What are the philosophical differences between conservative and liberals?

[shocka khan]

Hispanics and Blacks tend to be more religious that their white Democratic counterparts, but that does not make them Progressives.

I'm kind of wandering into this thread (which is always dangerous), but I can absolutely confirm Pin's statement. My girlfriend (who I've been with for 8 years), her friends and her family.

Most of them are very conservative. For instance, my girlfriend voted for Romney. She did not, however, vote for Trump, mostly because of some of the statements he made about Mexicans.

Most of her friends are republicans. One of her best friends, who has now passed, and who she worked with at the Venezuelan consulate here in Houston, would visit frequently. Every time she came over, the TV got turned to Fox News. Her daughter is just as conservative as she was.

Most of the people who come over as a result of legal immigration understand the value of hard work and do not support programs that don't make able-bodied people work for what they have, but are sympathetic to the social safety net. I think this is because most of them are Catholic.

[shocka khan]

I have a big problem with this reasoning. Christianity and Christ's teachings compel myself and others as Christians to help those who are less fortunate. But that does not mean that we get to compel other people by the threat of force (which, at the end of the day, is what all government measures and taxes are for) to do what we believe Christ wants them to do. Funny how liberals typically ignore the "you can't force your morals on others" argument when it comes to welfare. That's neither Christianity, nor charity. By the same token, it is not just to take money from people who have earned it and force them to pay into a system where they will never see any benefit. That's forced labor.

"So you believe we shouldn't pay taxes?"

Well, yes, but we should pay taxes to the government for public goods and services for which we all have an equal right/ability of withdrawal. At the local level, that means roads, police, fire. At a federal level, that means national defense. There may be a few services that I've missed, but that's about it, IMO. One could make a reasonable argument for education at the local level, but even then, why should a 70 year old couple with no children be forced (under threat of imprisonment) to pay for public schools which they will never reap any benefit from?

Also, the free market has made EVERY SINGLE GOOD OR SERVICE in our life better because there is extrinsic motivation (money) to make them better, even for people in poorer situations (their cars, phones, homes are nicer than they were 10-20 years ago). Why does that apply to some industries and not others? I get why it doesn't apply to non-competitive, non-excludable service like a fire or police department, but education and health care certainly do not fall under those categories. Those are tangible services that vary widely by person. And if removing government control or operation of a service like health care is tantamount to letting people die or starve (it's clearly not), then we have gone down a road that will not stop until the government controls every aspect of our lives and makes them awful.

I'm between jobs right now. I'm 62 and diabetic. I hope Obamacare gets repealed. I worked my butt off and lost 80 pounds to get off all my medicine. This last year (within the last 6 months) I took a questionnaire from my corporate-sponsored health plan that calculated my health age. My health age calculates to someone 50 years old, meaning I only need protection against a major, unexpected issue. Why should I have to pay for someone my age who makes poor lifestyle choices (If Aargh is out there, his fact situation is totally different, and I understand that, it would seem like we could do something for cancer survivors), knowing it will shorten their life.

I resent I might very soon have to start paying over $500 a month just to have major medical coverage. That's what I need, I don't need anything else. I'd like to have some other choices.

[wufan]

Lots of great questions came up this morning that I'd like to respond to individually (healthcare and immigration namely), but first I will try to focus on morality. The argument against Christian morality is arbitrary in my mind unless you consider non-christians (democrats have been named) as amoral. Is the Christian morality inherently less valuable than the atheist morality? If so, why? If it's because there is hypocrisy, then why not address that specifically? I think someone pointed out a hypocrisy based on their interpretation of the verses stating that Jesus said take care of the poor yet Republicans say not to take care of the poor. A couple of important things. Jesus was speaking to the individuals as to what their responsibility is towards other individuals; not to a government as to their responsibility to its citizens. Second, most conservatives legitimately believe that the best thing they can do for an individual, or that the government can do for its citizens is to help them help themselves. There is no inherent hypocrisy in the conservative Christian belief that the role of government, to provide assistance to its citizens, is to provide them with work. Additionally, I would argue that Christianity is not an inherently flawed value system.

[CBB_Fan]

Why should I have to pay for someone my age who makes poor lifestyle choices ... knowing it will shorten their life.

One argument is that you already pay for universal healthcare through a law by America's most famous liberal President, Ronald Reagan.

That law is Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which forces hospitals to accept anyone that shows up for emergency treatment regardless of their ability to pay (without providing any funding aid). When they fail to pay, their bill goes to collections, and when the debt isn't collected it is written off as a loss by the hospital.

Every time you go to a hospital with emergency services, you pay for these people in the form of jacked up prices.

Not only is this a hidden tax (and one major reason USA prices are so high), it is remarkably inefficient. Uninsured patients are pressured into using the emergency room as a primary care clinic, where they get "free" healthcare. It gives rise to a mountain of middleman, debt collectors, insurance billing specialists, and administrators who each try to make sure their organization gets the biggest piece of the pie and avoids taking on the debt of those that won't pay.

And, medically, it treats the wrong things at the wrong times. It is always cheaper to prevent a problem than to treat it. But because the uninsured are priced out of normal healthcare and can avoid paying for emergency care we solve each medical problem when it is most expensive to do so. And the hospitals are pressured into band-aid fixes. They are obligated to keep a patient alive, not healthy.

Basically, you are paying for those people now and you'll keep paying for them if Obamacare is repealed. The question is whether we want to pay for those people in a stupid, unplanned, expensive way or in a thought-out, inexpensive way.

[MoValley John]

One argument is that you already pay for universal healthcare through a law by America's most famous liberal President, Ronald Reagan.

That law is Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which forces hospitals to accept anyone that shows up for emergency treatment regardless of their ability to pay (without providing any funding aid). When they fail to pay, their bill goes to collections, and when the debt isn't collected it is written off as a loss by the hospital.

Every time you go to a hospital with emergency services, you pay for these people in the form of jacked up prices.

Not only is this a hidden tax (and one major reason USA prices are so high), it is remarkably inefficient. Uninsured patients are pressured into using the emergency room as a primary care clinic, where they get "free" healthcare. It gives rise to a mountain of middleman, debt collectors, insurance billing specialists, and administrators who each try to make sure their organization gets the biggest piece of the pie and avoids taking on the debt of those that won't pay.

And, medically, it treats the wrong things at the wrong times. It is always cheaper to prevent a problem than to treat it. But because the uninsured are priced out of normal healthcare and can avoid paying for emergency care we solve each medical problem when it is most expensive to do so. And the hospitals are pressured into band-aid fixes. They are obligated to keep a patient alive, not healthy.

Basically, you are paying for those people now and you'll keep paying for them if Obamacare is repealed. The question is whether we want to pay for those people in a stupid, unplanned, expensive way or in a thought-out, inexpensive way.

This is how we do it in Omaha. Great organization.

https://Www.oneworldomaha.org

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I have a big problem with this reasoning. Christianity and Christ's teachings compel myself and others as Christians to help those who are less fortunate. But that does not mean that we get to compel other people by the threat of force (which, at the end of the day, is what all government measures and taxes are for) to do what we believe Christ wants them to do.

Wanting to enact laws to ban abortion and gay marriage is an attempt to compel people to do what you believe Christ wants them to do. In one breath saying something is wrong (that is using religious beliefs to dictate legislation), and at the same attempting to do that very same thing, is the definition of hypocrisy. Democrats do not largely define themselves as the party of traditional Christian values; Republicans do, and they would be wise to either stop cherry picking doctrine to enforce on others or scrap the holier-than-thou platform.

we should pay taxes to the government for public goods and services for which we all have an equal right/ability of withdrawal...why should a 70 year old couple with no children be forced to pay for public schools which they will never reap any benefit from?

That's classic libertarian sentiment and I'm glad you brought that up. It made sense 250 years ago. And it makes sense now if you live in the Alaska wilderness and rarely come into contact with another member of society. But the rest of us do not live our lives in plastic bubbles. Though we may not have direct connections, we are all connected in complex and many times unfathomable ways. It benefits me--indirectly--that some random kid down the street is getting a quality public education which will help him become a productive member of society. That 70 year old couple has benefited--indirectly--from public education many times throughout their lives, from those they have employed if they were business owners, to economic opportunities they enjoyed because where they lived had an educated workforce. Education is like a rising tide--it raises all ships. It benefits me--indirectly--that senior citizens have access to health care through medicare. It benefits me that you, Kel, have access to unemployment, food stamps, and whatever else you may need if, God forbid, something catastrophic happens to your situation.

Also, the free market has made EVERY SINGLE GOOD OR SERVICE in our life better because there is extrinsic motivation (money) to make them better, even for people in poorer situations...

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I agree the private sector should provide most goods and services that we consume. However, in the 17 years I worked in the corporate world, I saw more greed and corruption than I could stomach. Many companies are focused only on making money at the expense of virtually every ethical principle imaginable. It is, sadly, for many of us a part of human nature. Because of that, government plays a vital role in being a watch dog, of ensuring consumers are not taken advantage of by the free market, and of checking the bad influence money and power can have over certain people. There are some situations (I believe health care is one of them), where a profit motive can and many times does corrupt what should be a service provided without primary regard to monetary factors. Corruption can and does exist in government, I do not deny that, but to think the free market and corporate America is a benevolent provider of everything we need is frighteningly naive.

[MoValley John]

I have always divorced religion, as much as possible from my political beliefs. That said, I don't give one iota with regard to same sex marriage. However, abortion isn't merely a religious issue. It's a life issue. Our Constitutution grants everyone the right to life. If you believe that a baby, still in the womb is a live human being, regardless of religion, you must defend that person's right to live. Science proves that an unborn baby is human life, therefore, the pro choice community works diligently to dehumanize. You will never, ever hear the word "baby" at PP. You will never hear the discussion of the unborn as alive. You will, however, get a large dosage of choice, women's rights, and descriptors such as fetal material.

See humanists for life. Based on your statement, if religion was the one guiding factor, no athiest would be pro life. And yes, at one point, I was pro choice. Visually seeing various stages of embreos at a Museum of Science & Industry on human development began my change. Holding my first born completed the change. Church had little impact.

[MoValley John]

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/

[CBB_Fan]

Our Constitution grants everyone the right to life.

While it may or may not be true that everyone deserves the right to life, it is not a right explicitly granted by the Constitution. It is hard to find a better example than executions. If a right can be taken away by the government it isn't a right but a privilege.

There are many other examples though. War. Lethal weapons in the hands of police. The Castle Doctrine. Slavery, when it was legal. Christian Scientists, Pentecostalists, the Church of the First Born, the Followers of Christ, and other groups choosing faith healing for their children over medical care.

In each case, the government or a private individual can legally kill, can legally deprive the right to live. Regardless of whether or not you agree with any of the above it, it is important to note that they are factually legal and lawful (even if you consider any of them immoral or unethical).

[MoValley John]

While it may or may not be true that everyone deserves the right to life, it is not a right explicitly granted by the Constitution. It is hard to find a better example than executions. If a right can be taken away by the government it isn't a right but a privilege.

There are many other examples though. War. Lethal weapons in the hands of police. The Castle Doctrine. Slavery, when it was legal. Christian Scientists, Pentecostalists, the Church of the First Born, the Followers of Christ, and other groups choosing faith healing for their children over medical care.

In each case, the government or a private individual can legally kill, can legally deprive the right to live. Regardless of whether or not you agree with any of the above it, it is important to note that they are factually legal and lawful (even if you consider any of them immoral or unethical).

A. I'm against the death penalty.
B. The Constitution specifically states "without due process." Those facing the death penalty received due process. A baby in the womb receives no such due process.

[MoValley John]

The rest of your examples are borderlining on ridiculous. I will add, the police do not have the right to indiscriminately kill. Period. They do have a dangerous job and are called to protect the public. In doing so, they are put in situations where they take lives. If it doesn't pass muster, the police are prosecuted. It is happening right now in Omaha. Two cops fired, probably going to prison for homicide. These cops, unlike the poor guy they killed, will receive their due process.

http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/officer-had-body-camera-turned-off-at-scene-of-taser/article_5a987e88-4933-5d3f-8ff1-6617b94723c3.html

[CBB_Fan]

A. I'm against the death penalty.
B. The Constitution specifically states "without due process." Those facing the death penalty received due process. A baby in the womb receives no such due process.

The point is that the "right" to life in the Constitution is actually a privilege. The government can take it away. They can do so to execute you, to allow a person to kill you in self defense, to go to war.

There's no due process for a trespasser in Texas, no due process in case of a criminal that warranted lethal police reaction. There was no due process for students at Kent State.

You may agree with the current state of the law, but I'm not questioning the law or even recommending a chance. I'm merely stating that we do not have a constitutional right to life. We have a privilege, which can be rescinded. To upgrade that privilege to a right would require another amendment and significant changes to our legal system.

[MoValley John]

The point is that the "right" to life in the Constitution is actually a privilege. The government can take it away. They can do so to execute you, to allow a person to kill you in self defense, to go to war.

There's no due process for a trespasser in Texas, no due process in case of a criminal that warranted lethal police reaction. There was no due process for students at Kent State.

You may agree with the current state of the law, but I'm not questioning the law or even recommending a chance. I'm merely stating that we do not have a constitutional right to life. We have a privilege, which can be rescinded. To upgrade that privilege to a right would require another amendment and significant changes to our legal system.

Wow. Just wow.

[MoValley John]

Liberty isn't an unalienable right.
The pursuit of happiness isn't an unalienable right.
We have no rights, just rescindable privileges. Good to know.

[MoValley John]

I'm waiting for the rebuttal that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't in the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.

I have an answer.....