Thoughtforfood said:Wow, oversimplification of the year. You win!
I thought I was on ignore
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Thoughtforfood said:Wow, oversimplification of the year. You win!
Thoughtforfood said:Wow, oversimplification of the year. You win!
CentralCaliBike said:I thought I was on ignore
CentralCaliBike said:Seriously, I was going for the simplified version.
Thoughtforfood said:Which is one of the major problems with conservative political rhetoric.
CentralCaliBike said:There is a difference between a modern conservative and of conservative in general - I tend to think of myself a fiscal conservative, I favor the Bill of Rights (a lot of modern conservatives do not) - and, I am not interested in government regulated morality (gets to close to government involvement in mandating religion which has never had a good track record).
Thoughtforfood said:Well, a true conservative is just a conservative liberal in terms of traditional political philosophy. However, you are correct in your statement that modern conservatives in the US are not what has traditionally been considered conservative.
I am more fiscally conservative than not, but am fully a backer of a mixed economic system. I also recognize that our political system was set up to be ineffective, and one of the big reasons was to avoid tyranny. I also recognize that socialist economic thought was incorporated into governmental economic policy to protect against the tyranny of profit motive. Corruption is its own entity, and is incorporated into most every human endeavor.
CentralCaliBike said:I agree about corruption being an entity - not sure if you agree about human nature, but I see this as evidence of man's basic nature.
Laszlo said:Sorry, let me get this straight. You think some unemployed guy, or some underemployed guy who breaks his leg is ineligible for health care because he can't afford health insurance ? So he can go ahead and live out the rest of his life crippled as a result ?
Thoughtforfood said:I think that human nature is neutral actually. Nobody is all good, and nobody is all bad (except Hitler and Stalin, but if they liked puppies, I will give them a pass...). I think that most anyone is capable of evil and good. I do believe in suffering the consequences of your actions. I do also believe that some people act in ways that they have little to no control over because of things that have happened to them. I also believe that poverty is a necessity in a capitalist society, but not to motivate. There is an inherent necessity for the poor because someone has to do the menial tasks. I do believe that those people deserve more than they get in many cases, and that if government steps in and gives them some of the wealth, I am okay with that. I also believe it can be taken too far as in the "Great Society." That was Liberal paternalism, and based in racism.
As far as health care, my biggest problem with it is that it is not a market, and shouldn't be treated as such. Does everyone deserve it? That is a hard question for me to answer because the excesses of the corporations and medical professionals involved have created a system that is ineffective and forces those of us who do pay for insurance to already pay for those who don't. I also factor into the equation my belief that in a society as prosperous as is ours, it is incumbent upon our government to ensure some equality because it is a necessary component of Capitalism to exploit inequality for greater profit for those that have the means to do so.
CentralCaliBike said:Since the 1960s the United States culture has changed it's value system - we went from valuing the individual for having a sense of responsibility, hard work, education, and independence to a society that demands individual rights without individual responsibility, a society that expects to be paid but not to give full value to the employer. I believe it is interesting that it was in the 1960s that our view on the government's role in providing for the citizens changed as well - enter "The Great Society".
So a universal health care system and a robust public education program should be part of said strong state. They both protect and preserve their society's traditions, intellect, and health. Or would that be too modern an interpretation of 'protection'.CentralCaliBike said:- A strong state >>> basic rationale for government in the first place, protection of it's citizens
I understand where Burke came from, but not so much US conservatism, as they in effect defend liberal values. When liberal values are now being put to action (anti-torture, principle of sovereignty, fair trial of terrorists) many tend to hesitate?collectivism over individualism.>>>> the Bill of Rights recognizes that the United States had a young and, at the time, multi-religious/political viewpoints, that being the case we had the bill of rights to prevent an in place majority from the abuse of in place minorities in order to avoid civil war and disinigration of the state. Burke came from a society that was far more cohesive in religion and politics (although it was changing to a certain degree)
Again, I understand Burke's ideas in that volatile time, but if one calls oneself a true conservative, I can't understand why some, now, seem to be inclined to take revolutionary action to achieve certain political goals. Burke was very hesitant to interfere with 'other societal traditions, cultures and civilizations' as they had their own way of doing things.- resistance against revolutionary change, while allowing gradual transformations. See his opposition to the French Revolution (Compare that to Bush's revolutionary interpretation of 'self defense' and foreign intervention in a well established body of international law) >>> Burke had a strong fear of the nature of revolution and he was right about the violent tact it was going to take - there were several generations of violence in France and Europe that England was able to avoid for the most part because England went the gradual change route instead of revolution.
Wrath v. gun control. If man is essentially revengeful, why not restrict people's access to guns. >>> You will not stop violence by regulating firearms - individuals who are inclined to kill are not likely to be impressed with gun control (also, I have had a couple of experiences where lawfully owned firearms prevented violence - I have prosecuted a large number of cases where unlawfully owned guns were used to murder people).
Lots of resistance against the strong hand of the state (see point 1 as well) to temper people's vices, which is one of the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism.Glutony v. barring government regulations to control people from becoming obese, or leading unhealthy lives. Capitalism is thus placed before its concern for society's health. >>> not really sure where you were going here.
Hasty generalizations aside, what does the US do again to temper the vice of sloth and re-engage/re-connect them with society?Sloth (laziness, disinterested attitude) leading to increased detachment from society. v. State's receding influence in public affairs, (ie. leaving education to the private sector, ie a bad public transportation system, allowing people to live alone in their cars) turning more and more people into mere consumers, isolated individuals instead of engaged, and passionately involved in the public sphere. >>> a large number of the people I come into contact with have the vice of sloth, they also seem to enjoy welfare (mostly complaining that the government did not give them a "real" attorney).
Enlighten me... Most (TV-)conservatives I have seen/heard seem to adhere to the abject motto 'vague sentiments and general discourses'. Even if liberals did the same, shouldn't conservatives be better than that and take their own principles to heart? Or did they figure that intellect is not really worth preserving?Burke for example was rather pronounced in his opinion of 'stupidity' >>> again, missing the point here.
Scott SoCal said:These concepts cannot be discussed in this country today. These are all code words for bigotry, racism, heartless, mean-spirited... you know, all the things conservatives are called everyday. I should have thrown in homophobe in there too. Oh, and right wing nut-job. Can't forget that one.
Scott SoCal said:Whatever happened to the idea that people have to plan for a day when they may be old? Somehow because folks failed to plan and eventually need help they can't (or don't want) to afford it then becomes society's fault?
I don't even think it rewards the irresponsible. A reward proper is given in return for something, and in your statement it refers to 'irresponsibility'.It really rewards people who are the most irresponsible among us, doesn't it?
Bala Verde said:Homicide numbers reveal that those states with liberal gun control laws, have higher homicide rates (US, Switzerland, Israel, India, ****stan) than those that do not. To allude to DC's gun restrictions would be a rather painful reference. It's as if the US disarmed the Iraqi population, without adequately patrolling the borders, so that arms continued to pour into the country.
Bala Verde said:Which brings me to the second point, I don't believe many people out there intentionally and purposefully fail to address their future.
I don't think food stamps and xxx$ per month are a reward of any kind, I don't think beneficiaries perceive it as a reward - although they might get accustomed to it and come to see it as an entitlement - and I don't think people in general perceive it as a reward they can expect in case their irresponsible behavior backfires.
People - especially the young - generally have magical ideas of the future, and I doubt many would therefore intentionally choose the life of irresponsibility and dream of ending up living off welfare.
Scott SoCal said:When do we get to have a full discussion of the excesses of government? I realize you do not trust business, but many do not trust government for the very same reasons.
When I see Barney Frank in vertical black and white stripes, then maybe there will be some sort of equivocation on my part. Really, once in political theatre a person is there forever (as long as they buy enough votes). Private corruption, sooner or later, winds up in hand cuffs. You can't say the same for public corruption except in very few cases.
Why we are so ready to trust popularity contest winners (generally with no expertise, just look at the junior Senator from Minnesota) is completely beyond me.
CentralCaliBike said:I see people who come through the court system day after day with no employment history to speak of - because of the cases I do, I have reviewed school records for a number of people who have been in and out of the system, generally I have found a complete disinterest in education (similar to employment).
A number of years ago, when I first started out I worked collecting child support (mostly for families with children on welfare). What I discovered is that, for many, welfare is generational in nature. Of course some will choose to leave the system but the majority just did not find the interest or motivation.
Then it goes much further - I have seen individuals claim they need a public defender because of a disability which did not allow them to work where the evidence was clear there was no disability (one guy got caught carrying a 25 inch television he had stolen, but claimed he had a bad back). I have been to parole hearings for murderers who had children after they went to prison - when asked how that was possible by the parole board the response was "conjugal visits" - when asked who the murderer thought was going to pay, the response was welfare (the one this year at least admitted that it might not have been responsible to have decided to have a child under that circumstance - but he did want an out date). I suppose I am a bit jaded when it comes to the nature of man and the effects of providing all the necessities; and it certainly has created a belief that we are headed down the wrong road at a very fast pace.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?_r=1
I am sure some will point out that the NY Times is a front for corrupt business and the conservative agenda but ask yourself - how are we going to pay the interest?
Thoughtforfood said:If you are referring to me, then you misread what I wrote. Those of us who have insurance already pay for those without health care in our current system. Paying for them through the government will be no different. That was my only point.
Straight now?
Scott SoCal said:When do we get to have a full discussion of the excesses of government? I realize you do not trust business, but many do not trust government for the very same reasons.
When I see Barney Frank in vertical black and white stripes, then maybe there will be some sort of equivocation on my part. Really, once in political theatre a person is there forever (as long as they buy enough votes). Private corruption, sooner or later, winds up in hand cuffs. You can't say the same for public corruption except in very few cases.
Why we are so ready to trust popularity contest winners (generally with no expertise, just look at the junior Senator from Minnesota) is completely beyond me.
Bala Verde said:I think many people do plan ahead - sometimes even with the limited means they have - and then they still get bit in the bum. That seems to be unfair, like the people who got hit by a catastrophe like Katrina. In the latter case, many people perceive it to be unjust, because they did not have control over their lives.
Which brings me to the second point, I don't believe many people out there intentionally and purposefully fail to address their future. And if one is unaware of what arrangements to make for the future, can one be held responsible? It's easy to say that these things need to be top priorities on our list, but the fact is, many - it might sound strange - have never learned some of the required skills (financial responsibility, projecting and prioritizing, deferred consumption, life planning) or the vehicles available (Roth-IRAs, life insurance, college saving funds etc) and to some many vehicles are financially out of reach.
The idea that everyone has full control over their lives, is (IMO) rather misguided, essentialized and romanticised. Society's transformation/development seems to have picked up speed, and quickly drops people off the back, faster than you can say Popovich...
I don't even think it rewards the irresponsible. A reward proper is given in return for something, and in your statement it refers to 'irresponsibility'.
I don't think food stamps and xxx$ per month are a reward of any kind, I don't think beneficiaries perceive it as a reward - although they might get accustomed to it and come to see it as an entitlement - and I don't think people in general perceive it as a reward they can expect in case their irresponsible behavior backfires.
People - especially the young - generally have magical ideas of the future, and I doubt many would therefore intentionally choose the life of irresponsibility and dream of ending up living off welfare.
CentralCaliBike said:I thought you were for the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights aside, take a look at the homicide rates in the most liberal voting areas of the United States and at those same rates in the most conservative (and most limited gun control laws).
CentralCaliBike said:A last thought for the night - lets say the government loses the power to borrow (sort of like a homeowner who lost their house to foreclosure); how are all of the people who have little to no experience with responsibility, limited work experience (if any), missed most of their classes starting in middle school - going to react when the welfare check does not reach them?
Did our society teach them what they needed to know to survive; and was that society's responsibility in the first place?