Comments on The Errors of the Liberal Religion-- Part 1

Go to The Golden Rule Needs Some Iron - Add a comment - Go to The Errors of the Liberal Religion-- Part 1

I'm not sure what it signifies that...

...Golden Mean, Rovesciato and Dylan_Valente each wind up embracing substantial parts of conservative moral philosophy, considering that our views range widely on a lot of issues.  I must admit to maintaining an aesthetic and emotional attachment to moral conservatism, though not the version frequently propounded by the likes of Jerry Falwell, because of its emphasis on things that strike me as both rationally and intuitively important -- personal responsibility and restraint, limits on individual freedom according to the interests of others (liberalism has taken this into its own ranks with regard to economics, of course, but the principle, I think, whether applied economically or socially, remains distinctively conservative, i.e. "liberal" calls for constraints on market capitalism strike me as essentially conservative in that they urge limits on individual liberty in the interest of the majority), things that I interpret as quite necessary checks on the excesses of liberal philosophy, which seem to cross the border into libertinism as often as not, when people abuse drugs or engage in promiscuous sex and then expect others to pick up their slack.  Thus the most genuinely conservative thinker, in my mind, is one whose views are close to what we call social conservatism but also close to what we call fiscal or economic liberalism, and that is approximately where I find myself most of the time (at once passionately denouncing abortion and the excesses of big business -- right now, no major political party has a home for me; interestingly enough, the Catholic Church comes closest).  Anyhow, that people of such varying opinions as the three of us find common ground on the need for strength of will and responsibility leads me to be confident that we are right on this issue.  If this belief had more flaw than virtue, it seems to me that one of our views would pick up on it, since our different views must cover a large part of the spectrum, leaving out perhaps communism and fascism.  Rambling ceases now. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on June 16, 2005 at 11:47 AM | link to this | reply

i need to proof my comments. in the first line alone typed "on my" instead of "on me" and "is" instead of "i" to start the second sentence. i sure there are  a hundred others. i have to admit that my comments are often difficult for even  me to read when i look back at them.

posted by rovesciato on June 5, 2005 at 11:19 PM | link to this | reply

wow, you turned that around on my Doestoevsky style. is suppose by those standards i might pass for having a conservative core. unfortunately, while i am beginning to see more clearly what you me by liberalism as a way of thinking or being rather than a set of principals or beliefs (i understood what you meant before but the mental groundwork of practical application, the slow accumulation of examples and further explanation, is only now filling in) i don't think that the definition of conservative accurately describes what is and has passed for conservativism in practice, either here or in europe. i certainly don't agree that conservatives are any less mean spirited or duplicitous in pursuing their agendas. actually the two vices you mentioned, greed and materialism, represent what is an almost comforting picture of the old conservatives, as greed and materialism are eminently understandable and have thepotential of being managed indirectly. the new crop i would argue, are worshippers of "conservatism" just as much as liberals are worshippers of liberalism, and that this "religion" (certainly not Christianity) has its birth directly as a counterpoint to liberism. thus the new conservative is essentially a liberal in conservative clothing. i've used terms like "brown shirt hippie" and "new Jacobins" before, primarily with this meaning. the old saying goes, you become what you hate.

one of the backhanded virtues of liberalism is that alomst everyone who describes themselves as liberal would openly admit that they are trying to change people and/or society. reason might be poor and motives shoddy but there is a sort of confession in every act of liberalism, which in part accounts for what seems to be jaded nature of many weathered liberals. conservativsim, however, usually claims to be returning to the sound or right behavior of a better time. this better time, of course, never existed, at least not in a way that justifies changing people wholesale, which is what conservatism actually seeks to do. it is a proactive stance that would create a "new man" or "new jerusalem" (often tried over the centuries but never sucessful, thus still proactive) and needs pleanty of kulaks to maintin the zeal of its practitioners. thus i can only half submit to your assessment of my conservatism. when i listen to conservative commentators pat themselves and each other on the back as they trot out their right opinion i find that i am almost nauseated, and few thing disagree with me more than listening to a conservative run on and on about character, prinipally how much they have compared to others. the empty can rattles the most.

i really like your assesment of my alteration concerning anger, and the example you give. that is the sort of practical advice that travels. the difference between direct anger and indirect anger definately shows, not only in other people but in my own lack of embarassment, or dare i say shame at times, when i can feel that my anger or irritation is sound.

so, your task is to convince political conservativism that it needs to adhere to your definition, and then i can perhaps tip tow into the fold.

posted by rovesciato on June 5, 2005 at 11:15 PM | link to this | reply

Rovesciato

First, let me say I immensely enjoy reading your comments and blogs. You have a unique quality of writing that is honest, but very intelligent and discerning and well..... ethical.

You wrote "One of the big questions is: is our mindset organic or ephemereal..... for instance, I've found that the harder its become for me to be provoked to or maintain emnity (both strong and petty versions) the easier it has become for me to get angry, and more importantly, to show it."

I have noticed a similar trend in my life. As one matures, one should learn to recognize and control emotional impulses, which are natural and biological. Emotions are hard-wired into our brains, which has been proven by neuro-biological research. Humans are born as a marvelous interlaced package of body-mind-spirit, designed at least in part by eons of evolution. We are born crying and laughing and raging; we have no choice in that. It is what we cry and laugh and rage FOR or AGAINST that forms our morality, and that is pure choice, an ethical choice, from our earliest days of infancy. So you are finding that you are becoming more adept at discerning between the emotional issues and the ethical issues. That is good. When we show our anger to another person, and it is for an ethically valid reason, it appeals to the other person's innate sense of ethics, and if they are above a certain level of ethical development, they will respond in a corrective, positive manner. For example, in my marriage, I have analyzed my wife's system of ethical values. We irritate each other in various ways. I have learned to tolerate a great deal of irritation, and I have learned to choose my battles with great care. When I show anger and snap at her, it had better be for a reason that makes sense in HER system of values as well as mine. When it does, she backs down immediately and bows to my will. That is an awesome but rare occurrence. So, the more attuned we are to other people's values, the more effective we are in resolving conflicts by showing our anger. Anger is only as worthy as the moral principle it is defending. This is one measure of significant growth and maturity. I heard somewhere that anger/argument is the means by which we mark our limits of moral tolerance in our relationships. Use your anger to mark your limits true to immortal ethical principles, and others will respect you for it.

You wrote: "the ideologies that we can identify easily as liberal and conservative are hodgepodges brought together more for their effectiveness in galvinating people to oppose the other side than for any inner consistency."

I am not so sure about that. What I consider "liberal" is a consistent denial of the strength of human will, a lowering of expectations of human accomplishment, a denial of personal responsibility. Thus it spawns a vast excusing of ethical weakness, and a loathing of those who show a strong conviction of ethical principle. And liberals seem to be much more mean-spirited and dishonest in their attacks on their opponents. They seem to be less willing to bow to the will of the majority of the people. They are convinced, as true believers, that their views MUST be enforced upon all of society, even if the majority of society is against them. Liberalism tries to champion weakness, to deny personal responsibility. That will never be a winning philosophy, because weakness is repulsive and personal responsibility is a basic moral/ethical reality.

Conservatism has its own problems, such as a tendency to greed and materialism, but I think it is ethically consistent. What I consider "conservative" is a consistent affirmation of the strength of human will, a raising of expectations of human accomplishment, and an affirmation of personal responsibility. Conservatism values strength and does not value or excuse weakness, therefore it is more in harmony with the harsh requirements of nature. When conservatism is tempered with compassion and tolerance of many lifestyles, it comes the closest to an ideal human society, in my opinion.

You wrote: "all responsibility must be internal, thus must perpetual insistence that morality be considered something different from integrity."

I have come to learn that you consider "morality" to be the faulty concensus of society, an external and often wrong standard of behavior that can actually be unethical. Thus unethical people can use "morality" as a deceptive cloak of honor, to commit the most immoral crimes upon their fellows. Instead of societal "morality" you value an internal, individual commitment to integrity, or ethical behavior that cannot be corrupted. I agree with your excellent analysis.

And it seems that we both place the highest value on an internal sense of personal responsibility, that will always place the burden of blame upon oneself before seeking to place it upon others. In this we represent the highest ideal of conservatism, against the philosophy/religion of liberalism. So I welcome you into the ranks of philosophical conservatives, though I imagine you to be dragged kicking and screaming into the fold.

posted by GoldenMean on June 3, 2005 at 10:52 PM | link to this | reply

and i'll try to apply my self to your and dylan's comments on saturday with the "threshed out" mind of a hangover. cheers

posted by rovesciato on June 3, 2005 at 3:45 PM | link to this | reply

Rovesciato

I will address your formidable comment tomorrow night. That will be Friday night, when I am allow myself to "lubricate my thoughts" with a quaff of wine. I hope my thoughts follow a straighter path, even if my steps may not!

posted by GoldenMean on June 2, 2005 at 11:32 PM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean ...

I don't know how old you are, but I will say that every individual will experience wealth and poverty at various stages of their life. I hope if and when it happens to you, so for example, because some corporate finance exec plunders the company and leaves you and thousands of your fellow employees out of work, that you won't think it happened because of some character flaw.

posted by fwmystic on June 2, 2005 at 11:25 PM | link to this | reply

Dylan

I agree with you and George Will in principle. We should pay taxes for the government to help victims of the free-trade economy who want to recover from a career blow, or who want to better themselves, like my 49-year old employee who is taking night college courses by way of student loans. I hope the best for him, and he may surprise me. He may actually get a degree and land a better job than I can give him. I don't mind my tax money going for such things.

But if he started acting irresponsibly, say fathering babies and not supporting them, or becoming a alcoholic again, he would quickly earn my condemnation and refusal to help. I would find a way to fire him, and leave him to the welfare programs my tax money pays for.

Responsible behavior should be encouraged, rewarded, and required by law when possible, whether we are talking about welfare for the poor, or the management of large companies by greedy CEO's.

posted by GoldenMean on June 2, 2005 at 11:17 PM | link to this | reply

Painter, I forgot to say

that the 17-year-old girl probably had plenty of "negative" instruction in her family, that is, examples of behavior that DO NOT lead to economic success. Her mother and grandmother surely did not tell her that it was OK to have her first baby at the age of 15, when the father was committing statutory rape. She should have had the sense to observe that she should not continue the sexual mistakes that her mother made, and perhaps her grandmother too. Everyone has the capability to observe and avoid the mistakes that others make. Humans are not lemmings, that follow each other over the cliff to drown in the ocean.

posted by GoldenMean on June 2, 2005 at 10:40 PM | link to this | reply

Painter

I agree that the problem we are discussing is a moral or ethical one (that was your point, I think), and that it is widespread in society. However, it becomes a more noticeable problem with the poor, because they are failing to support themselves and becoming a great burden on the rest of us. We have to give up some of our precious resources to support them.

Thanks for the additional info on your tragic welfare example, the 17 year old single welfare mother of 2 kids. You ask me "can you see that she did not have any real instruction in life?" I can see that, to a limited degree, but I think there is way too much emphasis on "instruction" and the influence of others on our own moral and ethical decisions. Humans are born with intelligence, and that means we are capable of independent reasoning thought. If we are spirits, we may have lived many lifetimes, and societal "instruction" becomes far less important than moral choice. We may be set firmly in our ways AT BIRTH, and hostile to any "instruction" at all.

All religion is based on the idea that the human spirit is to be held accountable in some way for our individual actions and decisions. You seem to agree with this in your religious blogs. So when does God/Nature/Universe hold us accountable as individuals? I would say AT ALL TIMES. So when do we stop making excuses for people and start expecting to think for themselves?

If the entire family of the 17 year old girl failed to give her the proper "instructions" for life, why should society be expected to? Why can't we expect a 17-year-old young woman to develop some survival sense of her own? And why shouldn't she suffer some serious economic consequences if she does not develop some survival sense?

posted by GoldenMean on June 2, 2005 at 10:21 PM | link to this | reply

I also concur with Rovesciato's point about inconsistencies in both liberal and conservative thinking.  One time he noted that leftists generally are anti-tobacco but pro-marijuana while rightists are pro-tobacco but anti-marijuana, even though both are substances that are harmful when smoked.  A consistent position would require approximately the same attitude toward them both, endorsing prohibition only if you were also prepared to re-prohibit alcohol, which might be more harmful than pot.  Another example is the abortion issue (oh no!), when leftists, whose entire philosophy is infused with special concern for the weak and vulnerable, suddenly become social Darwinists in arguing that the human unborn should not be protected because they lack sophisticated rational/cognitive and physical development.  The right responds with inconsistency of its own, showing the utmost concern with life in the womb but a callous antipathy toward the necessary social supports to care for children after birth.  This does not mean that there are not broad areas of consistency within both camps, but there are also these really glaring inconsistencies that makes one question the utility of clearly-defined ideological identification.  Wouldn't we be better off aligning ourselves only with single causes and the candidates who happen to support the majority or plurality of our collection of causes, rather than tie ourselves to the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative', and oblige ourselves to defend the many conspicuous contradictions that attend these labels? 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on June 1, 2005 at 2:32 PM | link to this | reply

Rovesciato:

phew, that comment was a challenging read!  It was also worthwhile. I don't know how to evaluate the argument that we embrace ideologies to fill personal voids or ambiguities, but I can more easily see how that would be true than how it wouldn't be true.  That's because it appears consistent with people's arguments and rhetoric in defending their political or ideological turf: they will clearly understand that their opponent has made a strong point but resist conceding that point because, presumably, they fear that they would be somehow treasonous or lack integrity in doing so, even if conceding that one point does not logically require them to cede the whole argument. 

Some people, especially on TV programs, are transparently and perhaps deliberately evading the more difficult questions about their positions or using other disingenuous arguments or, my personal favorite, non sequitirs, which Rovesciato has accurately caught me citing more as argument for my own positions than objective critique of non sequitirs (a long while back, for example, I cited as an example of a non sequitir the argument that the United States supported Saddam Hussein 20 years ago, so it was wrong to go to war with him in 2003.  I maintain that a lot of people made the former point with the intention of implying, at least, that the latter was its logical conclusion, and that irritates me to no rational end.) 

I am assuming -- lacking actual proof but having strong suspicion -- that many people know damn well they are making invalid arguments, but persist in making them because they feel that their philosophy is still justified overall and that whatever convenient argument can be made on its behalf should be made, even if it does not hold to logic.  Openly conceding a point, moreover, may make a person look weak and lacking in conviction, and some people may fear that, perhaps for good reason even if one accepts that conceding a few points does not discredit you or your argument.

 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on June 1, 2005 at 2:23 PM | link to this | reply

i aslo now see that some of this is somewhat redundant having read your comment in my long dead True Believer blog. his book is about how avoidance is at the root of the nature of mass movements, my own thought applies his ideas in everyday life without redefining everyone as "fanatical". politics, however, always strikes me as being outside everyday life. it is akin to putting oneself on stage, even if one is merely arguing in their own head with what they hear on tv or radio. thus another angle to my artificiality remark, politics allowing everyone and anyone to project themselves onto a large screen, or to "play the game for the highest stakes". real life involes, to use your example, deciding when to assert yourself and when to tell half truths, half lies to avoid unnecessary and possibly dammaging conflict. my vice has always been in being over malleable, or being too keen to smooth things over between people, but obviously that is changing

anyway, the bums stuff is at the bottom of the "and so a layman read the economist" or whatever it says blog. one of the posts has a long exchange between myself and able ergot of old, interesting in that we reply to each other repeatedly it what appears to be a dialog increasing to some pointed climax and yet we never really respond to what the other is actually saying. 

posted by rovesciato on June 1, 2005 at 2:06 AM | link to this | reply

it sounded good when i typed it, but that should indicate that its too easy, which it is, artificial constructs that is. that is, or should be, one of the big questions: is our mindset organic or ephermal. there i go again. sounds good but looking ephermal up in the dictionary in refers to lasting a short time rather than passing off without having a fundamental effect as i had meant it. what i'm saying is when does a strong emotion or state of mind (meaning ideology, faith, politic, etc) become part of "our nature" and when is it merely an "exhaust", or the byproduct of "our nature" or who or what we basically are. for instance, i've found that the harder its beocme for me to be provoked to or maintain emnity (both strong and petty versions) the easier it has become for me to get angry, and more importantly, to show it. its as though i can instinctively trust myself now not to cross lines or burn bridges if i snap at someone. my anger is to the point and not going to alter my feeling or opinion of someone, but will pass off, often almost too easily. whereas a burried or unexpressed emnity could morph a particular incident into an open wound and even shift to people who had neither anything to do with the situation at hand or the original cause of the emnity. then you have created a gap between yourself and someone else that has no basis (or perhaps a barrowed one plucked from the many fissures that develop between all people, particularly those who know each other best) one of these mystery estrangements that cripple personal relationships (and becomes the source of so much music and art).  so where in this mess is the plant and where is the compost? is my anger false now because it doesn't stick or is it true now because it is expressed?

part of what i am saying in the phrase "artificial mental constructs" is that our attachments to ideology, faith, politics, etc. is part of the evasion we turn to when we need to "cover up" these mystery estrangements, these holes in our lives that don't seem to have any cause or purpose. we find something not so much because we can say "this explains that" as that we can say "i have this". the problem being that "to loose this" is to be faced again with what was being avioded in the first place, thus the great energy that gets poured into "constructs of the mind". this does not make any ideology, faith, politic wrong in and of itself but it does skew the application since we are not so much "defending the faith" as we are defending ourselves. thus there is no direct link between means and ends and an artificiality is created that characterizes the bulk of the dialog of history. this is the subject matter of Eric Hoffer's book that i was blogging on last year.

on a more mundane level it should be evident enough that the ideologies that we can identify easily as liberal and conservative are hodgepodges brought together more for their effectiveness in galvinating people to oppose the other side than for any inner consistency. anything that draws peoples attention and has even a wiff or contraversy about it will sooner or later be claimed by the ideologies, either convienently parcled out in halves or struggled over to align with the generally precieved "right side".

it might seem that there are still basic consistent differences between the left and the right, but here is an example. liberalism would seem to support social conditions or external effects as the primary influences on people and conservatism internal effects, or will and nature (nature vs. nurture). thus the long catalog of moral imparatives all coalesce around the fundamental belief on the right in personal responsibility and the long catalog of social imparatives on the left coalesce around the fundamental belief in the maleability of people to their conditions. but what is morality in practice? it is an explicit and deliberate atriculation and application of the "right" social conditions. people must "know" that such and such is wrong and be diverted from wrong behavior either through shame or force (of law). and what is "nurture"? it is an explicit and deliberate articulation and application of "responsibility" in our actions. thus above i could have writen "belief in social responsibility" instead of "maleabiltiy of people". it could be argue that therein lies the fundamental difference: social vs personal responsibility. but all responsibility must be internal, thus must perpetual insistence that morality be considered something different from integrity. the morality of the right and the "rules/programs" of the left (i can't think of an all encompassing word) both assume that people are weak in nature and must be bent, and both are flawed in that they assume that we can trust weak people to do the bending. ultimately both approaches are only as strong as the will of people to heed their strictures. in practice they become the playthings of the very people who most need to be influenced by them, both above and below. and while the results they have on people will be different in form they will both create negative consequences if abused and positive consequences if either embraced willingly or applied with pragmatic effectiveness. as for the immediate point, neither is fundamentally different from the other, it is merely the semantics of politics that has created the sense of dichotomy.

another illusion that makes both sides appear to be very strong at times is that of being a corrective. what i mean here is that when one side is able to apply itself in practice with too much success it inevitably over extends itself and spins off numerous negative consequences. as correctives to excesses the "dichotomy effect" of ideologies has some practical use and thus will appear to contain a great deal of truth. once the excess are reigned in however and the corrective beocmes proactive it too over extends itself and spins off negative consequences. thus the see saw i was talking about below (in broad swaths). today it can be easily seen in the over stepping of new deal liberalism getting a deserved bashing from goldwater consevatism and the current excesses of the new conservatism, or neo-cons (although that term might be too specific for what i'm referring to here). it could be five years or it could be thirty but eventually it will slide back to the left, with a new face and "fresh" policies and politics but the same basic process of reaction.

when i was talking of practical solutions requiring "giving something up" to ones opponent i was referring in large part to breaking this see saw effect. an act of "statesmanship" does not require galvanising opinion  (the fundamental flaw in democracy). i would throw up social responsibility and moral responsibility for practical responsibility, meaning voting for people who we can idnetify, or try to identify, as having the ability to govern well as opposed to having the right ideas. a pipe dream perhaps, but really no more impractical than the belief that we can engineer social conditions or moral sense. these things can be gain sway for a generation, but the generations behind of necessity define themselves against these given boundaries and the battle of individuality, or independence, is waged to the detriment of all our efforts to form people or poeples. so it would be more relevant for me to say that i think the "new corrective" should be to galvanize support for a new breed of politician that will take it as a duty to force compromise on contentious issues, thus freeing up people and institutions for action.

this is a muddier and therefore more accurate picture of what i was referring to below.

posted by rovesciato on June 1, 2005 at 1:20 AM | link to this | reply

Golden Mean:

if all or most business managers and owners treated their workers the way you do, I would have MUCH LESS to complain about.  The problem is the law does not require it, the current administration and our general trend toward economic conservatism attenuating many of the reforms that so raised the average worker's standard of living post-Depression. 

It comes down in large part to a matter of individual choice -- choice for wealthy and powerful managers and owners, that is; everyone else having very limited flexibility, basically compelled to take whatever job is available and accept whatever pay and benefits, or lack thereof, are offered.  People have always been compelled by economic necessity, of course, and I don't think there is a fundamental right to always have only the job you love or otherwise not have to meet your own needs.  There's a problem, however, when a person such as the one who works for you, in middle age, is stuck in a less-than-fulfilling career. 

He may be fortunate in that you may have a job for him as long as his services are valuable to you.  Millions in his position, though, are not so fortunate, as you know, losing their well-paying jobs -- say, 29 or 30 K, as you pay him -- to cheaper foreign markets and having to accept lesser-paying jobs -- say, 11-15 K, i.e. minimum-wage-range or thereabouts, and to pour salt on the wound, jobs offering no health benefits, or very limited benefits.  They have been told, by leaders of both parties, that what they need to do is not demand their old job, but accept society's aid in going to college, to become qualified for a better career, or getting trained for the many jobs that become available in the open, free-trading economy. 

If this is what we are to tell them, we're going to have to give every displaced worker, willing to try, including your 49-year-old with the "fantasy," the funds needed for him or her to go to school or else get trained for well-paying, skilled labor.  As conservative George Will argued in a column, it is "simple justice" for those who prosper in a free-trade economy to pay more taxes for the benefit of those who suffer in it.  We might not be responsible for providing this man a comfortable retirement, but on the other hand we are not entitled to enjoy the benefits of the modern global economy without compensating those who get periodically screwed in it.  This really comes down to taking responsibility for our choices, which conservatives should support.  It is undeniable, if inconvenient and politically incorrect, that providing this kind of social safety net is going to require that we not make permanent the President's large tax cuts for the very affluent.  The government needs to always have the funds necessary to compensate the market's losers.  I just don't see how else it can be. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 31, 2005 at 7:55 PM | link to this | reply

the problem is with the whole of society

you see from the very top to the very bottom that people take short cuts to have "the good life".
corporate greed, greedy politicians, government giving in to corporate america, news media suppressing stories critical of government and corporate america so that they can continue receiving advertising $$$.

and advertising -- panders to lust and greed -- and liberal credit -- people can get all the fancy and ndewest and most glittery stuff right now even if they can't afford it.

and kids are not taught to earn what they get. this is becoming an increasingly common problem.

responding to your question regarding my welfare mom -- her dad -- ??? don't know -- I suppose he might have stayed with her mom until her disease drove him away - after that -- ???? -- but as for the 17 year old -- can you see that she did not have any real instruction in life?

there is a large portion of women who don't have the instruction or even the sense to avoid this problem.

the father of the 2nd child, I found -- he had polio and was on aid himself.

but -- responsibility is a duty of the entire society. We have an entire culture now that is basically separate from the rest of American society, and part of the responsibility lies on those could do something to change that culture -- mainly those in positions of responsibility, such as legislators and government administrations.

also, news anymore does not address the important issues -- it's what is "attractive, sexy" -- locally, it's the latest fire, fatal auto accident, or shooting or something like that -- not much addressing of important issues.

nationally -- let's see -- Michael Jackson, Guantanamo, Michael Jackson, Iraq, Michael Jackson, Donald Trump, Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, Bush's court nominations, Michael Jackson, FRance turning down the European Constitution -- I wonder what other news -- oh yes -- Michael Jackson.

see the problem?

I lament as much as anyone those who don't see that they should earn their wages -- too many times, I personally have encountered people who basically don't care farther than what they can get out of life and they will be in your face if you object.

weird.

maybe not

maybe normal human behavior

posted by Xeno-x on May 31, 2005 at 6:32 AM | link to this | reply

DV

This is a very interesting debate, but I am waiting to see what kind of fruit it may produce. For my part, I am happy to concede that large corporations and the government often conspire to cheat the common workers of wages and benefits. This upsets me just as much as the immorality of many poor people. I am especially angry at how the government cheats our brave military veterans and their families. My brother, a disabled veteran, has some horror stories of how poorly our veterans are treated in the VA hospitals. I just saw a news story on TV about a local mother of a soldier who was killed in the first Iraq war, who has just been cut off from VA benefits and had to go back to work at the age of 64. This should not be happening. Our veterans and their survivors should be helped, just as the minimum-wage workers you are championing should be treated fairly.

Your calculations concerning a minimum-wage worker are interesting. You say that a minimum-wage worker will make 11,000 to 15,000 dollars a year, and will be hard-pressed to support himself or herself alone on that money. I must concur with that conclusion. But I have an observation to report from my own business.

I just gave one of my employees a raise from $13 an hour to $14 an hour. He did not ask for it, but I judged that he deserved it. He was very grateful. This raised his annual salary, before taxes, from $27,040 to $29,120. He is not married and has no children. One would think that a single person could do quite well on such a salary. But this guy is struggling. I have to give him advances just about every week. I am trying to figure out why he is having such financial trouble.

But a few more facts may bring some understanding. This man is 49 years old. He has bounced around from job to job, finding fault with every boss or fellow workers, working for less than 2 years at every place. He has worked for me 18 months. He has not stayed at one place long enough to build up any seniority or benefits. He was a rebellious teenager, earning the wrath of his parents. Both of his parents are dead now, by the way. Whatever inheritance he received is long gone. He was a heavy alcoholic in his 20's and 30's, ruining a promising career in the Army. He finally realized he was ruining his own life, and swore off alcohol. Then he began taking college courses, paying for them with student loans from the government. This seems like a positive thing, but he has been doing this for over 10 years, and has racked up quite a debt, that he must eventually pay back. I try to warn him about this, but he just shrugs it off. He has to take at least one course a semester, to keep from paying back the huge debt. He thinks he can get a college degree, and then land some cushy job at a big company. I consider this to be a fantasy, at his age, but I cannot bring myself to burst his bubble.

So I just continue to train him to do the jobs I need him to do, pay him a fair wage, and let him manage his own affairs, as poorly as that may be. I have added many skills to his resume'. But this man wasted the first half of his life in foolish moral decisions, and he is still not facing the economic reality of his situation. He is saving NOTHING for his retirement. To the contrary, he is taking on more and more debt, with his student loans. Sooner or later, I fear disaster will strike. As you say, God help him if he becomes injured or sick. I pay for a health care discount program for him, but that will not cover a serious medical problem. If that happens, he will be on his own.

My point is, this man is still paying for his own moral mistakes of his youth and early manhood, and is still not facing economic reality. I am doing more for him than his other employers have done, but he is ultimately responsible for his own economic well-being, and he is not doing a very good job at it.

So, Dylan, what would your social policy do for this man? Probably nothing. He is making a decent wage, and enjoying a decent life, for now. But he is building nothing for retirement, and that is entirely his own fault. He faces a dismal future, which I see too clearly, but he refuses to face it. I will continue to employ him, as long as he meets my needs and my ethical standards, but at his age he will not work for me long enough to earn any retirement benefits.

He is not the victim of corporate greed or government corruption, he is the victim of his own poor moral choices in the first half of his life. I feel sorry for him, but I don't think that I or my society owe him an easy life in his old age. Do you?

posted by GoldenMean on May 29, 2005 at 9:56 PM | link to this | reply

One more point:

No debate over political economy is complete without observing -- and giving significance to -- the fact that our economy is heavily influenced by corporations, artificial legal entities, chartered by government and given certain rights and privileges by government.  Increasingly corporations have come to be recognized, for legal purposes, as persons with the rights of personhood, particularly the rights to own and sell property as well as borrow money.  When a corporation -- a collective, not exactly in keeping with the idea of individualism used to justify free-market capitalism -- has a dispute with an individual, and both appear to have certain rights at stake, and the corporation has the rights of a person, it should not surprise us when the corporation wins because it simply has more power; it is a mega-person.  This is not the result of some natural or inevitable law or process; this is a distinct public policy choice that government makes in giving corporations the rights of persons and thus leading to policies that do not brook demands for democratic regulation of said corporations, since persons' rights do not capitulate to majority abrogation.  We have created a system in which people end up serving the interests of corporations, not always their own interests, at least as often as corporations serve people's interests.  Far from being a free-market system with government staying off our backs, it is government that charters corporations, protects their property and their rights; that is, when corporations are allowed to do things -- say, use a lot of natural resources, buy up smaller firms and form conglomerates, not raise wages according to inflation or not provide benefits -- that hurt the interests of ordinary people, government, being the corporation's legal legitimizer, is actively promoting these practices and thus not respecting the logic of free-market individualism.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 29, 2005 at 10:22 AM | link to this | reply

Golden Mean and Rovesciato:

This is one of the most fruitful debates I have experienced on Blogit in awhile.  Rovesciato has expounded before on the paradigm of the ideological warrior whose main purpose is defending his philosophical turf, even if the opposing side makes a sound criticism of his philosophy.  This mindset -- select ideology first, then search for facts to justify it, ignoring or minimizing those that seem to undermine it -- only leads to distortion and polarization; and the debate fails to do what it ostensibly is supposed to do, which is convince people of certain positions through rational and empirical argument.  You might not like that Rovesciato seems to demean philosophy-ideology as artificial, but it seems that when they become separated into clearly defined camps, they function as much as distorters and half-truth tellers as they do informers and clarifiers.  This is because of the duality of ideology: on the one hand, its purpose is to describe what is and prescribe what should be; on the other, it is to advance its cause through whatever means available, including disingenuous propaganda.  Too often ideological movements end up doing more of the latter than the former.

I do ultimately believe that the choices we make greatly influence our lives, but so do the choices made by institutions that determine public policy, the use of natural resources and the distribution of wealth.  My stepdad, to further exploit his example, could perhaps move up into management if he really put all his energies into it.  But he just doesn't want to.  He's happy doing what he's doing, as are many of his coworkers.  They either do not have the money to go to college or enroll in vocational training or simply do not really desire to.  There will always be those working in entry-level jobs for the bulk of their careers; and even if one is a young adult headed for bigger things, he will still need a decent standard of living while he is working entry-level. 

My argument is that some will be socially mobile, but that at any given time there will be a substantial number of people who will have to accept unskilled low-wage employment that does not supply a prosperous living standard.  This is okay as long as society provides compensation, or makes up the difference between the person's income and his basic needs.  A minimum wage, assuming a 40-hour work week, comes out to something like 11,000 dollars a year; add in overtime, perhaps it might come to 15,000.  Even just supporting yourself, you will be hard-pressed to make ends meet on that; and God help you if you get sick or injured.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 29, 2005 at 10:13 AM | link to this | reply

Rovesciato

It is not helpful to label liberalism and conservatism as "artificial constructs of the mind." Everything in human society above the level of animal survival is a construct of the mind. But it is not "artificial." Philosophy and religion could be considered "artificial constructs of the mind." But they are the very lifeblood of human existence. People agonize and suffer and bleed and die over these issues. Let us not trivialize them.

Let us instead try to understand them. I don't think that human nature is unfathomable. It is complicated, and it is usually hidden behind a veil of deceit, but I believe it can be understood, and the basis of it is that we are all autonomous moral entities. Liberal philosophy denies this, and is going in the wrong direction to explain human nature, bolstering itself with the some of the findings of science, that our moral decisions can be reduced to hormones, proteins and chemicals present or absent in the brain, and the social forces that Dylan places so much value in.

Liberal philosophy is trying to reduce the human being to a helpless victim of a thousand internal and external forces. I utterly reject that argument, because there are so many cases of people who have gone against every internal and external force to exert their supreme autonomous human will and overcome all obstacles to achieve their goal. The immense power of human will is the most important factor in any equation of human behavior.

posted by GoldenMean on May 28, 2005 at 10:20 PM | link to this | reply

DV

I am glad you agree that "people should act as if their moral decisions and behavior will primarily determine their future, even if it may not." Every religion or spiritual doctrine in the world believes that our moral decisions will determine our SPIRITUAL future. Even atheists believe that we should try to behave in an ethical way.

I think that determination, discipline, and ethically sound decisions can overcome any negative social factors, and allow a poor person to become economically self-supporting. But all poor people should not be expected to meet this standard. Instead, society must have a support system for the poor. I look forward to reading your proposal, which sounds like it holds great promise. It sounds like you propose a government support system for the family itself, which is of course the primary basic social unit. This is going in the right direction, because so many poor families are dysfunctional or incomplete. A family, by definition, should include a father, a mother, and a prudent number of children (one or two).

But many poor families have too many children, and are missing the father, because the man is an immoral, irresponsible, selfish asshole. Your proposal should, ideally, include some method of enforcement to require fathers to return to their families and help support them, and to require mothers to face some responsibility for the number of children they have. Good luck on that.

As to your hostility to Wal-Mart, I have seen the recent headlines concerning their mistreatment of employees, and I am sure that some of it is true. But most of the jobs that Wal-Mart, or any large company, offers are entry-level, near-mimimum-wage jobs, and rightly so. I don't know how old your stepfather is, but if he has been working at Wal-Mart for many years, shouldn't he have advanced into the ranks of management and be making a lot more than the entry-level workers?

It sounds as if you are in agreement with the "Living Wage" extremists, who believe that EVERY worker should be paid enough to support a family. That is liberal absurdity at its worst, in my view. Our economy has many entry-level jobs that are appropriate for young people just starting out. It is not fair to expect companies to pay these people enough money to support a family.

posted by GoldenMean on May 28, 2005 at 9:44 PM | link to this | reply

not to say theorhetical argument is inherantly harmful or useless, but there should be an increasingly conscious goal of turning such thought away from theory, or a reason support group. it's ok to leave the mess, but rummage, rummage!

posted by rovesciato on May 28, 2005 at 12:35 PM | link to this | reply

part of what i'm seeing here and in these types of debate in general is that each "side" however those side are figured, argues as though the other side caused the ills fundamentally that need to be fixed. this is probably an illusion created by the excess of failed or excessively applied idea. the opposing idea sounds firm when applied as reigning in of such excess but when the idea is forced to stand on its own without the opposition to prop it up it inevitably falls into the same sort of excess that led to its success, or appearance of success. in this case, very generally, liberalism has failed on many levels, however the conservative arguments are similar to the ones that lead to our modern liberalism precisely because they themselves had already failed. these nineteenth century conservative ideals in turn acquired much of their strength in opposition to the liberalism and class nationalism of the frech revolution which in its turn gained its Rousseauian inpetus from the eighteenth century's style of conservatism. both liberalisma and conservativism in their broadest sense are still artificial constructs of the mind and to blame either for our unfathomable human nature is to forces understanding were little is to be had. this is the best definition i have yet given for why i despise the parties, dems and reps, and have no faith that either is capable of even attempting to solve real world problems practically, or directly. what this inevitably involes is allowing your opponent occasionally to profit (politically, financially, egotistically) if that is the result of a viable solution or improvment to an existing problem. as it is we are hampered down with too many theorhetical problems in which the only goal is to discredit any opposing ideology or theory, the world ne'er the better.

posted by rovesciato on May 28, 2005 at 12:31 PM | link to this | reply

Golden:

I entertain the notion that people should act as if their moral decisions and behavior will primarily determine their future, even if it may not.  This is because no good can come from despair or from basically forfeiting one's free will. 

If it turns out that someone else, or some overwhelming social factor, intervenes against one's determined positive efforts, that will be unfortunate, but in the mean time to relinquish one's free will and abilities, however limited, will only guarantee failure, where it otherwise would have been merely probable or, with better social policy, less probable but still quite possible.

Prompted in large part by your writing here, I am working on an essay positing an alternative to welfare statism on the one hand and hard-core individualism on the other, criticizing the rational deficits in each and proposing in their stead a communitarian middle ground that will embrace capitalist economy and conditional welfare (along the lines you suggest) but revitalized families and communities that will become more intimate and caring instead of bringing into their personal relationships the "leave me alone" ethos that serves people well only in the business sector.  The primary responsibility for care in such a society would be the family, including the extended family, and the community, rather than the state.  The communitarians explain in their literature the inadequacies of the welfare state to promoting healthy community.  The right-wing, however, often lambasts the welfare state without suggesting a better alternative, embracing unregulated markets as the solution to every problem as though capitalism could do the work of God. 

This is what makes some people (including me, sometimes) suspicious of critiques of the welfare state.  The current administration, for example, is operating under an extreme capitalist philosophy whose proponents appear, as near as I can tell, to believe that the wealthy and powerful are already doing too much on behalf of the less wealthy and less powerful, and are carrying too much of a burden and should thus be relieved substantially of tax and regulatory burdens designed to shift social burdens onto those more able to carry them instead of onto the underclasses as was often the case before the New Deal.  The attitude is transparently arrogant.  For example, consider the attitude of Wal-Mart (at which my stepdad works).  Their attitude is basically, "Look, we provide lots of jobs; so what if we don't pay as much or give as generous benefits as unionized companies do?  You should be grateful for what we do give you!" 

Prosperity, however, is not theirs to give, as though they were so generously doling it out to the undeserving who they are kind enough to let work in their stores.  It is the workers who in large part make the company's success possible.  The company's management, however, does not really see it that way.  Sure, they may rhetorically acknowledge the workers' importance, but as you have reminded us, words and actions are very different things.  A company's degree of regard for its workers should be measured not by its rhetoric but by how well it takes care of those workers' needs as long as those workers are doing their jobs.  I can assure you that, if not for the fact that my stepdad inherited his home and has other private savings available, he would not be able to thrive on Wal-Mart wages.  Unfortunately, more than just a few of his coworkers are not so fortunate as to have hereditary assets to fall back on.  This is the legacy of the anti-union deregulatory policy of the past 25 years.  Observing this, one can be forgiven for concluding that wealth is not justly distributed in this country. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 28, 2005 at 7:00 AM | link to this | reply

Dylan

That is an excellent point. A person born into poverty because of the moral failures of his/her parents starts out with a huge disadvantage. That is why I would not deny welfare to such people. And I also agree that rich people can be just as morally deficient as the poor, but they or their families have enough money to absorb the expense of their immorality.

But I would ask you to look at the history of how we got to this sorry state of affairs. In my view, liberalism has taken a heavy toll on the poor. Let me explain how.

To my dismay, I have observed that liberal philosophy has been the strongest influence in American society for at least the last 40 years. It has accomplished much good, such as civil rights, women’s rights, and protection of the environment. But in “The War On Poverty” (a liberal buzz phrase from the 60’s and 70’s), liberalism has suffered a crushing defeat.

As Painter observed, the “Great Society” vision of LBJ and the Democrats of the 1960’s was only a half-measure, only half of what we needed to eliminate poverty. Liberal philosophy failed to “follow up” with a stern message of moral responsibility. Liberals threw money at the problem with huge welfare programs, but they failed to provide the MORAL support to go along with the MONETARY support.

With one hand, compassionate liberals set up expensive welfare programs to help the poor financially. But with the other hand those same liberals ATTACKED the moral fiber of our society. The importance of marriage was denied, sexual promiscuity was glorified, individual responsibility was attacked, religion was condemned, and moral character was said to be unimportant or irrelevant. In my last post here, I documented how John Rawls said that moral character should not be credited to individuals. I still find it hard to believe that intelligent people can think this way. But they do, and they are trying to force their bad ideas on the rest of us.

In the last 40 years, indulging one’s vices and excusing one’s weaknesses became the holy doctrine of liberal philosophy as a whole, and it became the political doctrine of Democrats in government. They crippled society’s ability to defend itself against sex offenders and other criminals, and liberal judges released these predators back into society to prey on us some more. But I am drifting away from the subject of poverty.

We could argue whether this liberal philosophical shift actually occurred, but for now let us assume that it did. Anyone above the age of 50 should have seen it happen before their very eyes, if they have been paying attention. Society is much more liberal now than it was 40 years ago.

Now consider the impact of this philosophical paradigm shift on society, specifically on the poor, as compared to the non-poor:

The middle class ignored the faulty elements of liberal philosophy (even if they mouthed them and voted for them) and continued to work hard, support themselves, limit their sexual mistakes, and take moral responsibility for most of their actions. The upper class continued to do as they please, right or wrong, and had the money to absorb the expense of any moral failings.

BUT THE POOR were dealt a crippling triple blow by liberal philosophy. Sure, they were given money, food stamps and cheap housing which they became dependent on. At the same time, 1) liberals told them that their poverty wasn’t their fault (but it mostly is). At the same time, 2) liberals told them they could indulge in any sexual behavior they wanted to, with no responsibility for the consequences (but they are ultimately responsible). At the same time, 3) liberals reduced the importance of good grades and discipline in the public schools where the poor sent their children. In private schools and most colleges, no such fantasy was tolerated.

So how do we reverse the devastating effects of 40 years of “liberal progress” on the poor? We must keep giving them welfare, but we must make it more conditional. They must make measurable financial or moral progress. We must make them agree, in writing, that while they are receiving welfare, they will have no more children. We must tell them that they MUST take responsibility for their own actions and decisions, just like everyone else in society should.

At the same time, we need to reform the errors of liberal philosophy/liberal religion. Which leads me to my next post, that describes some more of those errors.

posted by GoldenMean on May 27, 2005 at 8:34 PM | link to this | reply

The problem is, even if it's true that there is proportionally more deficit in personal morality and responsibility among the poor, there's a chicken-and-egg dilemma.  Even if we assume someone's determined moral failure caused the initial downward spiral (thus excluding undeniably important factors such as the state of the economy, particularly for those who lost industrial jobs to the global economy and lacked other marketable skills) everything that happens thereafter, particularly to the failure's children, becomes less and less the conscious choice of the poor person and more and more the product of social factors, even if they include something as simple as the lack of emphasis on education that leads poor children to think school doesn't matter and thus renders them less successful when more effort on their part could really have helped.  With the odds so stacked against them, I question whether we should place the bulk of responsibility on them; whether we should, as seems the prevailing view today, place the greatest burden of moral responsibility on those least able to carry it.  Taking this a step further, to bolster my moral responsibility point which will raise the objection that the wealthy work hard and pay more taxes, should this poor person from a family that didn't teach them to take school seriously nevertheless find a halfway decent job, he or she will still likely be caught in a pattern of unskilled and low-paid labor from which a rise to skills, education and disposable income is much more difficult than it is for those in the middle and upper classes.  Those in the middle and upper classes, even if they show these same moral failings, can fall back on relatively affluent families, strong support structures, and always have food, clothes, health care and school as a given.  Expecting the same degree of achievement from those who have had none of these things provided them strikes me as too much to ask one person under the influence of so many social factors that he/she didn't create and cannot alone uncreate.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 26, 2005 at 7:52 PM | link to this | reply

a sad story indeed

I would not deny welfare to this 17-year old girl and her assortment of dependents. BUT, I would ask, where are the males of the family? Did all 3 generations of males desert this family and manage to avoid paying child support or alimony? I suppose that is possible, perhaps even typical among the poor, especially if the women are foolish enough to have children OUT OF WEDLOCK, so that they have no legal way to pursue the irresponsible male. But that just supports my suspicion that most of the poor have serious flaws in moral character and judgment. The irresponsible males fornicate and run, and the irresponsible females are foolish enough to let them do it.

This 17-year old girl is continuing the pattern, if she had kids 6 months old and 2 years old. She didn't even learn from the first mistake, and had ANOTHER baby after the first one.

It doesn't take a genius, or even a formal education, to figure out that I should not have babies when I cannot support them. This is a basic survival decision. Even some animals do not have babies when conditions are bad. Society cannot afford to pay for every poor person's disastrous sexual mistakes.

Painter, I looked at your list of blogs, and I did not see "Welfare Stories." How do I find them? I would like to read more.

posted by GoldenMean on May 25, 2005 at 9:09 PM | link to this | reply

the aim of social service workers

is to verify eligibility.

congress and legislatures are so paranoid that they set up so many requirements.  At the time I was an eligibility worker, home visits were made.  I saw people in the most extreme circumstances.

I'll relate one.  I related this before in my Welfare Stories.

She was 17.  she had to care for a manic depressive mother (in no condition to help her child), an 80 year old grandmother and a 2 yr old and 6 mo old child.

there was no guidance here. 

she lived in a flat in a row house that had three rooms and a back porch, with a bathroom "inserted" in the middle room (the house was built originally without indoor plumbing).  The heat was a gas space heater in each room.  She did have one new thing:  a refrigerator.  The windows were stuffed with rags to keep the cold out.  The screen of the front door was totally torn.  The property was owned by one of the most notorious slumlords in the City of St. Louis.

The work registration program in those days:  a parent was required to register if no child was under the age of six.  10% of the registrants were volunteers in that they had children under the age of six.  The system processed the volunteers first.  It was able to process only about 10% of those.

This 17 year old registered with the program.  She wanted to improve her life.

You've got to look behind the facade that politicians want to put up.  I can tell more stories like this.

posted by Xeno-x on May 25, 2005 at 6:29 AM | link to this | reply

Painter

How interesting that you worked for Social Services. I suppose you were visiting the homes of welfare recipients to verify that they were eligible. Or were you instructed to look for ways to give them MORE welfare? In other words, were you employed to safeguard the integrity of the welfare system, or to make it more corrupt and ineffective? I am sure that your employers had leanings one way or the other. But I think we agree that at some point, people on welfare MUST realize that it is not intended to be permanent, and that they MUST find ways to support themselves. I do not want people to starve, but hunger can be an excellent motivator.

I am also curious about your observations concerning numbers of children in the houses you visited. Is it safe to say that having too many children is a common problem among the poor? Of course, I think it is unwise to have even ONE child, if you cannot provide that child with decent shelter, food and education. But it is inexcusably foolish and irresponsible to keep having children when you do not have the means to support them. This almost guarantees that the family will never rise out of poverty.

I don't know what to do about it, short of forced sterilization, which we can never consider as an option.

But I do know that the same liberal philosophy that you praise for helping the poor, is not giving them a message of personal responsibility. It is doing just the opposite, by making condoms available in schools, for example. The liberal message is "you are too weak to control your own sexual behavior, so here, have a condom and go have fun.... and when you make a baby, don't worry, we will help you take care of it." There is no expectation or requirement of moral character or discipline here. Teenagers are EXPECTED to fail, even ENCOURAGED to fail.

Liberal philosophy UNDERMINES moral character and personal responsibility. That is why the shining ideals of the New Deal and Great Society did not work. It is liberal philosophy itself that did not "follow up" with the proper messages of moral character and responsibility.

So, Painter and Dylan, please acknowledge that problem, while you are pointing out the selfish greed of uncaring conservatives. Both extremes need to be recognized and dealt with, to heal the economic ills of our society.

posted by GoldenMean on May 24, 2005 at 11:20 PM | link to this | reply

Glad this debate stepped back from the personal confrontational tone it was heading into.  The merits of the issue are too urgent for us to alienate one another, often over misunderstandings.

We are all agreed that people need to develop a sense of personal responsibility.  That's the conservative emphasis, and it's important.  But even the most responsible people will not always be able to find a job, afford good housing or health insurance or education. 

Market forces do not even nearly guarantee universal access, meaning that they alone will fail to consistently reward the efforts of even some of the most responsible people.  The janitor making less than 20 K a year may be as responsible as can be, but if a one-bedroom apartment costs 600 dollars and health insurance several thousand, he's gonna probably find himself without something he needs, to say nothing of what he does if he gets fired, sick or injured. 

Society does owe him something, if indeed society considers that he owes them, and himself, his hard, honest work.  Responsibility cannot just be individual; there must be this social element.  A lot of conservatives want to make the poor work, work, work, and provide no guarantees of social support should their efforts fail to meet all their needs.  Most conservatives may not go as far as this, but still don't go far enough toward stronger social supports for those of whom society asks so much and gives proportionally so little (i.e. the CEO making 500 times as much as the lowest-paid worker, etc.).  This just won't do.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 24, 2005 at 7:52 PM | link to this | reply

fact

from Missouri Department of Social Services before a lot of the new welfare limitations came out:

80% of those on AFDC (now under a different name) leave after 2 years.

then after this, the politicians decided to set a goal of getting 80% of AFDC mothers off of the program after two years (an easy goal to meet, considering).

Now, there is a 5 year limit on collecting the aid, whatever it's called.  what happens is that the grandmother gets custody for 5 years after the mother's time is up; then an aunt I guess -- so that custodial parents get juggled around.  -- that was a dumb law.

situation:  many disadvantaged live in circumstances where they don't get proper education, no real parenting either from the biological daddy or from the mother, have not had rules set for them.

Now I am in agreement with you on your dislike for those who will not work and will not give what they should be giving to their employer.  There are too many that don't care.  Their attitude, etc., has put them in their position, low end jobs, etc.  It will keep them there.  Many, though, will not understand, no matter how many jobs they lose, no matter how unsettled their circumstance, that their lifestyle and attitude have led them to a particular point in life.  I've known of a few like that.

I've heard your tales many times from many people.  And I concur that something needs to be done.  Possibly someone needs to make plain to them that consequences come of their actions.  But that's hard to do, considering how little they will listen.

I support the New Deal and the Great Society.  The idea is to keep people from starving or from dire circumstances.  The problem is that, for one reason or another (some of it opposition in the South to programs helping improve Blacks education and job training and other things that were a continuation of the basics of Johnson's programs) follow up was nil.

The "welfare Cadillac" stereotype didn't help either.  I worked for State Social Services, visited homes -- I guarantee you wouldn't want to live in those houses.  Many didn't own one car, let alone a Cadillac.  And welfare is certainly not a gold mine -- everything together is just enough to get by.  There are people who cheat by having a second income in the home that is not reported, etc.

I have a probem with one-track liberalism myself.  But I still am a liberal -- because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.  But we have neglected a segment of society to the point that they are a culture unto themselves whose world is counterproductive.  Were we to have concentrated on programs to educate and train and teach these people in ways that would make them productive and conscious of a constructive way of life and relating to others, then we would not have the problems we have today.  And be sure there are problems that there weren't 20 years ago --problems that it will take more than 20 years to eradicate -- multiple decades.

you should "teach a man to fish", but in the meantime, give him fish to eat so that he does not starve first.  but make it clear that there will be a time when he is on his own.

I agree that individuals should learn responsibility.  Responsible actions.  However, there are cultural segments through all ethnic backgrounds that learn something else entirely.  And you will find this among just about all income levels.  A lack of teaching of responsibility.

Anyway -- I agree with you some.  And I disagree with you some.  Thank you for your time to express yourself.

posted by Xeno-x on May 24, 2005 at 3:32 PM | link to this | reply

Settle down there, Painter

It is not up to you or me to decide "WHAT TO DO WITH ALL THESE POOR FOLKS." The bottom line of my post was that the poor people I come into contact with seem to have major flaws in moral character. And by the way, they are all able-bodied men, NOT orphans or widows.

It is up to these men to decide what to do with THEMSELVES. They would do well to follow the Biblical principles of doing a good job for their employer, treating their employer and fellow workers with respect, being slow to anger, refraining from sexual relations outside of marriage, and being wise managers of their money. I don't know the Bible chapter and verse for all these principles, but I could find them if I had to. I have been to enough Sunday School classes and fine sermons to know the teachings. I respect most of the moral teachings of Christianity, even though I must decline to accept the doctrines of metaphysical reality.

At the end of my post, I supported welfare programs but insisted that those we are helping should make measurable progress toward supporting themselves. This is far from "survival of the fittest." It is helping the unfit to become fit. If they refuse to make progress toward becoming fit, then yes I would cut them off from welfare. They could go back to fending for themselves, until they are willing to meet the standards of society.

Every mother, animal and human, must eventually stop nursing their children and start teaching them how to survive on their own.

Every society must do the same thing, even when the "children" don't want to grow up and stop sucking society's tit.

As to "widows and orphans", I adopted an orphan and took him to be my own son. I think I have done my part taking care of "widows and orphans".

Have you?

posted by GoldenMean on May 23, 2005 at 10:18 PM | link to this | reply

oh wait -- that's all Old Testament

Christians don't care for widows and orphans do they?

and they didn't all pool their wealth in the book of Acts and redistribute according to need, etc.

gimme a little bit and I'll come up with some more.

by the way -- conservativism brought about the Great Depression

Liberalism brought about the affluence of the 50's and 60's.

conservatism is on the path to repeating its previous errors (see my blog about 19th Century republicans in the 21st.

that is just what's happening right now -- a reversion to the failed policies of the 19th Century.

posted by Xeno-x on May 23, 2005 at 2:25 PM | link to this | reply

so what would you do with all these poor folks?

and there are more of these poor folks all the time?

if you decide that we don't help them -- do you have a program for them?

of course you could enact any number of "solutions" from work camps to "the final solution".

I see then that you are an advocate of "social Darwinism", meaning you must certainly believe in Evolution since this is what you espouse.

I guess you would tear out pages of the Old Testament about taking care of "widows and orphans", particularly that tithe that would go to them.

So let's check out the bottom line here.

You don't espouse bibilical solutions; rather you believe in the "survival of the fittest".

And here I thought you were a Christian.

posted by Xeno-x on May 23, 2005 at 2:18 PM | link to this | reply

Sorry to hear about a funeral in your life

Funerals are always so depressing, but very interesting at the same time. I wonder if the "dead" person is there too, watching his/her own funeral like a TV show. That would be a real hoot. I would enjoy watching my own funeral.

About my part-time employees, I forgot to mention that I pay most of them 8 to 10 dollars an hour, well above minimum wage, in order to motivate them to do a better job. For some of them, it seems to help, but for most of them, they do not appreciate it. Their flaws of moral character soon emerge, and either they move on to another job, or I tell them not to come in to work anymore.

I have only been using part-timers for about a year, and it has been a very interesting and educational experience, to say the least.

posted by GoldenMean on May 20, 2005 at 9:46 PM | link to this | reply

I have a mixture of rebuttal and accomodation I cooked up today on spare time from sub teaching.  I have to type it up, which I will do later.  Right now I have a dead person to go see.  (A funeral viewing and tomorrow a funeral.) 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 20, 2005 at 3:40 PM | link to this | reply