He also has a pretty cool link called Liberal vs. Conservative Values. Like Michael, I found myself laughing at the fact that I agree with some of the simplified polar opposites. For example,
On the social safety net
The liberal view
• There are people in this world who need help. They struggle to put food on the table, or can’t afford medical care—and many of them live in the United States. A civilized society would try to help them, instead of leaving them to fend for themselves. (Someday, the one who needs a helping hand may be you, or someone you love. All it takes is a serious illness, an injury, a lay-off, or a death in the family.)
The conservative view
• People are responsible for themselves—and, given the chance, they’re capable of supporting themselves and their families. If the government makes a practice of providing for people (with welfare, for example), they become weak and dependent, and lose their will to work. Nothing could be more destructive to the health of our society.
I agree with both and do not think they are mutually exclusive. Why do many of you think they are?
28 comments:
"People are responsible for themselves—and, given the chance, they’re capable of supporting themselves and their families."
Which is pretty much the same thing as saying they are able to control their own behavior and make reasonable choices/decisions. Which is pretty incompatible with them knowing what is in their own best interest better than you.
I think you're lying about believing "the conservative view". If you aren't lying, then you are just about hopelessly confused.
Not really. The key term here is "given a chance." What system is creating that possibility of that chance is the center of where we have our disagreement. But I agree with the issue of personal responsibility. This would be a trait I always used to admire in conservatives. There was a time when your average right winger would massively deride anyone who blamed others for their problems.
Now it's the cornerstone of their philosophy. To begin with, they are always right. Always. And any mistakes that are made are the fault of the government/liberals/media/educationsystem/whatever the demon of the week is. They claim no responsibility for anything and have a fucking conniption if someone blames Bush or says the fault is with prejudice. Pretty sad considering what they used to be.
...and have a fucking conniption if someone blames Bush or says the fault is with prejudice.
You have apparently edited a lot of your memories of comments from TSM. They were/are hardly a bunch of Bush admirers. However it's true, they didn't consider him responsible for all the evils of the world, or even as many as you do.
If you want a more likely explanation for their "fucking conniptions", read Aesop's Fables, specifically "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
To begin with, they are always right.
Well, I don't know who they are, and I'm not even sure you do either. Unless you just mean anyone who disagrees with you.
...and have a fucking conniption if someone blames Bush or says the fault is with prejudice.
Read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", it might give you some insight.
M, have you read Walter Russell Mead? I came across a couple of his blog posts (this and that) and was pretty damn impressed. Curious as to what you might think of him.
I don't actually know if he is a "liberal", but he certainly can think and write clearly.
How can you believe in such a thing as 'personal responsibility' if nobody is in control of themselves? I can't even make my own choices, due to the evils of corporate marketing.
I think you need to review some of the contradictions in your philosophy.
dw
Juris, here is my favorite piece from Walter Russell Mead...
Back to School
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/08/31/back-to-school/
dw, you are very observant. One week we aren't in control of ourselves, the next week we have to get back to personal responsibility.
Actually, dw, there are two levels to the not being in control thing. The first are the external forces that I mentioned in those three scenarios. The other level is more internal...driven by an external force. This would be the operant conditioning that our entire culture is under courtesy of the corporate owned mass media. They know what you think and want before you do. That's the very essence of marketing. In many ways, you don't have a choice.
Personal responsibility is another issue entirely. I'm talking about our leaders here. Nothing is ever the fault of the GOP or the libertarian. Somehow...some way...it's the government and the liberal agenda. I get the word game you are trying to play here but these are the facts. Criticize Bush these days and watch the conversation going into denial of personal responsibility mode.
The first are the external forces that I mentioned in those three scenarios.
M that isn't even a point of contention. It makes no sense to bring that up in the context of the question that was posed to you. None at all.
The other level is more internal...driven by an external force.
No, the internal is not "driven by external forces" - it is how one acts and re-acts to the external environment (both good and bad). You only want to talk about the bad - and a bad caricature of the bad at that.
Personal responsibility is another issue entirely.
No, it isn't. Personal responsibility has absolutely NO meaning if you don't have control of your self. You really have to stop and think this through and don't just attempt to win a stupid fucking debate. If there is NO individual ability to control one's self then there can be no accountability/responsibility (for your decisions/actions). Otherwise you are nothing but a leaf - driven whichever way the wind blows. Personal responsibility can only occur if you are talking about a moral agent - one who CAN make decisions (not just "driven" by outside conditioning).
Nothing is ever the fault of the GOP or the libertarian.
This is not about fucking PARTY politics dumbshit - this is about PEOPLE as individual human beings.
Criticize Bush these days and watch the conversation going into denial of personal responsibility mode.
Stop TALKING WITH THE VOICES IN YOUR HEAD.
It isn't a fucking "word game" - words have meanings and combinations of words are ideas - it is not about fucking partisan narrative. I have as little love for the Repubs as I do for the Dems - so stop insisting that I'm playing some stupid blue-red game.
I have a "voices in my head" post coming soon. You are terribly naive, juris, at what is going on the world out there regarding right wing politics.
There is a difference between your average citizen taking personal responsibility for themselves and our leaders making decisions (on purpose!) and then denying that they made any mistakes. And then having 30 million people believe that it's all the fault of liberals.
How corporations control your life is a very touchy subject for many of you. There are a myriad of reasons for this...the primary one being that the private sector conducting business unfettered by the government is a cornerstone of your beliefs. And when that private sector manipulates and changes an entire culture in such a negative way...well...what does that mean for your belief? Further, what does it mean when the wealthy continually abuse the system and consolidate more power because of a neutered government?
I'll have more on this in future posts as well. Someone at Bloomberg and BusinessWeek has been doing their homework.
You are terribly naive, juris, at what is going on the world out there regarding right wing politics.
You are a fool to believe that only one side of the political equation is the problem. The reason I make fun of the voices in your head is because they are the only ones you listen to - you don't respond to arguments of the people that actually talk to you.
There is a difference between your average citizen taking personal responsibility for themselves and our leaders making decisions
Yes there is - and we are talking about the former, not the latter. Well, the rest of us are talking about the former - you are the only one talking about the latter. See what I mean about you failing to engage - you just hop up on your soapbox like some street-corner preacher of doom.
How corporations control your life is a very touchy subject for many of you.
I only get angry because you argue for a ridiculous matter of faith you have. You've never been able to actually present a fact about this horrible "control". Not once. You haven't even tried since the Centerpoint/RMR debacle.
the primary one being that the private sector conducting business unfettered by the government is a cornerstone of your beliefs.
Another voice in your head. When I have ever said govt has NO role? I favor a limited role because I believe the vast majority of people are competent to make their own choices. Since you don't believe that personal self control (and responsibility) actually exists - you cannot accept that. Here's another question that will go unanswered - if corporations control everyone, why are you exempt?
And when that private sector manipulates and changes an entire culture in such a negative way
Such as? This is what pisses me off with you - you make ridiculous, sweeping statements and then dismiss any request to substantiate it. More "water pouring from the lake [of GM] into many streams"? Which BTW was one of the stupidest metaphors ever employed - it is fairly rare for a lake to have more than one outlet.
Further, what does it mean when the wealthy continually abuse the system and consolidate more power because of a neutered government?
Answer that question yourself - what 'power' are the wealthy abusing YOU with? How are the wealthy ruining your life - save by setting a standard that makes you envious.
A civilized society would try to help them, instead of leaving them to fend for themselves.
But that's not what liberals propose. Take ObamaCare for example. That's not an example of liberals helping the unfortunate. That's an example of liberals demanding that everyone else help the unfortunate, while they get waivers from compliance.
So are you defining "civilized" as "someone who puts other people's money where his mouth is"?
I don't think that one side is the problem. I think the GOP is most of the problem and I think that Democrats are less of the problem because of their platform. And I respond to you all the time...that's ridiculous. I created an entire series of posts out of an article you sent me. I haven't read the latest Manzi or the other one you suggested but I will. They will more than likely result in future posts.
Regarding the individual citizen-we have an entire culture filled with people that are largely zombified ADD materialistic input whores. Ever see the Matrix? That's the metaphor for our culture and it makes a shit load of money for the major corporations of this country and the world.
"present a fact about this horrible "control". Not once.
Answer that question yourself - what 'power' are the wealthy abusing YOU with?"
Wrong. I have answered your question several times. You refuse to listen or accept the facts. Trust me, though, they'll be plenty of more examples, starting tomorrow.
I think the GOP is most of the problem and I think that Democrats are less of the problem because of their platform.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha
In other words - one side is the problem. Why can't you just admit what is obvious, even to yourself?
And I respond to you all the time...
No you merely post, with an occasional quote, but almost never in actual response. You have virtually no ability to comprehend an argument that you don't already agree with. It is like if I asked that street-corner preacher some question and he thunders off some tangential (at best) rant. That might be in reply to something I said, but not in response - not part of any kind of dialogue. It must be why you have no cognitive dissonance - the disharmonious input simply isn't processed.
...filled with people that are largely zombified ADD materialistic input whores.
Well, you expect THOSE people to suddenly embrace YOUR enlightened vision by discussing them in those terms? You really are as whacked out as any of them if you believe that. If you don't believe that YOUR words can redeem them - then what? Soylent green, re-education, what?
C'mon M, you're there - don't deny that you don't believe in personal responsibility - not with the put-down you just delivered. People (except you and your fellow liberals) are simply machines to be programmed so they can be part of the society you envision - they aren't really human.
I don't really even mind you holding that view, so long as you are never in power to attempt it's implementation. But it absolutely contradicts you ever honestly and legitimately saying you believe in control of self and personal responsibility.
Though if I were to say what you just said of you (and your 'ilk'), would you not rightly be insulted? Would you for one moment consider that I had your best interests at heart?
I have answered your question several times. You refuse to listen or accept the facts.
No you have not. Not once. You tried with Centerpoint but even blk agreed that you were wrong in that case. The only other thing I remember him so quickly disagreeing with you about was your view on Reagan!
You have faith, you don't need facts - and that is why you can't marshal them into an argument.
Imagine the internal conversation in Mark's head at the moment:
Nobody has any self-control, but I believe in personal responsibility...?
Evil Corp Inc manipulates my actions.... but what if I don't buy their product...?
I hate Republicans!... but you refuse to break it down into R vs D...?
and then -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA
Don't feel bad Mark. I felt that way about the death penalty some years ago. It'll pass, you'll discover a philosophy that doesn't have so many contradictions, and you'll feel better in no time.
dw
"Why can't you just admit what is obvious, even to yourself?"
Uh...because that's not what I think. President Obama, for example, hired Larry Sommers and Tim Geithner to be on his staff. Yet they were the ones who were complicit in the financial meltdown. Certainly, he was at fault for this and it was a mistake. Dodd was up to ass with the dude from Countrywide. I'm sure there are more examples.
But Obama and Dodd both have worked to pass financial regulation and made efforts to reign in the corruption. The GOP, on the other hand, has categorically refused to do any of that. Libertarians such as yourself operate under a fantasy that the free market needs less, nor more, regulation, and then things will just work themselves out. Given the choice between those three, I choose the guys who aren't perfect but are at least doing something that has been proven to work in the past.
"Though if I were to say what you just said of you (and your 'ilk'), would you not rightly be insulted? Would you for one moment consider that I had your best interests at heart?"
This would be a big difference between us, juris. If you showed me evidence that we'd be better off with the kind of government you desire, I'd be happy to be wrong and not be insulted. I don't care about winning the argument. I would rather lose and see our society better of because of better ideas. And if your ideas worked out to be in my best interest, great! It was something I didn't see or overlooked. In other words, I wouldn't go into anaphylactic shock if you had a better idea of what is in my best interest. Or society as a whole.
My frustration (now at a monumental level) comes from the fact the evidence is largely to the contrary of what you espouse. And you refuse to see well documented and researched examples of this evidence. Your howling a couple of weeks back about "Inside Job" is one example of this sort of willful ignorance. Go see it. Then tell me if you think some of your above statements about me are true.
And let's see what you think about the Steverman points. I always have hope.
DW-what happened with the death penalty and you? Just curious..
Here's another way to look at how our actions are manipulated. The other day, a friend of mine was wondering about this band I liked. We were sitting at his computer and I said go listen to one of their songs. He went to a site where you could play entire songs and started one up. He listened to the first five seconds, fast forwarded it to the middle, and, after about 5 more seconds, said, "Cool. I'll get the album."
I said, "But you didn't even play the song. How do you know if you will like it?" He assured me that he would.
This is our culture now. It's all quick, ADD, immediate and no patience. Remember albums? You couldn't zip around in a song. You had to sit with your friends, have a conversation and listen to the album...start to finish. Now, the advent of technology (made by corporations) has changed the way we behave when we listen to music. Most everyone has computers and they certainly had a choice to buy them but I wonder if people realize how much it has changed their behavior. It's called operant conditioning.
We don't think as albums as works of art anymore. We listen to the quick track or even a few seconds of one. If you're like me, you might seek out the full albums and absorb them but most people won't because the music companies have conditioned them to behave otherwise. Through in American Idol and it's a real fucking shit show.
I wouldn't go into anaphylactic shock if you had a better idea of what is in my best interest.
Sorry M, I'm not so monumentally egotistic as to believe that I have a better idea of your best interests than yourself.
As to evidence, I understand that you are faith-oriented and facts don't really matter, you would only accept/process that which is not in discordance with your faith. You have proven this repeatedly, and you do so again today when you claim that a provision of U.S. law on market access = "gubmint bad". It may well be a bad policy, and it surely is not in accordance with a free market and it may lock in an advantage to some players (the wealthy). I could agree that those are all bad results - but from the entirely opposite perspective that you have. You can't understand that, and more's the pity.
Lastly, and it may be the last for a long time given the thin gruel you are serving here, you claim that corporations control us - yet you yourself seem to be free of that (as you can't point to what any given corporation forces you to do on a recurring basis). You assume I am not free of this control either. Yet you never explain why the difference, or specific examples that would illustrate your point. And then you have the audacity to ask me for evidence in support of my viewpoints (and for that matter, in support of your own, a la the GM nonsense). If you would at least acknowledge this I might think better of you as a person - but I suspect that it would put you on the verge of cognitive dissonance and thus you must aver.
Oh, I'm not free of it, juris. Hardly anyone is...maybe a few outliers off the grid. Ever decide you want a hamburger after you've just seen a commercial on TV for McDonald's? And then have you gone and gotten one? I have. Sometimes stuff like this might happen and you might not even realize it.
My battle nearly every day is against the mass media (one of the five main areas of socialization). They win nearly all the time because most young people these days have completely bought into the lies that the media dishes out. Now...who owns the media, juris? It's just that simple.
Ever decide you want a hamburger after you've just seen a commercial on TV for McDonald's?
No. Nor seeing a billboard or hearing a radio commercial.
And if you accuse me of lying (even unconsciously) about this, that will succeed in driving me off this blog for good. I would never waste another moment's thought on you.
I have.
So because you have you assume everyone must. You do realize that is "projection". You do realize that is neither healthy nor accurate.
You also realize that you picked the most trivial possible example of 'influence' - vice an example of some business forcing you to do something you didn't want to do? Something that truly went against your own best interest.
But hey, if you are just essentially a slave to whatever shiny thing is dangled in front of you, I guess you can't be expected to take responsibility for your own actions.
I've never seen a Tampax commercial that made me go to the store for some tampons.
You think they are using the wrong ad agency?
In fairness, I'll admit that I've seen some diarrhea medicine commercials that made me nauseous. Does that count?
I was once made to go to the store for tampons.
But it wasn't a commercial, it was the wife informing me she was out of them.
I don't think that counts though does it?
Death Penalty short version: against it.
Long version available upon request.
And incidentally, I like to give bands 10-15 years before I listen to them, just to make sure I'm not wasting my time.
['Highway 61 Revisited' in the background atm]
dw
Remember albums? You couldn't zip around in a song. You had to sit with your friends, have a conversation and listen to the album...start to finish.
Wrong! you could zip around by lifting the needle and moving it further along the track....unless your arms were broken. You also fail to mention the amount how many albums people bought where they heard one song on the radio, bought it, and hated the rest. Waste of 17 bucks!
Now, the advent of technology (made by corporations) has changed the way we behave when we listen to music.
You don't listen to songs any longer? Everyone just skips around them in small increments for listening pleasure? I think not. You are talking about sampling to see if they want to buy. You against food sampling and wine tasting too?
Most everyone has computers and they certainly had a choice to buy them but I wonder if people realize how much it has changed their behavior.
Yeah, woe is us! Now we can enjoy things in more ways - build playlists of our favorites and tailor to parties and stuff. Dang, hate to have that control and capability, or have the music playable on multiple types of systems, around the house, easily transported, etc. Yeah, that is just awful. /sarcasm
It's called operant conditioning.
No, it is called progress. Leveraging tools to make life better for many (or worse in a few twisted cases like yours). I guess we should all be stuck using a Scythe to cut our grass because we wouldn't want to use a 'corporate' lawnmower. Woe are those who are using Kindle to read instead of the old fashioned books. Wouldn't want to give 'corporations' and money or power over our lives.
Do you realize how stupid your rants against business make you sound?
Do you realize how stupid your rants against business make you sound?
If it weren't for these damn computers and the Intertubez - M would just be another street corner preacher, standing on a soapbox and harranguing passersby.
The bit about music is too funny. It so reminds me of the vinyl weenies that bitched about the sound quality of CDs and MP3s. Hey M you still got an 8-track in your car?
It so reminds me of the vinyl weenies that bitched about the sound quality of CDs...
Working in digital sound as I did right around that time, I remember one of the problems they had with CDs at first was it being too crisp, meaning it recorded sound more faithfully than the industry wanted. Anyone who has ever used a reverb effect knows why too accurate sound can be disastrous.
"Get a horse", millennium edition.
Post a Comment