What are the philosophical differences between conservative and liberals?

[wufan]

Why can't people agree on the proper course of action to make things better? What is the common ground?

To start, who do we care about? Are you concerned about the human race? Those that reside in America? Your fellow Americans?Your gender? Your race? Your family? Who is most important or least important? Do we have a moral obligation to impose our truth on others? Is morality subjective?

These questions need to be asked and answered before a common ground can be had.

[Dave Stalwart]

Hopefully this thread can avoid becoming a train wreck. Im actually very interested

[wufan]

It's rather straight forward and not horribly provocative, so it isn't likely to take off as a thread. The sad reality is that many people haven't thought about these things. Why do I believe in Black Life's Matter one might ask? Perhaps because they see an inequality that needs to be rectified. Nothing wrong with that. But, why do they identify with a race of people rather than people in general? Perhaps they believe that all people that suffer inequality deserve a voice. Nothing wrong with that. Well is inequality a subject of circumstance or a subject of will? Regardless of the answer, what should be done? Do protests change the world or do ideas? What ideas are out there to solve this? What should be done? How would this fix the situation and who are the winners and losers? How does one validate that one group should win and another should lose? If there's already winners and losers, then what does flipping the standings do? Now there are new winners and losers...do you side with the new winners? What's the cost to society as a whole? Should we give up on trying to change things?

Important stuff.

[Wuchalk]

u

Why can't people agree on the proper course of action to make things better? What is the common ground?

To start, who do we care about? Are you concerned about the human race? Those that reside in America? Your fellow Americans?Your gender? Your race? Your family? Who is most important or least important? Do we have a moral obligation to impose our truth on others? Is morality subjective?


These questions need to be asked and answered before a common ground can be had.

Excellent question, and it needs thoughtful answers, with no name-calling.

[Aargh]

Let me start with just the first question, give you an opinion and I believe you will be able to see rather quickly that finding a common ground is unlikely.

I care about everybody. I realize some are better able to take care of themselves than others. Those heavily invested in the stock market are quite able to take care of themselves. Those working for minimum wage are less able to take care of themselves.

It's possible for some working for low wages to better themselves, but we have a huge demand for minimum wage earners. For every low income person who betters their earnings, our economy is simply going to replace them with another minimum wage earner.

Low wage earners tend to marry (or not) other low wage earners, and then have children because there isn't money in their budget for other forms of entertainment. Then we end up with two minimum wage earners trying to raise a family, and that's not going to work.

Now back to my original premise: I care about everybody.

I see no problem asking those who are easily able to take care of themselves to give some of what they have to help those who are unable to take care of their family needs. The alternative is to raise the minimum wage. Personal charity to help those in need is by far preferable, but I see little evidence of that happening at sufficient levels. I see a lot more of "I got mine - go get your own". Unfortunately for many in the USA, that just is not possible. Our economy has a huge demand for low income workers.

I don't want to see people poisoned or damaged by their environment. Some of the rules in the EPA are a result of Love Canal and Times Beach. Before there were some rather strict and cumbersome regulations, people were being killed by financially economic methods of disposing of toxins. OSHA came into existence because workers were being injured and killed on their jobs when there were ways to protect them that weren't being used.

OSHA and the EPA both have bloat and overly burdensome rules. I have no problem with reviewing those agencies and scaling them back. I have a huge problem with simply eliminating them, which seems to be an agenda item for Tea Party conservatives and Libertarians. Those groups seem to have control of the Republican party right now.

[wufan]

Let me start with just the first question, give you an opinion and I believe you will be able to see rather quickly that finding a common ground is unlikely.

I care about everybody. I realize some are better able to take care of themselves than others. Those heavily invested in the stock market are quite able to take care of themselves. Those working for minimum wage are less able to take care of themselves.

It's possible for some working for low wages to better themselves, but we have a huge demand for minimum wage earners. For every low income person who betters their earnings, our economy is simply going to replace them with another minimum wage earner.

Low wage earners tend to marry (or not) other low wage earners, and then have children because there isn't money in their budget for other forms of entertainment. Then we end up with two minimum wage earners trying to raise a family, and that's not going to work.

Now back to my original premise: I care about everybody.

I see no problem asking those who are easily able to take care of themselves to give some of what they have to help those who are unable to take care of their family needs. The alternative is to raise the minimum wage. Personal charity to help those in need is by far preferable, but I see little evidence of that happening at sufficient levels. I see a lot more of "I got mine - go get your own". Unfortunately for many in the USA, that just is not possible. Our economy has a huge demand for low income workers.

I don't want to see people poisoned or damaged by their environment. Some of the rules in the EPA are a result of Love Canal and Times Beach. Before there were some rather strict and cumbersome regulations, people were being killed by financially economic methods of disposing of toxins. OSHA came into existence because workers were being injured and killed on their jobs when there were ways to protect them that weren't being used.

OSHA and the EPA both have bloat and overly burdensome rules. I have no problem with reviewing those agencies and scaling them back. I have a huge problem with simply eliminating them, which seems to be an agenda item for Tea Party conservatives and Libertarians. Those groups seem to have control of the Republican party right now.

Good! You care about everyone. I think we all do. Are you more or less concerned about your children then Joe Smith in North Dakota? What about the minimum wage earner in Ethiopia? In Ethiopia, that means you share a box with nine relatives. Should we give them money instead of the people in the US? Minimum wage earners in the US have a house and money. Why are they more important than the Ethiopians? Your own children?

I don't know what all you have and don't have, but at a minimum you have access to internet. Wouldn't it be better if you gave more money to Ethiopia's government so that they wouldn't have to live in a box?

[wu_shizzle]

[Aargh]

Good! You care about everyone. I think we all do. Are you more or less concerned about your children then Joe Smith in North Dakota? What about the minimum wage earner in Ethiopia? In Ethiopia, that means you share a box with nine relatives. Should we give them money instead of the people in the US? Minimum wage earners in the US have a house and money. Why are they more important than the Ethiopians? Your own children?

I don't know what all you have and don't have, but at a minimum you have access to internet. Wouldn't it be better if you gave more money to Ethiopia's government so that they wouldn't have to live in a box?

Until we have all the people here fed - and fed pretty well - I'm not terribly concerned about Ethiopia.

When I was a kid in Sunday School someone asked the teacher why God would let people in Africa die of starvation in famines. The answer was the opinion of the teacher, but it made sense to a bunch of kids. When there are more people somewhere than there is enough food to feed them, God takes some of them so those left have enough to eat.

We produce enough food to feed our own.

I'm not big on foreign aid. We've set ourselves up for extortion. Any time we want some concessions or agreement with another country, we've established a pattern of paying for that.

[wufan]

Until we have all the people here fed - and fed pretty well - I'm not terribly concerned about Ethiopia.

When I was a kid in Sunday School someone asked the teacher why God would let people in Africa die of starvation in famines. The answer was the opinion of the teacher, but it made sense to a bunch of kids. When there are more people somewhere than there is enough food to feed them, God takes some of them so those left have enough to eat.

We produce enough food to feed our own.

I'm not big on foreign aid. We've set ourselves up for extortion. Any time we want some concessions or agreement with another country, we've established a pattern of paying for that.

So there are boundaries. Those you take care of and those you don't. I asked a rather absurd question because "I care about everyone" is too broad to be meaningful. Who do you take care of, as in what group is it your responsibility to provide care? Who is outside that group and what's the distinction?

[ShockCrazy]

I really like this topic and have had some of these same thoughts and questions but was unsure how it would be received. I think all people matter no matter where you were born or who you were born to. Getting everyone in the world to a standard of living that allows for personal achievement is more important to me than making sure all Americans reach a higher standard than that. People are people to me.

I really like the chart above and think it's a good way to get a rough idea on where you stand policy wise but at least for the US it does leave out the layers of government. Basically I think at a federal level it should be governed near a classic liberal level or even minarchism with the local governments reaching just short of socialism with the state level in between. I think we should provide for people but I think people closer to the situation are better able to identify risks and needs in their individual communities. Now comparatively some communities will be better off than others and so there should be some balancing done through the layers. But I'm wholly opposed to the federal government saying here this money but it's only for x. Money distributed should be unconditional. And yes state and local governments will screw it up sometimes, but that's on us then.

Now this probably won't work because people aren't invested enough in their communities or local elections, but it's an ideal.

[Aargh]

So there are boundaries. Those you take care of and those you don't. I asked a rather absurd question because "I care about everyone" is too broad to be meaningful. Who do you take care of, as in what group is it your responsibility to provide care? Who is outside that group and what's the distinction?

Yeah, there are boundaries. I'm pretty big on taking care of everyone in our country. I'm much less enthusiastic about taking care of people in other countries.

I think we were much too kind to Germany and Japan after WWII. Our deal with Japan was particularly self-destructive. We demanded that they not spend a penny on military. We ended up spending more on our own military in order to defend them. Meanwhile they took all the money they had spent on their military and spent it on building their industry.

Then Japan took advantage of a problem in American manufacturing. American car makers were building cars intended to only last a few years so that more cars could be sold. Japan used the influx of cash they had from not being allowed to provide their military defense and used it to produce a better automotive product than American manufacturers were producing. That reduced demand for American steel and American automobiles, which was step one in creating the Rust Belt.

[wufan]

Yeah, there are boundaries. I'm pretty big on taking care of everyone in our country. I'm much less enthusiastic about taking care of people in other countries.

I think we were much too kind to Germany and Japan after WWII. Our deal with Japan was particularly self-destructive. We demanded that they not spend a penny on military. We ended up spending more on our own military in order to defend them. Meanwhile they took all the money they had spent on their military and spent it on building their industry.

Then Japan took advantage of a problem in American manufacturing. American car makers were building cars intended to only last a few years so that more cars could be sold. Japan used the influx of cash they had from not being allowed to provide their military defense and used it to produce a better automotive product than American manufacturers were producing. That reduced demand for American steel and American automobiles, which was step one in creating the Rust Belt.

Does everyone in this country include people that are here illeagally?

[wufan]

I really like this topic and have had some of these same thoughts and questions but was unsure how it would be received. I think all people matter no matter where you were born or who you were born to. Getting everyone in the world to a standard of living that allows for personal achievement is more important to me than making sure all Americans reach a higher standard than that. People are people to me.

I really like the chart above and think it's a good way to get a rough idea on where you stand policy wise but at least for the US it does leave out the layers of government. Basically I think at a federal level it should be governed near a classic liberal level or even minarchism with the local governments reaching just short of socialism with the state level in between. I think we should provide for people but I think people closer to the situation are better able to identify risks and needs in their individual communities. Now comparatively some communities will be better off than others and so there should be some balancing done through the layers. But I'm wholly opposed to the federal government saying here this money but it's only for x. Money distributed should be unconditional. And yes state and local governments will screw it up sometimes, but that's on us then.

Now this probably won't work because people aren't invested enough in their communities or local elections, but it's an ideal.

Take care of everyone everywhere. So you are in favor of a global government that borders on socialism? Please clarify if I've over-stepped, but the purpose of government is to serve it's citizens in a mutual contract.

[ShockCrazy]

Take care of everyone everywhere. So you are in favor of a global government that borders on socialism? Please clarify if I've over-stepped, but the purpose of government is to serve it's citizens in a mutual contract.

No I do not support a global government at all. Read on to my government stance. By helping everyone I mean at a personal level though charity and such and how I spend my money.

[wufan]

No I do not support a global government at all. Read on to my government stance. By helping everyone I mean at a personal level though charity and such and how I spend my money.

Sorry, I misread that in a big way! Balancing different communities. How do we go about that? If we provide equal opportunity and some fail, who's fault is that and how do we mitigate it? Is there a fundamental problem with winners and losers? Are communities define by proximity, belief structures, or heritage?