology, and Western instability just made the killing more efficient. It takes a bit longer to kill 150 million people with primitive weapons but the result is the same.

 

If I ever get around to it I will plot deaths in wars against total population to prove my point. I think Pinker did this already but I don't have a link.

Liberals have there own problems and while they may reflect a degree of higher intellectual acumen it can appear unbalanced.

To the extent that modern liberals reject their own foundations and fail to recognize the need for cooperative compromises they become conservative. Modern liberalism fails to incorporate it's historical or it's scientific anti authoritarian heritage into practical policy. While science clearly demonstrates the interrelatedness of everything liberals are more inclined to decompose issues and place blame. Finger pointing is a clear example of the lack of a sophisticated system view of culture. In a democracy the hierarchy of obligations reflects the natural cooperative and interdependence of social animals. A failure to make obligations universal is the great failing of modern liberalism.

I'm not denying the efficacy of a top down approach to social change entirely but the unintended consequences of a failure to universally apply obligations will in most cases serious pervert the results.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[iNow]

If I ever get around to it I will plot deaths in wars against total population to prove my point. I think Pinker did this already but I don't have a link.

More plots furthering the point are presented at the link below, but I believe this one here is what you had in mind:

 

http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker

 

[Wolfhnd]

Thank you iNow

I feel like I'm engaged in a monologue but I have one more thought. I promise well maybe.

 

Everytime I try to present my view of shared obligations I'm accused of being heartless. What about the poor masses beaten down by the capitalist? There is no easy answer but I have a life time of experience. I have always adopted the principle of "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" the fact that modern Christianity bears no resemblance to the original teaching does not dissuade me from believing in this simple philosophy. The reason I'm not a Christian can be summed up by "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.". The neighbor parable seems like a good moral code but the second offers no practical solution to addressing social issues. It's also true that perfect social justice does not imply that our lives would be anything but equally horrible. Many issues are just not amenable to the values of equality and justice alone or even fair distribution of wealth. One need only look at the unintended consequences of the welfare state to understand the need for shared obligations.

[iNow]

Your Brain on Politics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservatives

 

"Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC—useful in detecting and judging conflict and error—and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place. More than one study has shown these same results, which is why I felt it was worth investigating."

There's even more to it than that. A decent overview with supporting links here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

[Willie71]

The other thread was based on an article which referred to "A meta-analysis culled from 88 samples in 12 countries, and with an N of 22,818". i.e. there was something concrete to begin the discussion (regardless of where it went afterwards) rather than simply trolling. Do you have a similar study/article that you can cite?

 

 

This is the bottom line, isn't it. Chris Mooney just wrote a book on this topic as well. http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science--Reality/dp/1118094514/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8The question was asked, multiple studies were completed, and the evidence shows that people who hold conservative values have differences in their brains that are associated with the rejection or reason and evidence. There is no such comparison with people who have to look at evidence to make decisions.

[Wolfhnd]

In this discussion we have focused on the Western ideologies of conservatism and liberalism which has given us a very narrow view of the issues. To fully explore the subject I think it would be useful to look at the more intellectually robust form of conservatism characterized by confucianism. The why issue has barely been explored leaving the appearance of a polemic debate. As liberalism has been promoted in our institutions of higher learning it comes as no surprise that it is the predominant political view of intellectuals. It should also come as no surprise that more adaptable people would be less resistant to change. In a more stable society it is less clear how biology would be manifested.

Let me frame the conservative and liberal views from an evolutionary perspective.

 

The conservative view:

 

Not only have species that have invested in perfecting a design as opposed to investing in flexibility had a more stable and longer history than humans but they are likely to survive longer.

 

The liberal view:

 

Humans have invested in behavioral flexibility to such an extent that it is the only tool left in the toolchest.

 

The first view ignores the validity of the second view and the second view assumes that all forces of natural selection can be overcome by behavioral flexibility. Why I favor the second view I see no reason to believe that cultural change is necessarily distinct from biological evolution. I'm not suggesting some perverse program of biological manipulation or eugenics I'm just suggesting that the two cannot be logically separated.

[Willie71]

I disagree with the idea that liberals focus on liberalism as it is promoted by learning institutions, but that liberalism is promoted by learning institutions because the evidence supports ideas that are consistent with liberal ideals. It comes down to evidence. The world is not 6000 years old, the climate is changing, oppressing minorities results in social problems that are nearly impossible to overcome, supply side economics does not result in trickle down wealth for all, and that bombing others results in extremist groups. These ideas are not promoted by universities out of favour for the ideas, but because research has shown them to be true, or at least as close to the definition of true as possible. While a caponservative would argue it's not real, and a liberal agenda to promote these ideas with a false science, that is just another ant academic argument.

 

In a much broader sense, pure egalitarianism isn't realistic for most, if not all cultures, but there must be consideration of the balance between the individual and the greater good. Rigid belief systems do not allow for these discussions, of where to draw the line. In a hunter gatherer society, that would be a different debate than what one would expect in the wealthiest societies on earth. The question becomes how do you discuss this with someone who is not interested in looking at evidence?

[Wolfhnd]

I was just pointing out hypothetically that if you did the same test in historical china the results would be reversed.

 

I did that to demonstrate the cultural divide illustrated by your question "The question becomes how do you discuss this with someone who is not interested in looking at evidence?". I'm suggesting the divide is deeper than just a failure to look at the evidence. The romantic view of the past that conservatives hold is somewhat justified in reference to systems that value obligation over innovation. It's hypocritical for us liberals to talk about valuing cultural diversity and then exclude the greatest area of cultural diversity in our own system. My suggestion is that giving equal focus to obligations and rights would help to establish a common ground.

 

I linked to paper in another post titled Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change. which sounds a lot like social engineering. Considering the conservative nature of social norms these types of approaches are going to meet with a lot of resistance. The comments from other social scientist are probably more enlightening than the paper itself but the point I would take away is that manipulation is seldom effective. If we look at other systems where obligations superseded rights such as historical China we can get an idea of how intellectually sophisticated conservatism can be. I'm not suggesting we ignore the gross social injustices of such systems only that we try and understand that the moral values expressed by liberalism lack a certain amount of sophistication. If an appeal to compassion was all that was needed then Christianity would not have been perverted and we would all live in a perfect society already. It has been my experience when interacting with conservatives that they don't reject the evidence so much as the messenger.

 

If the studies in question prove anything it is that conservatives are hard wired to be emotional. If we are going to reach them we need to demonstrate that we are concerned about more than just social injustice but a moral perspective that includes shared obligations. That the social traditions they are most fond of are authoritarian in nature implies a certain rejection of democratic principles. I think a revitalised interest in the writings of the US founding fathers, who were children of the enlightenment, may be a good place to start. The compromise we have to make is to ignore that these same men were slave holders or suffered from other human weaknesses. I think a certain amount of humility is required to realize under similar circumstances we may have behaved with as much hypocrisy. I also thing it would help if there was a renewed interest in showing that the traditions of Western civilization that evolved into liberal democracy did not originate in the US.

 

Nationalism is certainly one of the problems we face. In reflecting on this topic I recalled how little credit a history channel series gave to Europeans for the industrial revolution. That kind of misinformation is certainly another area we can address.

 

I'm not suggesting that I have any answers I'm just reflecting on years of failure to make any emotional connection with the conservatives.

 

Sorry for the long and boring dialogue but there is a certain unavoidable frustration in dealing with a foreign culture.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[MigL]

Maybe the biggest problem is the many and varied definitions of 'Conservative' values and 'liberal' values.

 

If I state that i hold some conservative values, do you naturally assume that I believe the world is 6000 yrs old ?

That I don't believe global warming is happening ?

That I favour oppressing minorities and damn the social consequences ?

I won't wade into supply side economics as I'm still not 100 % convinced nor well enough versed on the subject, and as for bombing creating extremist groups, what other people have had more bombs dropped on them than the Germans, Japonese and Vietnamese ? Where are their extremists ?

 

I personally don't appreciate having those values attributed to me, and I would imagine that there are quite a few liberals who believe in Creation or are GW dismissers ( less than conservatives but still a sizeable number ), But, oh no, we can't generalize about Liberals !

I think there is some intolerance of other's views in both Conservative AND Liberal camps, but once you define Conservative values as all those evil things, then it becomes easy to consider ALL Conservatives as evil/ self serving/intolerant and of course insane.

 

And I must admit that I find it rich, Phi for All, that you would admonish me for using the phrase " suffer fools gladly' or 'call aspade, a spade' in another thread, because it, and I quote, " assumes automatically that your judgment is true ", yet you think labelling an opposing viewpoint insane, doesn't.

[Wolfhnd]

"I disagree with the idea that liberals focus on liberalism as it is promoted by learning institutions, but that liberalism is promoted by learning institutions because the evidence supports ideas that are consistent with liberal ideals."

 

Do you really want to discuss academic standards? That is one area where I think there is a definite decline from traditional values

Edited February 10, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[swansont]

Maybe the biggest problem is the many and varied definitions of 'Conservative' values and 'liberal' values.

 

If I state that i hold some conservative values, do you naturally assume that I believe the world is 6000 yrs old ?

That I don't believe global warming is happening ?

That I favour oppressing minorities and damn the social consequences ?

I won't wade into supply side economics as I'm still not 100 % convinced nor well enough versed on the subject, and as for bombing creating extremist groups, what other people have had more bombs dropped on them than the Germans, Japonese and Vietnamese ? Where are their extremists ?

 

 

Do you vote for the politician who espouses these views, or do you vote for the other candidate?

[Ten oz]

I disagree with the idea that liberals focus on liberalism as it is promoted by learning institutions, but that liberalism is promoted by learning institutions because the evidence supports ideas that are consistent with liberal ideals. It comes down to evidence. The world is not 6000 years old, the climate is changing, oppressing minorities results in social problems that are nearly impossible to overcome, supply side economics does not result in trickle down wealth for all, and that bombing others results in extremist groups. These ideas are not promoted by universities out of favour for the ideas, but because research has shown them to be true, or at least as close to the definition of true as possible. While a caponservative would argue it's not real, and a liberal agenda to promote these ideas with a false science, that is just another ant academic argument.

In a much broader sense, pure egalitarianism isn't realistic for most, if not all cultures, but there must be consideration of the balance between the individual and the greater good. Rigid belief systems do not allow for these discussions, of where to draw the line. In a hunter gatherer society, that would be a different debate than what one would expect in the wealthiest societies on earth. The question becomes how do you discuss this with someone who is not interested in looking at evidence?

Conservative media figures haves done a good job eliminating the idea of a political middle and pushing Republicans further to the right over the last 30yrs. As a result anything that is not conservative is labelled liberal. By that loose definition universities, main stream media, and all forms of disseminating information without touting conservative values are liberal. Humans are compromising by nature. The middle always seems like fair ground. The current power structure within conservative politics understands this and manipulates by asking for many times over what they honestly want or believe. That way middle ground leans right. By current standards Nixon, Ford, Bob Dole, and many of Republican leaders of old are basically Democrats.

[Willie71]

I was just pointing out hypothetically that if you did the same test in historical china the results would be reversed.

 

I did that to demonstrate the cultural divide illustrated by your question "The question becomes how do you discuss this with someone who is not interested in looking at evidence?". I'm suggesting the divide is deeper than just a failure to look at the evidence. The romantic view of the past that conservatives hold is somewhat justified in reference to systems that value obligation over innovation. It's hypocritical for us liberals to talk about valuing cultural diversity and then exclude the greatest area of cultural diversity in our own system. My suggestion is that giving equal focus to obligations and rights would help to establish a common ground.

 

I linked to paper in another post titled Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change. which sounds a lot like social engineering. Considering the conservative nature of social norms these types of approaches are going to meet with a lot of resistance. The comments from other social scientist are probably more enlightening than the paper itself but the point I would take away is that manipulation is seldom effective. If we look at other systems where obligations superseded rights such as historical China we can get an idea of how intellectually sophisticated conservatism can be. I'm not suggesting we ignore the gross social injustices of such systems only that we try and understand that the moral values expressed by liberalism lack a certain amount of sophistication. If an appeal to compassion was all that was needed then Christianity would not have been perverted and we would all live in a perfect society already. It has been my experience when interacting with conservatives that they don't reject the evidence so much as the messenger.

 

If the studies in question prove anything it is that conservatives are hard wired to be emotional. If we are going to reach them we need to demonstrate that we are concerned about more than just social injustice but a moral perspective that includes shared obligations. That the social traditions they are most fond of are authoritarian in nature implies a certain rejection of democratic principles. I think a revitalised interest in the writings of the US founding fathers, who were children of the enlightenment, may be a good place to start. The compromise we have to make is to ignore that these same men were slave holders or suffered from other human weaknesses. I think a certain amount of humility is required to realize under similar circumstances we may have behaved with as much hypocrisy. I also thing it would help if there was a renewed interest in showing that the traditions of Western civilization that evolved into liberal democracy did not originate in the US.

 

Nationalism is certainly one of the problems we face. In reflecting on this topic I recalled how little credit a history channel series gave to Europeans for the industrial revolution. That kind of misinformation is certainly another area we can address.

 

I'm not suggesting that I have any answers I'm just reflecting on years of failure to make any emotional connection with the conservatives.

 

Sorry for the long and boring dialogue but there is a certain unavoidable frustration in dealing with a foreign culture.

 

Great response. Thank you.

On another forum, I often said that I am unaffiliated, but because I rejected the conservative rhetoric, I was labelled a liberal by the conservatives. I actually look at each individual issue, and evaluate what the evidence says. To some that means liberal.

 

Morality and ethics are fascinating. It seems to me that most conservatives use a deontological perspective. There are rigid rules that must be followed, even if the outcome is poor. Outcome is unimportant in the deontological perspective. I do think there is a dishonesty when they use a utilitarian perspective to justify there own torture, or killing of civilians in the Middle East, as the deontological values are then violated.

 

Many believe that liberals are all egalitarian, but that isn't true. Most are utilitarian. It seems the conservatives fear the utilitarian stance.

 

I have been reading a book on the process of the conservative shift to the right in America, starting with Rushdooney, and Dobson, and the influence of the evangelical Protestants. Fromm did a lot of work on the psychology of the avoidance of freedom, the strict heirarchy, and unfaltering devotion to masochistic leaders, as they save people from the moral depravity lurking around every corner. It's been eye opening, showing me how ignorant I have been in my discussions with people who hold these values. Reason is not going to have an impact. These leaders have encouraged authoritarian parenting, corporal punishment, strict moral codes creating traumatic bonding requiring authoritarian leadership in the adult world. These leaders have been brilliant.

[Wolfhnd]

"These leaders have encouraged authoritarian parenting, corporal punishment, strict moral codes creating traumatic bonding requiring authoritarian leadership in the adult world. These leaders have been brilliant."

 

If a system of hierarchical obligations is voluntary it can functions very well in the sense of stability. They fail at protecting human rights and promoting technological advancement over the long term.

 

​The important thing to remember is that the human species has committed to behavioral flexibility in an inescapable positive feedback loop. To maximize behavioral flexibility authoritarian system are usually less effective over the long term than democratic systems. Confusion over what stability means in a democratic system causes the greatest difficulty in appreciating it's potential. The type of stability we are talking about is the ability to adapt to change in a steady but apparently disorganized way. As I have explained species that invest in perfecting one design do well if the environment doesn't change. It seems clear that due to the need for cooperation and compromise democracies may be slower to change than authoritarian systems but tend to do better in the long run. Change disrupts authoritarian systems in ways they cannot adapt to.

 

 

[overtone]

and I would imagine that there are quite a few liberals who believe in Creation or are GW dismissers

The current batch of conservatives is fond of making hypothetical assertions like that, about the beliefs of "liberals". The problems start when they remember these goofy speculations as if they had been originally observations of reality.

 

It's not true that a supposed "liberal" President would have invaded Iraq, that a "liberal" Congress would have written and passed the Patriot Act, that "liberal" Justices would have ruled as the current batch did on Citizens United, that "liberals" are just as racially bigoted as everyone else, that "liberals" are authority dependent for their opinions in the same way as "conservatives", and so forth.

 

 

 

 

Many believe that liberals are all egalitarian, but that isn't true. Most are utilitarian. It seems the conservatives fear the utilitarian stance.

The "liberal" dependence on the utilitarian stance -> as prescription, mandate, the role of the rules in the "deontological perspective" <- is clearly visible to most "conservatives", by observation and projection. In this role the utilitarian approach is weak, unreliable, betraying, subject to self-deception and special pleading, essentially no morality at all - and that is what the "conservatives" see.

 

They regard, for example, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" as a program for tyranny, robbery of the productive by force; a prescription for the application of State power by the self-deceived and compromised against the honest and valuable. And viewed this way (and how often is it an accurate way?), the utilitarian stance is something to be feared by us all.

 

The utilitarian approach as generating criteria for evaluation, rather than prescriptions for use of force, is invisible to US conservatives unless explicitly presented to them, because it's not a morality. And here is where reason has a role, and conservatives should not be abandoned to emotionally manipulative marketing efforts of little intellectual integrity.

 

It is possible to argue for utilitarian reasoning as generating criteria for evaluation, rather than justification of State power application, and thereby defuse the "conservative" perception of utilitarian thinking in "liberals" - since it is, often, accurate.

 

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is, after all, an incontrovertible and universally accepted criterion for evaluating a given political system. Nobody wants to live under a regime in which ability lacks opportunity, and needs go unmet. So there's a common ground available via reason.

Edited February 10, 2015 by overtone

[Phi for All]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is, after all, an incontrovertible and universally accepted criterion for evaluating a given political system. Nobody wants to live under a regime in which ability lacks opportunity, and needs go unmet. So there's a common ground available via reason.

 

I've often found there is more common ground than most perspectives can see. Nobody wants people to starve. And nobody wants freeloaders diminishing public funds, either.

 

Now if we could only agree that it's the poor that are starving, and the rich that are diminishing public funds, we could fix it.

[MigL]

Valid point swansont, but of course I vote for the politician who best represents me and my world view. I have and continue to vote Liberal and Conservative, as I see fit

Keeping in mind that the Canadian system is different, am I glad Obama won the last election ? Of course !

Would it have been a tighter race, or even a different finish, in the previous election had McCain gone for substance over appearance, and selected someone like Condolizza Rice as his running mate ? I don't know, but had I been American, he would have probably gotten my vote, at the time. Hidsight and the direction of the Republican party may have now changed my mind, but if they had won the election, the party may now be on a totally different course ( with a lot less radicals ).

We look at all previous presidents with the benefit of hind sight, and I've always said the realities of office are different than the campaign. No president wants to be remembered as a bad person, or the person that screwed up, but life and circumstances happen. It could be argued that even Nixon was a good president ( I remember the kitchen photo where he's poking N. Khruschef in the chest, arguing for our way of life vs. the Communist system ), unfortunately, he got cought. The darling of the left, JFK, never did get cought, but he was certainly no angel.

 

But back to what I was trying to say...

How would all of you, self professed liberals, like it if I asserted that all of you hold the same values as the loony, left wingnuts that infest Hollywood and Celebrityville.

People like Bono, who has long argued we should forgive African debt, as their poverty will only fuel radicalism and extremism. Yet he leaves Ireland so he doesn't have to pay the high taxes on his fortune. Because of course, Ireland has no radical extremists.

Or people like James Cameron who makes a thinly disguised and simplistic propaganda film like Avatar, in which he espouse that we should all commune with nature against capitalism and violence. And Al Gore, who lib celebrities fall all over themselves to award a Nobel prize to. I would bet Cameron's and Gore's carbon footprint combined, would be just slightly smaller than a small country.

Or someone like Neal Young ( singer/songwriter ) who thinks his home country is destroying the world by developing the western oilsands, yet is perfectly fine with buying Middle East oil, where countries like Iran burn enough natural gas, as a byproduct of oil extraction, to provide a small country's power needs. Enabling violence aside, does that not release CO2 ?

And any other celebrity who believes that being famous makes them an expert on everything, and their opinion more valid/valuable than common people.

 

Are these the values you hold ?

Should I characterize you as having those values because you ( as do I ) agree with some other liberal values ?

I don't think so.

Just like I don't think we should characterize all who hold some conservative values as insane.

 

But that's just my opinion, and obviously I'm outvoted, so I always say I'm going to stop contributing to this ( and the other ) topic.

But just like the mob...

"Everytime I try to get out, they pull me back in !"

[Wolfhnd]

 

I've often found there is more common ground than most perspectives can see. Nobody wants people to starve. And nobody wants freeloaders diminishing public funds, either.

 

Now if we could only agree that it's the poor that are starving, and the rich that are diminishing public funds, we could fix it.

 

To each according to their ability, and to each according to their need seems more valid to me.

 

If you confuse public funds with public resources you could probably get away with saying the rich that are diminishing public resources. The problem is more complex however and represents a lack of ethics at all levels of society. Funds are only one way of measuring poverty and we have a "spiritual" as well as physical poverty cycle in which one is represented by the other. Redistribution of wealth by an authoritarian government is not likely to reduce the chaos.

[overtone]

 

 

How would all of you, self professed liberals, like it if I asserted that all of you hold the same values as the loony, left wingnuts that infest Hollywood and Celebrityville

You mean Mel Gibson, Ronald Reagan, Arnold S, Clint Eastwood,

 

"Liberals" don't elect incompetent celebrities to serious office. "Conservatives" do.

 

So what do the "values" matter?

 

You can assert anything you want to, but doing so in the face of evidence and reality is one of the symptoms we have been noting that indicate some kind of mental problem common to US "conservatives" these days.

 

 

Would it have been a tighter race, or even a different finish, in the previous election had McCain gone for substance over appearance, and selected someone like Condolizza Rice as his running mate ? I don't know, but had I been American, he would have probably gotten my vote, at the time. Hidsight and the direction of the Republican party may have now changed my mind, -

The US Republican Party hasn't changed in any significant way since Reagan's election in 1980. If hindsight and the Party's direction didn't sway you in 1988 after reviewing Reagan's spinout, it's not going to in 2014.

 

 

Redistribution of wealth by an authoritarian government is not likely to reduce the chaos. Redistribution of wealth by a democratic government acting in the best interests of the country is likely to help a lot - it always has in the past.

[Phi for All]

To each according to their ability, and to each according to their need seems more valid to me.

I wasn't offering anything to replace it.

 

If you confuse public funds with public resources you could probably get away with saying the rich that are diminishing public resources. The problem is more complex however and represents a lack of ethics at all levels of society. Funds are only one way of measuring poverty and we have a "spiritual" as well as physical poverty cycle in which one is represented by the other. Redistribution of wealth by an authoritarian government is not likely to reduce the chaos.

What are subsidies on well-established industries, like oil and sugar, if not diminishing public funds directly? Wealthy corporations are moving headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes that pay for things that the wealthy use the most, like highways and airports, and at the same time they're lobbying against minimum wage hikes and welfare.

 

That's probably not political conservatism, it's just what their CFOs told them would make some extra profit.

 

Why do so many people play the "redistribute the wealth" card when it comes to repairing the inequality? It seems like an attempt at a strawman argument. If you're talking about taking someone's money they've already earned and redistributing it among the rest of us, I don't know anyone who's arguing for that. Changing the tax laws, tying wages back to productivity, this is the type of redistribution I'd like to see, and we know it will work because it already has.

 

And try that money-isn't-everything line on someone who has no money. They aren't that worried about their spirituality.

[Wolfhnd]

"Why do so many people play the "redistribute the wealth" card when it comes to repairing the inequality? It seems like an attempt at a strawman argument. If you're talking about taking someone's money they've already earned and redistributing it among the rest of us, I don't know anyone who's arguing for that. Changing the tax laws, tying wages back to productivity, this is the type of redistribution I'd like to see, and we know it will work because it already has."

 

There is a difference between moral imperatives and fairness. I don't think I have to explain the difference.

 

If you had read my comments careful you would have notice that the implications was that in an ethical society many of the rich would not be so rich and many of the poor would not be so poor. The strawman is the suggestion that redistribution will solve all the problems. We get so hung up on how language is misused that we make assumptions about what was implied.

 

I did use redistribution of wealth on purpose however to illustrate the above point and to illustrate how taking something out of historical context can be misleading. Marx was no dummy and he revised his theories constantly, if he was a live today his ideas would be hardly recognizable as coming from the same man. I think the same can be said of Christianity but that is a long story. Blessed are the poor because their's is the kingdom of heaven and the poor will always be with us is just another way of saying that loving they neighbor is not a political solution.

 

My argument is very simple: Societies cannot be based on laws alone but are dependant on the morality of all their citizens. Nobody gets excused or excepted. In our Western societies the rich get excluded by default or resources and the poor are not held accountable because of a misguided ideas about social responsibility.

 

Feeding, clothing and housing the poor are moral imperatives, how that is to be done is more complicated. I personally believe it is the responsibility of the government but expecting an amoral institution to do it without undesirable side effects is simplistic,

[Ten oz]

Would it have been a tighter race, or even a different finish, in the previous election had McCain gone for substance over appearance, and selected someone like Condolizza Rice as his running mate ?

 

Candidates don't change the demographics. Pretty much across the board every voting demo (black, white, Latino, Asian, female, gay, jewish, etc) votes the same margins. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama all got +\- 38% of the white vote and 90% of the black vote for example. All 4 were very different candidates. What has changed over time is the share of the overall vote each specific demo has. Given the demographics and historical tends it is highly unlikely McCain wins regardless of who his running mate was. Candidates don't swing the demographics.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

 

How would all of you, self professed liberals, like it if I asserted that all of you hold the same values as the loony, left wingnuts that infest Hollywood and Celebrityville.

 

As Overtone pointed out celebrities are allowed premier positions within conservative circles. Not just that but what are pundits like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbraugh, Ann Coulture, Megan Kelly, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, tec, etc, etc, ad nauseam other than celebrities? There job is hosting radio shows, TV shows, writing op-eds, and anything else that gets them attention. At least Bonu bothers to sings for a living, lol.

 

I would bet Cameron's and Gore's carbon footprint combined, would be just slightly smaller than a small country.

Or someone like Neal Young ( singer/songwriter ) who thinks his home country is destroying the world by developing the western oilsands, yet is perfectly fine with buying Middle East oil, where countries like Iran burn enough natural gas, as a byproduct of oil extraction, to provide a small country's power needs. Enabling violence aside, does that not release CO2 ?

There has to be a balance between trying to change the status qou and using high emission things like planes to travel and get the word out. If Gore, Young, or Cameron chose to live in tree huts and not use any energy that produced CO2 do you honestly believe that would have a bigger impact than what they are currently doing?

 

 

 

And any other celebrity who believes that being famous makes them an expert on everything, and their opinion more valid/valuable than common people.

Celebrities don't tend to be the ones forming the large superpacs to ensure opinions are treated with more value than common peoples.

[Wolfhnd]

I want to clear up some misconceptions I may have left.

 

First I was appealing to a more sophisticated approach that down played the traditional ideas of personal morality and addressed the much more complicated ideas surrounding public morality. Marx and Christianity for me represent great philosophical advances in the views of society but taken out of historical context they can be misleading. I think everyone should read Marx especially his latter writings and project the man into the 21st century to see how current conditions would alter his views.

 

When I said the straw man was thinking that redistribution of wealth alone would solve our problems I meant that it may have been suggesting that was part of Phi for All's argument. It simply reflects my frustration that this form of communications doesn't allow for understanding each other very well.

 

I made some suggestions in the Inequitable distribution of wealth thread that I think would be easier to dissect than our personal philosophies.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[MigL]

But I've agreed many times that there are conservative wingnuts Ten oz.

I just assert that there are also liberal ones.

 

That doesn't however, justify me calling ALL liberals insane, does it ?

[Ten oz]

But I've agreed many times that there are conservative wingnuts Ten oz.

I just assert that there are also liberal ones.

 

That doesn't however, justify me calling ALL liberals insane, does it ?

I don't know that I consider Al gore or Neil Young trying to shine a light on climate change wingnut behavior. I also don't think Bonu trying to help starving people in Africa is wingnut behavior. Perhaps you have better examples? Something where liberals are advocating against scientific facts or for things that will hurt people.

 

Obviously there is a fringe on bothsides. For example most white supremacists vote conservative. I do not believe it is fair to say white supremacist beliefs are prominent amongst all conservatives. I don't think anyone here is conflating the fringe right with the mainstream though? Please educate me if I am mistaken. So majority vs majority what do the two sides advocate?