Eturnalshift wrote:
Funny. Most Republicans would say the same thing. I'm less conservative on social issues than I am on fiscal policy, but I find myself aligned with the Republicans (because most issues are black or white and they're pretty divided along party lines). Most Republicans/conservatives I know (since they're all God-fearing dumbs and all) donate a lot of their time and their money to various charities; the way things should really be done. See, not all conservatives/republicans have a "Fuck you, got mine" mentality as you often (and blindly) say. Many of us donate our time and money (by choice) to helping our communities and charities that matter to us. Are we bad people because we choose what we do with our money and many of us believe charity is a better welfare system than the government? (Red states generally have a higher 'generosity index', it's been said.) Do you donate your time and/or money to helping anyone else... or is it an issue of 'someone else will take care of it' (Taxes), which echo's your whole political philosophy of 'let's help each other using someone elses money and/or effort' (Democrats)?
I guess my point is we're not all stupid, rich or stingy just like all liberals aren't smart, poor and generous; there's a healthy mix of all types on both sides of the aisle. When you continually scream at the top of your lungs that we're all a certain way, it makes you look really pathetic. Seriously. It also kinda sucks that our efforts aren't good enough if they're not managed by the government, as if the government is the best way to help people knowing they've completely fuckerized every social program they've ever run by bleeding it dry of funds and bloating it with bureaucracy. Despite the number of times the few conservatives on this forum try to defend our position (less taxes, more charity), you still cling to your, "Fuck you, got mine" view of us all. I think we all have the same destination in mind, just some of us want to walk a different path to get there. I'm not sure how long you intend to be completely ignorant to all of this, but the longer you've ignore this truth, the more ignorant looking you've become.
The fundamental divide on this type of question is what type of liberty the state should provide to people. Liberals tend to prefer positive liberty, which is the freedom to achieve one's own potential. When external circumstances limit that potential, government assistance may be needed to help put someone back on the right path. That is the argument for welfare; nobody is truly free if their ability to meet their potential is constrained. Conservatives tend to prefer negative liberty - the freedom to act without external constraints (save violating others' own liberty). Taxes can be seen as constraining this type of freedom, and thus the argument for less government and a reliance on individual charity.
One of the problems with political debates is that people rarely explain or even consider their positions in terms of these kinds of fundamental positions (the positive-negative liberty dimension isn't the only one that people differ on, although I think it's the most important here). They view the others' preferred policies through their own lenses, and often when viewed that way the policies can look terrible - either devoid of compassion or an unbearable restriction of freedom. This is why I usually try to avoid these kinds of normative debates, which produce a lot more heat than light.
There are also questions of practicality around policy preferences. Can government activity or private charity efficiently provide the type of assistance we think it should? This should be an empirical question, but I don't think in this case there's any actual evidence that can answer it convincingly. I think these are the kind of political questions that we can actually debate in a reasonable and productive manner.
