What are the philosophical differences between conservative and liberals?

[ShockCrazy]

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?

It's certainly difficult, some will fail. There is a certain point where it falls on the citizens to adapt or move on. I look at something like a failing coal town, yes, we should help them. But it is on that community to understand that they need to use that aid to either spur other development or help citizens move on. Currently I think that to often support is provided in such a narrow way that it doesn't necessarily help as much as it could.

There is no problem with winners and losers when losing was a consequence of your/their own inaction or action. With the current large bloated federal government, it creates a system where some winners and losers are created in the negotiation of political capital and power instead of by those States or cities themselves.

[WuDrWu]

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.

There are 4 reasons I think things have become more polarized in this country in recent years.

1)Everyone has a voice. The explosion of the information age combined with social media and the first generation to only know this becoming engaged as adults and we have a growing populace that believe their voice must be heard and that they have the answers everyone else has missed. This has accelerated the explosion of every subsection of society claiming some sort of oppression and government kowtowing to their wants. We've gone from a safety net to a welfare state. According to the CDC, over 40% of all American births are to unmarried women. More than 70% of births to black Americans are to single mothers. Those are insane numbers. It's a collapse of the family, and by FAR the biggest reason is a welfare state that rewards the irresponsibility.

2)People believe government exists to make things better. You do that by fixing things and spending money. Not spending money isn't fixing anything. If some is good, more is better. This has led to the Tea Party that represented a group of people that had been ignored who said it's not responsible to choose between some and more. We can get better without spending more. Most people can't fathom that truism.

3)Because there became a voice of "no more" or (shudders at the thought) "even less", the discussions went from mostly civil (with the choices between some more or a lot more) to strongly adverse (with the options now including less or none). Look at discussions today....we yell at each other and tell you how stupid and wrong you are far more often than arguing the merits of our own beliefs. It's so much easier and sadly, more fun, to point out other's faults than defend our own beliefs and values. Unfortunately, for conservatives like myself, it's close to a no win scenario for us. I don't want help. I want to succeed or fail on my own accord and those of my family. I'm not asking for much if anything. That's fine for me, but what if you don't? I'm happy to walk away and be left alone for the most part. But the vast majority of others want something.

4)A systemic shift away from core basic human values. Family, self reliance, faith. All these things are now openly ridiculed and in some cases considered fringe thinking.


I'm not sure I gave you an answer to your question though.

I care about children. I care about those that are incapable of helping themselves. I care almost nothing for adults that have few problems outside of laziness and stupidity.

From the viewpoint of Government, I want the needle moved a lot from a world view to a national view. I have no problem helping others, but that should be more for charities and individuals. We do a shitty job caring for those in our country that actually do need and deserve help. Why in the world do we think we can do a better job of it in other countries?

I couldn't care less about anyone's "race" or gender. Be a responsible and ethical person and don't infringe upon others. Ask a question of yourself before you ever ask it of another. If we were all less selfish, and for the record I believe I am guilty of selfishness too, a bunch of problems would be minimized rapidly.

Edit: I want to address the immigration hot button, because I don't think "my viewpoint" is properly or fairly represented. I have no problem with immigrants from all over the world. It's a big part of what makes this country great. Even as a white, call me privileged if you want, middle class, middle aged, middle American, I can proudly and lovingly count Bosnians, Iranians, Canadians, Nigerians, Brits, Japanese, Finnish and Jordanians among friends. I think that's pretty remarkable considering my background. But follow the rules (as most of these people I know did, and THEY WANT others to as well). Clearly we have an issue with too many immigrants being a drain on society in one way or the other. Just follow the rules, and be a productive member of society, the exact some thing I ask of myself and my fellow American. Shoot, I would even advocate for a more "robust" (I hate using that word) entrance package for those in need. But make it a one time only or a very short term thing. After that you're on your own.

[wufan]

It's certainly difficult, some will fail. There is a certain point where it falls on the citizens to adapt or move on. I look at something like a failing coal town, yes, we should help them. But it is on that community to understand that they need to use that aid to either spur other development or help citizens move on. Currently I think that to often support is provided in such a narrow way that it doesn't necessarily help as much as it could.

There is no problem with winners and losers when losing was a consequence of your/their own inaction or action. With the current large bloated federal government, it creates a system where some winners and losers are created in the negotiation of political capital and power instead of by those States or cities themselves.

Based on your example, I assume a community is based on proximity, I.e. They should move on if there is failure. What is failure? Relative poverty, absolute poverty, some other circumstance such as lack of opportunity?

[Aargh]

Some of the questions coming back after people express pinions are "gotcha" questions.

On the subject of illegals. There are good chunks of our economy that are dependent on undocumented workers. Get rid of them and the price of produce will go up and crops will rot in the fields. getting rid of illegals is nothing but lip service to those who want to see them all deported. We're about 30 or 40 years too late to do anything about the illegals. When the problem first became apparent there were murmurs of getting rid of them, but they worked cheap and mostly worked pretty hard.

Behind closed doors, the people hiring them DID NOT want to shut off that supply of cheap labor, so we left the door open. If the people hiring them would have been prosecuted, that would have stemmed the flow, but that didn't happen. A good friend of mine who is a little right of the Tea Party hates illegals, but when it comes to needing some work on his yard, guess who he hires because the guy worked really cheap? How did he find the illegal? His friends at the country club knew the connections.

At a time when the government in Kansas was making all sorts of noise about getting rid of illegals (maybe 25 years ago), a friend of mine worked in a driver's license office. She noticed that she was issuing licenses to a lot of Spanish-speaking people who all listed the same address. Sometimes up to 50 licenses. When she noticed this, she informed her superiors in Topeka. Their response? They fired her and specifically mentioned that reporting illegals was not part of her job.

Then there's this little loophole in our Constitution that says that if you're born within our borders, you are a citizen with all the rights of any other citizen. There probably should have been an exception for those born here whose parents were here illegally, but that's not in there. One of the solutions to that problem that I've seen suggested is to deport the parent, but the kids can stay. Really?

But let me go back to my main philosophy here. If there weren't jobs for illegals here, there wouldn't be illegals here. It's really easy to find them. Just go check out the papers of roofing crews, people harvesting produce, landscaping companies, or advertise for a live-in nanny or maid. When something is easy to find, but never gets found, it leads me to believe that no one is actually looking. We're getting a lot of smoke blown up our ass so politicians can sound tough while they're not about to cut off the cheap labor source.

[Dan]

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.

What exactly is "taking care of people"? Eradicating disease and ensuring they have clean drinking water? The world has different standards of living, it's all relative to what you are accustomed to.

[ShockCrazy]

There are 4 reasons I think things have become more polarized in this country in recent years.

1)Everyone has a voice. The explosion of the information age combined with social media and the first generation to only know this becoming engaged as adults and we have a growing populace that believe their voice must be heard and that they have the answers everyone else has missed. This has accelerated the explosion of every subsection of society claiming some sort of oppression and government kowtowing to their wants. We've gone from a safety net to a welfare state. According to the CDC, over 40% of all American births are to unmarried women. More than 70% of births to black Americans are to single mothers. Those are insane numbers. It's a collapse of the family, and by FAR the biggest reason is a welfare state that rewards the irresponsibility.

I whole-heartedly disagree that more people having a say has anything to do with the polarization of the country. The country is vastly moderate yet, yes our politicians and government have become much more polarized. This has waaay more to do with our election system of first past the post than people having opinions and caring. If you want a simplified high level explanation of why the polarization happens watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

[wufan]

What exactly is "taking care of people"? Eradicating disease and ensuring they have clean drinking water? The world has different standards of living, it's all relative to what you are accustomed to.

I don't think it's relative, but I do think that people define it differently. Defining it is an important part of coming to a solution.

[wufan]

Some of the questions coming back after people express pinions are "gotcha" questions.

On the subject of illegals. There are good chunks of our economy that are dependent on undocumented workers. Get rid of them and the price of produce will go up and crops will rot in the fields. getting rid of illegals is nothing but lip service to those who want to see them all deported. We're about 30 or 40 years too late to do anything about the illegals. When the problem first became apparent there were murmurs of getting rid of them, but they worked cheap and mostly worked pretty hard.

Behind closed doors, the people hiring them DID NOT want to shut off that supply of cheap labor, so we left the door open. If the people hiring them would have been prosecuted, that would have stemmed the flow, but that didn't happen. A good friend of mine who is a little right of the Tea Party hates illegals, but when it comes to needing some work on his yard, guess who he hires because the guy worked really cheap? How did he find the illegal? His friends at the country club knew the connections.

At a time when the government in Kansas was making all sorts of noise about getting rid of illegals (maybe 25 years ago), a friend of mine worked in a driver's license office. She noticed that she was issuing licenses to a lot of Spanish-speaking people who all listed the same address. Sometimes up to 50 licenses. When she noticed this, she informed her superiors in Topeka. Their response? They fired her and specifically mentioned that reporting illegals was not part of her job.

Then there's this little loophole in our Constitution that says that if you're born within our borders, you are a citizen with all the rights of any other citizen. There probably should have been an exception for those born here whose parents were here illegally, but that's not in there. One of the solutions to that problem that I've seen suggested is to deport the parent, but the kids can stay. Really?

But let me go back to my main philosophy here. If there weren't jobs for illegals here, there wouldn't be illegals here. It's really easy to find them. Just go check out the papers of roofing crews, people harvesting produce, landscaping companies, or advertise for a live-in nanny or maid. When something is easy to find, but never gets found, it leads me to believe that no one is actually looking. We're getting a lot of smoke blown up our ass so politicians can sound tough while they're not about to cut off the cheap labor source.

I'm not particularly skilled at presenting all others beliefs on an Internet forum, thus I resorted to playing the protagonist in hopes that others would define their beliefs. Unfortunately, this tends towards the "gotcha" appearance, which is not my true intention. Thank you for obliging me!

Your response above is perfectly rationale. All people in the US are part of our community. When you stated you cared about all people, what you meant was that you cared most for all Americans. It was further important to clarify how you drew that line. You care about all people living in America. That's your boundary. So to further clarify your ideas, are illeagals entitled to equal rights and equal social benefits to people that are legally recognized as citizens?

[Dan]

I don't think it's relative, but I do think that people define it differently. Defining it is an important part of coming to a solution.

how is it not relative? A guy sleeping on a dirt floor in a hut probably thinks a guy living in a mobile home is rich. All depends on your per perspective and circumstances.

[wufan]

how is it not relative? A guy sleeping on a dirt floor in a hut probably thinks a guy living in a mobile home is rich. All depends on your per perspective and circumstances.

I agree that people see poverty/wealth relatively. I'm middle class. The guy with the bigger house is rich. Pretty common. Analytically you can look at poverty relatively or absolutely. Should out of work coal miners get less support since they are middle class relative to their neighbor? Should their be a threshold?

[Dan]

I agree that people see poverty/wealth relatively. I'm middle class. The guy with the bigger house is rich. Pretty common. Analytically you can look at poverty relatively or absolutely. Should out of work coal miners get less support since they are middle class relative to their neighbor? Should their be a threshold?

I guess I don't understand if you're looking at this from a national or global perspective.

[shocka khan]

how is it not relative? A guy sleeping on a dirt floor in a hut probably thinks a guy living in a mobile home is rich. All depends on your per perspective and circumstances.

Yup, and the guy who owns an Gulfstrream looks down his nose at the guy who has a Cessna citation on time share.

It's all relative, even when you get to 'those levels'.

[wufan]

I guess I don't understand if you're looking at this from a national or global perspective.

That's kinda the point about the boundaries. Who are you going to help and to what level? The bottom 15% in America are in the wealthiest 20% for all of human history, yet they are in relative poverty. Who do you help and how much? If you use relative poverty as your marker, then you have to look at everyone. Is it fair that middle class Americans don't have as much as wealthy Americans? Everyone draws a boundary somewhere. Not everyone looks at "need" in absolute terms. What is the scope of people for which we are responsible? Are we responsible for insuring everyone is equal or that everyone has something? How much?

I think that "safety nets" need to be set at an absolute level. There is a bare minimum that everyone needs. Looking at it relatively leads to a less fortunate class questioning why they aren't getting more.

[wufan]

One thing that I think is common to liberals and conservatives is that they both care about people, especially those that are less fortunate. Where it gets more complex is where do you draw the line and why. That seems to be the battlefield we are on. Who is deserving of our generosity? How much? Who should pay? How should it be provided.

[Aargh]

One thing that I think is common to liberals and conservatives is that they both care about people, especially those that are less fortunate. Where it gets more complex is where do you draw the line and why. That seems to be the battlefield we are on. Who is deserving of our generosity? How much? Who should pay? How should it be provided.

Excuse me.

Conservatives in the House just passed legislation that would take 23 million people who are "less fortunate" and essentially deny them insurance coverage. That is NOT caring about people. Then they had a huge celebration and photo op in the Rose Garden with everybody smiling and giving each other high fives.

After I got hit with cancer, I went from season ticket holder to one of the "less fortunate". I saw first hand how the "less fortunate" are treated. I spent several years with a bit of a cloud hanging over my head. If my wife got sick, we would have several possibilities. Losing our home and facing bankruptcy or she dies were the obvious results of her having any medical problems. Go through a couple years of that and see if your attitude maybe changes a bit about the "less fortunate" and how conservatives care about them.

I was absolutely uninsurable. My decision was to not seek medical care if I had any medical problems. I wasn't about to spend my few remaining funds on medical care and leave my wife penniless if I was to have a medical problem. My death was the financially sound decision if I got sick or had a recurrence of my cancer. Facing and making that decision is a life-changing experience. Unless you've been there, you cannot have a clue about being one of the "less fortunate".

Conservatives in Kansas refuse to provide insurance to 150,000 "less fortunate" residents, even though the Fed would pay for it and it would keep a bunch of hospitals able to pay their bills.