|
What if you do not see a fence just misunderstandings?Depends on what you mean by "misunderstandings." If you mean two people who genuinely want to reach a compromise but can't quite see how to do it, OK, I'm with you.
But some people use the term to mean "that other person's standpoint isn't valid -- they're just too dumb to understand that I'm right!" That sense of "misunderstanding" prevents compromise, and electrifies the metaphorical fence.
True enough. My issue here on this thread is that a lot of people want the same things yet disagree how to go about getting it. Worse yet many times it is a question of symantics. Many times I have also noticed another troubling trend. Assuming what the other side believes instead of listening to what they believe. Or rather twisting what they say into what you want it to be. It becomes frustrating. Especially when some posters do not actually fit in with one or the other side but are assumed to be so.
Or rather twisting what they say into what you want it to be.
What exactly are you trying to imply with this statement? That I'm a llama? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO IMPLY?!? HOW DARE YOU!!! YOU'RE THE LLAMA!!! :-P
|
|
Or rather twisting what they say into what you want it to be.What exactly are you trying to imply with this statement? That I'm a llama? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO IMPLY?!? HOW DARE YOU!!! YOU'RE THE LLAMA!!! :-P
No that your dolly llama I have seen through your sock puppetry and know the truth ai ai sub niggaruth.
Fnord.
That reminds me, I also picked up a SubGenius book at HPB the other day. Egads, HPB will be the end of me.
Anyway, back to the main point, I'm wondering. Who exactly are the 'voices of conservatism' in the US at the moment? Is it the Republican Party? Fox News? Sarah Palin?
That's a good question, and it's complicated by the title of this thread. Americans aren't exactly in agreement about what what defines conservative. I tend to think noecons have poisoned the well ideologically for conservatives for what it's worth. People also tend to assume that conservative = Republican and liberal = Democrat in the US. I happen to reject that thinking, and I'm frustrated when I have to explain that I'm a conservative and I disagree with Bush and McCain who I see as neocons.
I suppose it depends on how you measure it. If the metric is dollars then I would have to say Rush, Hannity, and Beck.
I suppose it depends on how you measure it. If the metric is dollars then I would have to say Rush, Hannity, and Beck.
Evil Moe, Evil Larry, and Evil Curly. Whoop! Shill! Diatribe!
I suppose it depends on how you measure it. If the metric is dollars then I would have to say Rush, Hannity, and Beck.
Thank goodness its not Ann Coulter. Haven't seen her crawl out of the woodwork for a long time. Betcha she's envious of Sarah Palin for being the reigning conservative diva since last year's convention.
Thank goodness its not Ann Coulter. Haven't seen her crawl out of the woodwork for a long time. Betcha she's envious of Sarah Palin for being the reigning conservative diva since last year's convention.
Wasn't Coulter on Hannity with Sharpton just the other night? Not that I listened, but I remember an ad spot for it while listening to the local radio station on the drive home.
|
The way it is described by the OP, conservatism believes that people (individuals) are perfect. What they describe are not human beings with all their faults and weaknesses, but an unreachable ideal of what human beings should be.
Appropriately enough, it is the exact same mistake made by Communism which made it an utopia (ie never real anywhere).
The way it is described by the OP, conservatism believes that people (individuals) are perfect. What they describe are not human beings with all their faults and weaknesses, but an unreachable ideal of what human beings should be.
Appropriately enough, it is the exact same mistake made by Communism which made it an utopia (ie never real anywhere).
I would say the premise is that you are better qualified to make choices about your life as an adult than the state is. We will all make bad choices from time to time, but so will government bureaucrats, and their bad choices will harm millions not just me for instance.
I would say the premise is that you are better qualified to make choices about your life as an adult than the state is. We will all make bad choices from time to time, but so will government bureaucrats, and their bad choices will harm millions not just me for instance.
Assuming that you are a conservative, can you clarify what you mean by by providing some examples where you believe that government bureaucrats are currently making choices about people's lives that you think they ought not?
Assuming that you are a conservative, can you clarify what you mean by by providing some examples where you believe that government bureaucrats are currently making choices about people's lives that you think they ought not?
I would say the premise is that you are better qualified to make choices about your life as an adult than the state is. We will all make bad choices from time to time, but so will government bureaucrats, and their bad choices will harm millions not just me for instance.
Criminalizing medical options not approved by the FDA.
Drug use and narcotics scheduling.
Weapons configuration; for instance a shotgun with an barrel 1 MM under 18 inches is a federal felony as opposed to one that's over 18 inches.
Federal interference in local education.
Federal minimum wage.
CAFE MPG standards.
Federal drinking age and helmet laws.
State and local anti smoking laws.
Federal contravention of state medical cannabis laws.
Numerous unfunded federal mandates.
Does that help?
Federal interference in local education.
To expand, unfunded No Child Left Behind crap.
And yes, I know it was pushed by Bush, Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative.
Assuming that you are a conservative, can you clarify what you mean by by providing some examples where you believe that government bureaucrats are currently making choices about people's lives that you think they ought not?
I would say the premise is that you are better qualified to make choices about your life as an adult than the state is. We will all make bad choices from time to time, but so will government bureaucrats, and their bad choices will harm millions not just me for instance.Criminalizing medical options not approved by the FDA.
Drug use and narcotics scheduling.
Weapons configuration; for instance a shotgun with an barrel 1 MM under 18 inches is a federal felony as opposed to one that's over 18 inches.
Federal interference in local education.
Federal minimum wage.
CAFE MPG standards.
Federal drinking age and helmet laws.
State and local anti smoking laws.
Federal contravention of state medical cannabis laws.
Numerous unfunded federal mandates.
Does that help?
With you on the medical options thing, as well as the weapons regulations, although for me, it's that I wish I could buy jitte without a problem. I'm a little confused on the minimum wage thing though- could you elaborate?
I don't believe it's within the federal governments constitutional scope to dictate a minimum wage. If I for some odd reason want to work for two bucks an hour why should that be criminal?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I don't believe it's within the federal governments constitutional scope to dictate a minimum wage. If I for some odd reason want to work for two bucks an hour why should that be criminal?
Well, you can always give anything you make in excess of $2 an hour to charity. You aren't going to be arrested for that.
Access to housing, healthcare, nourishing food, education and retraining requires more than $2 an hour. Allowing employers to pay so little exploits the most vulnerable at a level that ensures little opportunity to escape from poverty. In the end, taxpayers end up footing the bill to support exploitative businesses.
EDIT: I had a friend that refused to make more than the poverty line as he consider living in poverty a Christian duty. His employer was frustrated because my friend was highly skilled and would only work a third of the year.
I don't believe it's within the federal governments constitutional scope to dictate a minimum wage. If I for some odd reason want to work for two bucks an hour why should that be criminal?Well, you can always give anything you make in excess of $2 an hour to charity. You aren't going to be arrested for that.
That depends on the charity.
Access to housing, healthcare, nourishing food, education and retraining requires more than $2 an hour. Allowing employers to pay so little exploits the most vulnerable at a level that ensures little opportunity to escape from poverty. In the end, taxpayers end up footing the bill to support exploitative businesses.
I believe that's a failing of socialism. I should have included social security, TANF etc to my list.
EDIT: I had a friend that refused to make more than the poverty line as he consider living in poverty a Christian duty. His employer was frustrated because my friend was highly skilled and would only work a third of the year.
interesting
Access to housing, healthcare, nourishing food, education and retraining requires more than $2 an hour. Allowing employers to pay so little exploits the most vulnerable at a level that ensures little opportunity to escape from poverty. In the end, taxpayers end up footing the bill to support exploitative businesses.I believe that's a failing of socialism. I should have included social security, TANF etc to my list.
Bitter indeed. You seem to believe that people who are born into a crap situation deserve it. Care to elaborate? Do Africans deserve their situation? African Americans who grow up in the ghetto? Haitians? Curious minds want to know.
Bitter indeed. You seem to believe that people who are born into a crap situation deserve it. Care to elaborate? Do Africans deserve their situation? African Americans who grow up in the ghetto? Haitians? Curious minds want to know.Access to housing, healthcare, nourishing food, education and retraining requires more than $2 an hour. Allowing employers to pay so little exploits the most vulnerable at a level that ensures little opportunity to escape from poverty. In the end, taxpayers end up footing the bill to support exploitative businesses.I believe that's a failing of socialism. I should have included social security, TANF etc to my list.
It seems to be a typical leftist (statist really) supposition that opposition to the welfare state equals opposition to charity. This is an immense mistake. On the contrary some of us believe the government should not meddle in some things like art, health care, charity and such because they are important and the government is quite bad at these things. Some of us also believe these things are not powers explicitly enumerated to the federal government in the constitution and are thus unconstitutional.
My positions may be better understood as minarchist or libertarian although I consider myself a conservative, and I have been active in the Republican party for over 20 years. Many conservative Republicans would consider my views extreme.
Bitter indeed. You seem to believe that people who are born into a crap situation deserve it. Care to elaborate? Do Africans deserve their situation? African Americans who grow up in the ghetto? Haitians? Curious minds want to know.Access to housing, healthcare, nourishing food, education and retraining requires more than $2 an hour. Allowing employers to pay so little exploits the most vulnerable at a level that ensures little opportunity to escape from poverty. In the end, taxpayers end up footing the bill to support exploitative businesses.I believe that's a failing of socialism. I should have included social security, TANF etc to my list.
It seems to be a typical leftist (statist really) supposition that opposition to the welfare state equals opposition to charity. This is an immense mistake. On the contrary some of us believe the government should not meddle in some things like art, health care, charity and such because they are important and the government is quite bad at these things. Some of us also believe these things are not powers explicitly enumerated to the federal government in the constitution and are thus unconstitutional.
My positions may be better understood as minarchist or libertarian although I consider myself a conservative, and I have been active in the Republican party for over 20 years. Many conservative Republicans would consider my views extreme.
I am hardly a statist, and confusing "leftist" and statist is poor, as "leftists" run a very large gamut of thought and political ideology. I'm largely of an anarcho-socialist bent ("libertarian-socialist," although that really only makes sense with the European definitions), which probably means we agree on many fundamentals, but see very different means for achieving similar goals. I also think you make a common conservative mistake, and forget that the government is of and for the people. Instead, you seem to see it as some sort of permanently coercive structure that is unreformable. This is quite sad, as it more or less gives up on democracy.
As to the argument that personal charity is preferable to government action: I could not agree more. But the reason that the government got involved was because personal charity was an utter failure at making a substantive difference in social conditions. Or, to put it another way, it was the entity that acted when social movements were heard. Had states acted, many of the programs you likely dislike would not exist. Those who want to see a roll back of government social redistribution would do well to build alternative structures, get them to work, and try to reduce government interference. Doing just the last solves nothing.
As to the constitutionality, take it up with the supreme court. I love the idea of small government, but most states in the Union are far from the point where they can be trusted to actually treat their citizens equally and help those in need. I agree that having the feds step in retards the debate that must take place at the state level, but I do not see a solution that would not first allow serious regression, particularly in the South. Which is a way of saying I understand your point, but I don't see a way to actualize it.
Also, you didn't answer my questions. They were not rhetorical.
Bitter indeed. You seem to believe that people who are born into a crap situation deserve it. Care to elaborate? Do Africans deserve their situation? African Americans who grow up in the ghetto? Haitians? Curious minds want to know.Access to housing, healthcare, nourishing food, education and retraining requires more than $2 an hour. Allowing employers to pay so little exploits the most vulnerable at a level that ensures little opportunity to escape from poverty. In the end, taxpayers end up footing the bill to support exploitative businesses.I believe that's a failing of socialism. I should have included social security, TANF etc to my list.
It is funny how immigrants, who have even less opportunity (due to not being native speakers, lacking formalized education, etc) than some citizens that were born in the US, manage in many cases to be more successful than some of those native born citizens. I wonder, what is the major difference?
It is funny how immigrants, who have even less opportunity (due to not being native speakers, lacking formalized education, etc) than some citizens that were born in the US, manage in many cases to be more successful than some of those native born citizens. I wonder, what is the major difference?
Nothing funny about it. There are lazy natives and lazy immigrants. There are motivated natives and motivated immigrants. That many immigrants would be more successful than some of the native citizens is self-evident.
I'm a liberal, and I'm not trying to claim drive and hard work aren't important; they are. I just think that it's pretty plain that the correlation between those things and success is far from perfect, and the fact that perfection isn't obtainable isn't an excuse to NOT try to get as close as we can. It isn't about equality of outcome: You work hard, you do better; I think that's vital. But we can do a better job of ensuring a stronger correlation between those things and success.
As mentioned elsewhere, we also reward capital at the expense of labor, a completely arbitrary situation.
What someone said upthread about mistrusting the government also rang true to me...the government is US, and if it isn't, it's broken.
Completely agree that the federal government is overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Whatever one thinks about the federal government, the Constitution is pretty clear.
Twings wrote: I am hardly a statist, and confusing "leftist" and statist is poor, as "leftists" run a very large gamut of thought and political ideology. I'm largely of an anarcho-socialist bent ("libertarian-socialist," although that really only makes sense with the European definitions), which probably means we agree on many fundamentals, but see very different means for achieving similar goals. I also think you make a common conservative mistake, and forget that the government is of and for the people. Instead, you seem to see it as some sort of permanently coercive structure that is unreformable. This is quite sad, as it more or less gives up on democracy.
I tend to view most political parties as statist so I use the term broadly. Statism is largely characterized by a belief in the efficacy of the state to solve problems though central planning. I tend see most Democrats and Republicans in this camp. I don't know where you fall in the decentralization spectrum, but you certainly seem to have much more faith in the state than I do.
As for government being of and for the people I certainly don't think that has been the case in America for decades, and I think that the larger and more intrusive government is the less likely it is to have anything to do with representing its people. The state is coercion, and I don't think recognizing this fact is sad at all. As for democracy I'm glad we don't live in one. I view the states legitimate function as protecting fundamental human rights from the whims of both the state and majority. The only hope I see for reform in American government is a radical contraction in the scope and power of government.
Twings wrote: As to the argument that personal charity is preferable to government action: I could not agree more. But the reason that the government got involved was because personal charity was an utter failure at making a substantive difference in social conditions. Or, to put it another way, it was the entity that acted when social movements were heard. Had states acted, many of the programs you likely dislike would not exist. Those who want to see a roll back of government social redistribution would do well to build alternative structures, get them to work, and try to reduce government interference. Doing just the last solves nothing.
I could not disagree more with the supposition that "But the reason that the government got involved was because personal charity was an utter failure at making a substantive difference in social conditions." in the US. We have spent trillions of dollars on social welfare here and what have we gotten in return? Trillions of dollars of national debt and tens of trillions of promises the government doesn't know how it's going to keep. In my experience government charity is inept, wasteful, and intensely destructive. Private charities in my experience are far more efficient and they tend to be far more decentralized. Even if you set aside their practical superiority they still have the fundamental advantage of being charity and not government theft at gun point. I view government social programs not as acts of compassion but rather as vulgar displays of power and force of the state over its subjects.
Bitter indeed. You seem to believe that people who are born into a crap situation deserve it. Care to elaborate? Do Africans deserve their situation? African Americans who grow up in the ghetto? Haitians? Curious minds want to know.Access to housing, healthcare, nourishing food, education and retraining requires more than $2 an hour. Allowing employers to pay so little exploits the most vulnerable at a level that ensures little opportunity to escape from poverty. In the end, taxpayers end up footing the bill to support exploitative businesses.I believe that's a failing of socialism. I should have included social security, TANF etc to my list.
In terms of people deserving their situation I don't see how someone deserves to be born into a bad situation. We should be responsible for our choices. Where one is born it not a matter of choice.
Does that answer the question? If it doesn't I seem to be missing the point.
It is funny how immigrants, who have even less opportunity (due to not being native speakers, lacking formalized education, etc) than some citizens that were born in the US, manage in many cases to be more successful than some of those native born citizens. I wonder, what is the major difference?Nothing funny about it. There are lazy natives and lazy immigrants. There are motivated natives and motivated immigrants. That many immigrants would be more successful than some of the native citizens is self-evident.
I'm a liberal, and I'm not trying to claim drive and hard work aren't important; they are. I just think that it's pretty plain that the correlation between those things and success is far from perfect, and the fact that perfection isn't obtainable isn't an excuse to NOT try to get as close as we can. It isn't about equality of outcome: You work hard, you do better; I think that's vital. But we can do a better job of ensuring a stronger correlation between those things and success.
As mentioned elsewhere, we also reward capital at the expense of labor, a completely arbitrary situation.
What someone said upthread about mistrusting the government also rang true to me...the government is US, and if it isn't, it's broken.
Completely agree that the federal government is overstepping it's Constitutional bounds. Whatever one thinks about the federal government, the Constitution is pretty clear.
I would say the US government is very very broken.
I tend to view most political parties as statist so I use the term broadly. Statism is largely characterized by a belief in the efficacy of the state to solve problems though central planning. I tend see most Democrats and Republicans in this camp. I don't know where you fall in the decentralization spectrum, but you certainly seem to have much more faith in the state than I do.
As for government being of and for the people I certainly don't think that has been the case in America for decades, and I think that the larger and more intrusive government is the less likely it is to have anything to do with representing its people. The state is coercion, and I don't think recognizing this fact is sad at all. As for democracy I'm glad we don't live in one. I view the states legitimate function as protecting fundamental human rights from the whims of both the state and majority. The only hope I see for reform in American government is a radical contraction in the scope and power of government.
I try and separate the current status of things and the future I would like to see. I agree with you that the two political parties in the U.S. are in firm agreement that larger government is better, no matter what either of them may say from time to time during campaign season.
But I bitterly disagree that the state's main role must be coercion, as if that is some sort of natural law. Also, your view of democracy seems a tad stale. Modern democratic institutions typically disallow mob majority rule via a constitution. I currently live in a country with direct democracy, Switzerland, and I can tell you that people here do not view the state as coercive institution. This is because they have the power to overturn or add any law they want, be it at the cantonal or federal level. While this can result in bone-headed (and slow) politics from time to time (see the recent Minaret ban, or the struggle over suffrage), in general Swiss society takes it's time and gets things right. There are many reasons why the U.S. and Switzerland are not comparable, but the I encourage you to come visit or read about the history of a country with real democratic structures.
...and they have chocolate! Swiss chocolate. Mmm..
I could not disagree more with the supposition that "But the reason that the government got involved was because personal charity was an utter failure at making a substantive difference in social conditions."
This is not a supposition, but a historically factual statement. I'll give you one example, but I'm sure you can think of more: the organization of child welfare. States had been involved since the late-1800s, but had by and large never established mechanisms to keep children off the street. Orphanages and foster systems were organized and maintained by religious organizations who often abandoned children once they were placed. This lead to the Aid to Dependent Children act, which eventually morphed into your hated TANF.
Much of this happened because of a lack of private and state action. It was not some insidious plan.
In the US. We have spent trillions of dollars on social welfare here and what have we gotten in return? Trillions of dollars of national debt and tens of trillions of promises the government doesn't know how it's going to keep. In my experience government charity is inept, wasteful, and intensely destructive.
Feel free to add some facts to back up those suppositions. How much wealth has been created because of social spending? Do you ever add that in? Inept I'll give you, but you'll need to argue for intensely destructive. I can think of particular programs, particularly in the 60s and 70s, that were horribly thought out and implemented (inner city housing being one), and lead to much destruction, but you can't use that to paint everything red.
Private charities in my experience are far more efficient and they tend to be far more decentralized. Even if you set aside their practical superiority they still have the fundamental advantage of being charity and not government theft at gun point. I view government social programs not as acts of compassion but rather as vulgar displays of power and force of the state over its subjects.
See, this is why I try to stay away from American libertarians. You all seem so wrapped up in this "theft at gun point" BS. Do you like your roads? Bridges? Air traffic control? Military (I'll guess not for you on this one)? Computers and the Internet? Modern medicine? None of those things would look anything like they do, or be as large in scope, without the federal funding that got them there. There are costs that society pays together because private enterprise and charity are not systemically equipped to deal with some problems.
And in terms of private charities...I think what you are describing is more the difference between large lumbering bureaucracies and small nimble groups of people. The Red Cross and other huge aid NGOs have just as much bumbling and fumbling as the U.S. government, you just have chosen not to see it. As we speak, Haiti is serving as a classic example. The U.S. government and large NGOs are all tripping over themselves trying to get aid out of the Port-au-Prince airport, while the smaller aids orgs have all realized that it's far faster and easier to come across the border from the Dominican Republic.
In terms of people deserving their situation I don't see how someone deserves to be born into a bad situation. We should be responsible for our choices. Where one is born it not a matter of choice.
Agreed. And that brings us back to TANF. It's goals are:
* assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes
* reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage
* preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies
* encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
all of which are administered by the States who receive the funding. I think it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with how TANF is implemented, the structures the fed try to impose on the States, and that States or private charity can fulfill those goals by themselves. However, wishing for the death of the program, the goals of which you apparently support, without building a grassroots replacement is a non-starter for me.
...and they have chocolate! Swiss chocolate. Mmm..
Yumm...I'm going to go eat some right now... :-)
I tend to view most political parties as statist so I use the term broadly. Statism is largely characterized by a belief in the efficacy of the state to solve problems though central planning. I tend see most Democrats and Republicans in this camp. I don't know where you fall in the decentralization spectrum, but you certainly seem to have much more faith in the state than I do.
As for government being of and for the people I certainly don't think that has been the case in America for decades, and I think that the larger and more intrusive government is the less likely it is to have anything to do with representing its people. The state is coercion, and I don't think recognizing this fact is sad at all. As for democracy I'm glad we don't live in one. I view the states legitimate function as protecting fundamental human rights from the whims of both the state and majority. The only hope I see for reform in American government is a radical contraction in the scope and power of government.
I try and separate the current status of things and the future I would like to see. I agree with you that the two political parties in the U.S. are in firm agreement that larger government is better, no matter what either of them may say from time to time during campaign season.
But I bitterly disagree that the state's main role must be coercion, as if that is some sort of natural law. Also, your view of democracy seems a tad stale. Modern democratic institutions typically disallow mob majority rule via a constitution. I currently live in a country with direct democracy, Switzerland, and I can tell you that people here do not view the state as coercive institution. This is because they have the power to overturn or add any law they want, be it at the cantonal or federal level. While this can result in bone-headed (and slow) politics from time to time (see the recent Minaret ban, or the struggle over suffrage), in general Swiss society takes it's time and gets things right. There are...
Our views on state as power and violence are doubtless an unbridgeable gulf. I can't imagine any argument that would make me believe other wise. If one disobeys the dictates of the state the state uses violence to take your property, imprison or kill you. I'm not sure what you suggest the alternative is. Obviously this leads to a fundamental difference in what we believe government is permitted to do.
I don't object to direct democracy in so much as fundamental human rights are strictly protected, but I would tend to say this is the difference between a republic and a democracy. I find truly free markets to be very democratic, but you would probably argue that their inequalities lead to exploitation and violation of human rights. These are fundamental contrasts between minarchism and socialist libertarianism.
I've been to Switzerland twice as a teen and found it a beautiful and hospitable country. I was not politically literate at that point in my life, but I greatly enjoyed the trip. I also commend your nations choice not to disarm its citizens as I understand the current situation.
We have spent trillions of dollars on social welfare here and what have we gotten in return? Trillions of dollars of national debt and tens of trillions of promises the government doesn't know how it's going to keep.
Also, the middle class. :-)
Those who want to see a roll back of government social redistribution would do well to build alternative structures, get them to work, and try to reduce government interference. Doing just the last solves nothing.
This actually reminds me of one of my primary objections to the conservative stance on abortion. Personally, while I think that women should be free to choose what they want to do with their bodies, I respect the opinion of anyone who thinks that abortion is murder. That said, I think that if you want to preserve the life of a child, you need to consider what impact the birth of that child has on the life of the mother as well. After all, having a child comes with a financial burden and a moral responsibility that many women are not capable of handling. Also, if the child is born out of wedlock, it comes with a social stigma that makes any problems that the mother faces even more difficult.
And before you counter that it's the woman's fault that she got pregnant in the first place, may I remind you that it takes two to tango, and that it is much easier for a man to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy than it is for a woman. Also, if the primary purpose of ending abortions is to ensure the rights and well-being of the unborn child, then punishing the mother with financial hardship and forcing her to take on a moral responsibility that she's not ready to deal with does not seem like the best way to ensure the rights of the child.
Personally, I think if conservatives want to 'preserve the life and rights of an unborn child,' they need to do two things: 1) ensure that the mother has the financial resources she needs to bring the child to term, and 2) ensure that the child has access to food, clothing, shelter, and education until it reaches adulthood. I understand that conservatives are typically against large government social programs. However, I think that if you make it illegal for fathers to walk away from their financial responsibilities towards their children, and if you provide additional tax breaks to single parents, then you can reduce the need for such government programs. I also think that if you steer money towards social programs that provide single parents with scholarships, and/or job training, then you can give children a chance at a better life without creating the dreaded 'welfare state.'
I think if conservatives were willing to focus on alternatives to abortion, rather than on abolishing abortion itself, they might have a better chance at saving the lives of children and ensuring that they grow up healthy.
This actually reminds me of one of my primary objections to the conservative stance on abortion. Personally, while I think that women should be free to choose what they want to do with their bodies, I respect the opinion of anyone who thinks that abortion is murder. That said, I think that if you want to preserve the life of a child, you need to consider what impact the birth of that child has on the life of the mother as well. After all, having a child comes with a financial burden and a moral responsibility that many women are not capable of handling. Also, if the child is born out of wedlock, it comes with a social stigma that makes any problems that the mother faces even more difficult.
Put the child up for adoption.
And before you counter that it's the woman's fault that she got pregnant in the first place, may I remind you that it takes two to tango, and that it is much easier for a man to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy than it is for a woman. Also, if the primary purpose of ending abortions is to ensure the rights and well-being of the unborn child, then punishing the mother with financial hardship and forcing her to take on a moral responsibility that she's not ready to deal with does not seem like the best way to ensure the rights of the child.
If the woman decides to keep the child and knows who the father might be, the father is financially responsible for the child, even if the father wishes to have nothing to do with the child (and in some cases, even if the man is not actually the biological father of the child). As for the financial and moral hardship, again, put the child up for adoption.
Personally, I think if conservatives want to 'preserve the life and rights of an unborn child,' they need to do two things: 1) ensure that the mother has the financial resources she needs to bring the child to term, and 2) ensure that the child has access to food, clothing, shelter, and education until it reaches adulthood. I understand that conservatives are typically against large government social programs. However, I think that if you make it illegal for fathers to walk away from their financial responsibilities towards their children, and if you provide additional tax breaks to single parents, then you can reduce the need for such government programs. I also think that if you steer money towards social programs that provide single parents with scholarships, and/or job training, then you can give children a chance at a better life without creating the dreaded 'welfare state.'
I think if conservatives were willing to focus on alternatives to abortion, rather than on abolishing abortion itself, they might have a better chance at saving the lives of children and ensuring that they grow up healthy.
Let's make adoptions easier, instead of having people wanting to leave the country and adopting from somewhere else because the regulations are easier.
And if liberals actually cared about reproductive rights as they claim, they would make it possible for men to have "statuory abortions" where they can disown a child and not be financial responsible if a woman decides to have a child and the man does not (with some kind of reasonable time frame from the time that they were legally informed of the existance of the child). The fact that liberals are quite comfortable enslaving men for the financial burden of a woman who chooses to carry a child to term, in some cases even a child that is not the man's biologically (married woman has an affair, husband's name gets put on the birth certificate, later it is found out that the child is not the husband's, he is still financially responsible even if they get divorced), just shows that the reproductive rights issue is sham.
Those who want to see a roll back of government social redistribution would do well to build alternative structures, get them to work, and try to reduce government interference. Doing just the last solves nothing.This actually reminds me of one of my primary objections to the conservative stance on abortion. Personally, while I think that women should be free to choose what they want to do with their bodies, I respect the opinion of anyone who thinks that abortion is murder. That said, I think that if you want to preserve the life of a child, you need to consider what impact the birth of that child has on the life of the mother as well. After all, having a child comes with a financial burden and a moral responsibility that many women are not capable of handling. Also, if the child is born out of wedlock, it comes with a social stigma that makes any problems that the mother faces even more difficult.
And before you counter that it's the woman's fault that she got pregnant in the first place, may I remind you that it takes two to tango, and that it is much easier for a man to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy than it is for a woman. Also, if the primary purpose of ending abortions is to ensure the rights and well-being of the unborn child, then punishing the mother with financial hardship and forcing her to take on a moral responsibility that she's not ready to deal with does not seem like the best way to ensure the rights of the child.
Personally, I think if conservatives want to 'preserve the life and rights of an unborn child,' they need to do two things: 1) ensure that the mother has the financial resources she needs to bring the child to term, and 2) ensure that the child has access to food, clothing, shelter, and education until it reaches adulthood. I understand that conservatives are typically against large government social programs. However, I think that if you make it illegal for fathers to walk away from their financial responsibilities towards their children, and...
A couple of points here...
First, I disapprove of the semantics being used which I believe distracts from the point being made. The mother is not being punished with the financial burden of the child. Holding someone to a responsibility is not punishment. If you owe me five dollars, expecting you to pay it (or garnishing your wages to get it) to me is not punishing you. Beating you over the head with an axe-handle because you haven't paid me would be punishment. The mother is not being punished in any way shape or form.
I also have to disagree SOME with the concept of making it "illegal" for the father to walk away from his financial responsibility. As it stands now the father is legally required to meet his financial responsibility. If he does not pay, the court will order him to. If he does not pay then his wages will be garnished and the money sent to the mother whether or not he wants it to. Note: Point of completely unknown father is ceded here.
Also, I concede that this is not foolproof. One way is for a worker to only work for companies that do not use direct deposit for the pay system. Still, every few weeks he will be discovered and have to switch jobs to avoid garnishment. Or, the father could only work under the table but that could lead to tax evasion. I guess the point is that giving chances for the father to pay is more conducive in the long run (eventually leading to criminal offenses being charged), IMO, than just locking up the father and making him unable to pay because he is incarcerated.
I would have the government make all child support payments to the custodial parent and then have the government collect its reimbursement from the one who owes it to the custodial parent.
It is kind of confusing and not to my liking how it is done now (wikipedia child support) in the US.
Distribution and payment
Child support payments are distributed in a variety of ways. In cases where a obligor is liable for specific expenses such as school tuition, they may pay them directly instead of through the obligee.In some jurisdictions, obligors (paying parents) are required to remit their payments to the governing federal or state child support enforcement agency. The payments are recorded, any portion required to reimburse the government is subtracted, and then the remainder is passed on to the obligee (receiving parent), either through direct deposit or checks.
The first payee for child support depends on the current welfare status of the payee. For example, if the obligee is currently receiving a monthly check from the government, all current support collected during said month is paid to the government to reimburse the monies paid to the obligee. Regarding families formerly on assistance, current support is paid to the family first, and only after said support is received, the government may then collect additional payments to reimburse itself for previously paid assistance to the obligee (receiving parent). See 42 USC 657: "(A) Current Support Payments: To the extent that the amount so collected does not exceed the amount required to be paid to the family for the month in which collected, the State shall distribute the amount so collected to the family.".
Within the United States, a 2007 study conducted through the University of Baltimore estimates that 50% of all child support arrears are owed to the government to reimburse welfare expenses. Half of U.S. states pass along none of the child support they collect to low-income families receiving welfare and other assistance, instead reimbursing themselves and the federal government. Most of the rest only pass along $50.00 per month. The bipartisan 2006 Deficit Reduction Act and other measures have sought to reduce the amount of money claimed by the government and to ensure that more funds are accessible by children and families, noting that more obligors (paying parents) are willing to pay child support when their children directly benefit from payments.
But, in closing I will say the following: given the choice between abortions and government paying for it I will take the government paying for it everytime. But, holding a parent financially responsible for his or her child is NOT punishing that parent.
We have spent trillions of dollars on social welfare here and what have we gotten in return? Trillions of dollars of national debt and tens of trillions of promises the government doesn't know how it's going to keep.Also, the middle class. :-)
Are you saying the middle class would not exist without social welfare?
Seriously?! I'm not trying to be obtuse here,but I really don't follow your argument. I think the middle class probably pre-existed massive socialist welfare states.
We have spent trillions of dollars on social welfare here and what have we gotten in return? Trillions of dollars of national debt and tens of trillions of promises the government doesn't know how it's going to keep.Also, the middle class. :-)Are you saying the middle class would not exist without social welfare?
Seriously?! I'm not trying to be obtuse here,but I really don't follow your argument. I think the middle class probably pre-existed massive socialist welfare states.
It did. Started in the Middle Ages. After the waves of Black Death swept the lands, the people who had a skill (blacksmith, merchant, tanners, etc) became more valuable. Plus, as the feudal system broke down due to complication ("So, you owe me 39 days of labor for the land and 15 days of labor for the house, but I granted you special dispensation for your duties as my park warden . . .), money became the barter item of choice. Those who were more skilled earned more money.
Sure, the middle class didn't get the perks of royalty, but there was a decided middle ground between being a dirt farmer and a noble.
Sadly, there are a good number of individuals who believe that a third party, taking from one group of people by force and giving it to a second group of people, creates prosperity.
If the woman decides to keep the child and knows who the father might be, the father is financially responsible for the child, even if the father wishes to have nothing to do with the child (and in some cases, even if the man is not actually the biological father of the child).
Well I guess you learn something new every day. :)
Anyway, I still don't think it undermines my point. If conservatives really want to ensure that children live a healthy and happy life, they need to not only identify the problems with the existing system, they also need to offer solutions that work for everyone.
Conservatives, I find, are great at identifying problems with social policy, and child support is no exception. For example, I'm reading an article right now, and while I don't like the overall tone of it, it talks about how men who fall behind on child support payments can lose their drivers' licenses, and while that seems like an appropriate measure to take if someone is walking away from their moral responsibilities as a father, it often makes it more difficult for men who have lost their jobs to find another one. Another article mentions that two-thirds of the men who owe child support earn wages below the poverty.
Okay, so these are the problems. How do we fix them? I won't claim to have all the answers, but I think the place to start is to ask some questions. For example, who pays the child support if the father can't? Would it help if the state, or some other entity, provided on-the-job training to fathers who earn wages below the poverty line? I'm reading an article that talks about how many fathers who owe child support are parolees, and how the criminal justice system focuses more on minor parole violations then it does on finding these men jobs. Is there something we can do more to fix the criminal justice system?
I think if conservatives worked to provide answers to some of these questions, while still acknowledging that men should be financially responsible for their children, then I think they could help create child support laws that help both mothers and fathers.
As for the financial and moral hardship, again, put the child up for adoption.
See? This is exactly the kind of glib answer that I don't like. I mentioned that it is a financial hardship on women to even bring a child to term. Yet, your answer doesn't acknowledge this fact. It also doesn't acknowledge that one of the reasons that many women have abortions is because they do not want friends and family to know about their pregnancy because they are afraid that it will bring shame and humiliation down upon them. I think if conservatives really care about the lives of children, then they need to help women find ways to overcome these hardships. Otherwise, legal or not, women are going to have abortions.
Are you saying the middle class would not exist without social welfare?
Seriously?! I'm not trying to be obtuse here,but I really don't follow your argument. I think the middle class probably pre-existed massive socialist welfare states.
Well, I may have overstated things a little for the sake of humor, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that welfare does, in fact, reduce levels of poverty in most countries. I don't typically like citing Wikipedia, but they accurately cite a peer-reviewed journal article called "Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment," by Lane Kenworthy (Social Forces, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Mar., 1999), pp. 1119-1139). This article compares the poverty level of individuals both before and after the transfer of welfare funds, and as you can see, the differences are not insignificant.
Incidentally, if you have access and you want to read the article in full, I know you can look it up in JSTOR.
It did. Started in the Middle Ages. After the waves of Black Death swept the lands, the people who had a skill (blacksmith, merchant, tanners, etc) became more valuable.
Yeah, it always helps the economy when things like rampant plague wipe out half the population, because it concentrates wealth in the hands of the surviving relatives. Maybe Swift's "A Modest Proposal" wasn't so far off the mark after all. :)
Abortion is a touchy subject. Personally I don’t like it, and I believe there are some really scummy people out there who don’t think of abortion as a really big moral choice, and treat it like any other form of birth control. However, I am also aware there are women in very extra ordinary circumstances who have their lives in danger by the pregnancy, or were raped, or whose parents might literally kill them if they found out. The later group doesn’t really make me any more comfortable with abortion, but I acknowledge them.
Now, while the practice of abortion makes me uncomfortable I do not believe the women who get them, or the doctors who perform them are evil, or that it is in and of its self an evil act. The difference of opinion on that, I believe, stems from where people believe human life begins. Some people believe that the moment a sperm enters an egg that is a human being, and should receive all the rights and privileges all humans should. Others believe that until a certain developmental point the embryo is a ‘potential human’, much like every sperm and egg is a ‘potential human.’ I myself am in the later camp, though because the ‘potential human’ has begun development I’m a bit (see: a lot) more uncomfortable with it than I would be, say a condom.
I guess what makes me a social liberal in my mind is that I don’t believe that because something makes me uncomfortable gives me the right to make it illegal for every woman in this country, especially because, as a man, I will never know what these women are going through. Others believe that because something makes them uncomfortable they should be able to force their views on the world. This philosophy is how I view social conservatism. Still others are more than uncomfortable, because they think human life begins at conception. These people see abortion as akin to murder. These might fall into either conservative or liberal (though they are much more vocal in the former), and I can certainly respect their opposition to abortion, as if I had the same beliefs I would probably have the same stance. I can certainly respect someone who believes all life is sacred, or worth saving.
What I can’t respect however, is when some of the ‘pro life’ people (certainly not all, but more than one I’ve known personally) feed me that line that ‘they believe all life is sacred’, and then support the death penalty. Don’t get me wrong, I support the death penalty too, but I don’t go around telling people I think all life is sacred. Worse, some of these same people believe, and I quote “We should just nuke the whole middle east, just to be safe.” That someone can look me in the eye and say that last line, and then tell me they’re ‘pro life’ is beyond b#&~$$+&.
See? This is exactly the kind of glib answer that I don't like. I mentioned that it is a financial hardship on women to even bring a child to term. Yet, your answer doesn't acknowledge this fact.
That wasn't exactly how you said it, you said "have a child". This might mean bring it to term or it might mean having the child in their care. Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. Still some women do not spend any extra on prenatal care and continuing working until the birth. I will agree though that is probably not the most desirable or common occurance.
It also doesn't acknowledge that one of the reasons that many women have abortions is because they do not want friends and family to know about their pregnancy because they are afraid that it will bring shame and humiliation down upon them. I think if conservatives really care about the lives of children, then they need to help women find ways to overcome these hardships. Otherwise, legal or not, women are going to have abortions.
So let me get this straight, the only way conservatives (or anyone against abortion on demand) can legitmately be critical in your view is if they can make it so that women can be pregnant without showing any outward signs. Is that correct? Society has pretty much given up on "shaming" women for being single mothers (last time it was really pushed was by Dan Quayle and we saw how that turned out for him). If a particular family or group of friends still has "traditional views" on this, well there isn't really much we as a society can do to stop that.
What I can’t respect however, is when some of the ‘pro life’ people (certainly not all, but more than one I’ve known personally) feed me that line that ‘they believe all life is sacred’, and then support the death penalty. Worse, some of these same people believe, and I quote “We should just nuke the whole middle east, just to be safe.” That someone can look me in the eye and say that last line, and then tell me they’re ‘pro life’ is beyond b~@*#&&&.
You're reckoning without the authoritarian/social conservative obsession with passing judgment and ordaining punishment. The entire Middle East "deserves" to be nuked, because of the actions of terrorists from that region. If the IRA carried out a violent action within U.S. borders, all of Ireland (or the U.K. in general) would presumably "deserve" to be overrun. Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter, or simply killed out of hand (to me, the latter is far more humane at least).
But embryos don't deserve punishment, because they haven't been born yet, and thus haven't had a chance to incur the witch-hunters' ire.
You're reckoning without the authoritarian/social conservative obsession with passing judgment and ordaining punishment. The entire Middle East "deserves" to be nuked, because of the actions of terrorists from that region. If the IRA carried out a violent action within U.S. borders, all of Ireland (or the U.K. in general) would "deserve" to be destroyed. But embryos don't "deserve" it.
Kirth, I know you’re being half sarcastic half devil’s advocate there. Still, the fact remains if you think an entire region of the gods be damned world should be turned into a radioactive crater so you can sleep better at night, then you do not in fact believe all life is sacred. Had these people told me ‘I pro life, so long as the life hasn’t been convicted of any crimes or wasn’t born in the same part of the world as the group of guys who attacked my country’ then I could respect them a little more. Not much mind you, but at least they wouldn’t be lying to my face anymore.
Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter,
I have actually heard this more from the anti-death penalty folks.