By definition, conservatives are more selfish than liberals, as conservatives focus much, much more on the individual than the individual's responsibility to the whole.

That is pretty stupid even for you DVEGA. We concentrate on the individual because we understand that that is what is best for the society. We concentrate much more on personal responsibility than the left which has been on a crusade for a half century to remove all personal responsibility.

D-Vega's right. It depends on your definition of "selfish."

Really, selfish simply means "concerned with the self," and that's not only not a bad quality to have, but a very admirable one. This is the selfishness that Ayn Rand advocates.

Then there's the definition that most people use: "concerned with the self and the self alone," in other words: working only towards instant self-gratification, not concerned with morality or anything of the sort. This is Nietzsche's "selfishness."

Conservatives (by definition) exhibit the former definition: they're concerned with the individual, and by extension the virtues of choice and responsibility. They believe that morality exists and that it is an individual's job to live within said morality.

Liberals (again, by definition) exhibit the latter definition of selfishness: they don't want any form or morality, and they don't want other people to have choices. They only care about "living for the moment" and screwing over anything that gets in their way.

This explains their behavior on just about everything; their all-balls ram-it-through approach to the health care bill (or cap and trade, or the stimulus, or the bailout); they want it, and that's all that matters to them. It also shows the reasons for much of the behavior listed in this article.

Amanda Marcotte is a massive racist. Check her blog banner. What is right next to an Obama logo? The saying "it's a jungle out there."

D-vega, you miss the point that Conservatives focus on the individual to be the best they can be, for the betterment of themselves, their families, and society. Liberals focus on society ponying up and taking care of them. Plain group think. And, we see how well that works out in areas like the 9th District of New Orleans, were people were so dependent on others that they didn't even attempt to evacuate with a massive hurricane coming.

Meanwhile, all the measurements show that Conservatives give more, while Liberals are tightwads.

By definition, conservatives are more selfish than liberals, as conservatives focus much, much more on the individual than the individual's responsibility to the whole.

Not only is that stupid, it's simply wrongheaded.

Focusing on securing individual rights is not the same as being selfish, you moron.

As for "an individual's responsibility to the whole", what does that even mean? More to the point, since when is it the government's business to enforce that "responsibility"? Isn't that, by definition, shoving your morality down other people's throats?

As soon as you can come to a definition of "an individual's responsibility to the whole" that all of society can agree on, I'll agree that the government should be enforcing that responsibility.

"As for "an individual's responsibility to the whole", what does that even mean?"

It means that when someone isn't able to take care of themselves eg MS, ALS, gets f'n old then a government program kicks in ie medicare or medicaid.

Conservative solution: charity and volunteerism and if that doesn't work then too bad.

Sure conservatism works if you are healthy.

But when something happens and you become sick and can't work then seeya wouldn't want to beyah is the conservative response.

Medicare is not perfect by any means but what would be the conservative solution?

Survival of the fittest?

conservatives focus much, much more on the individual than the individual's responsibility to the whole.

As usually happens when you open your mouth, terms come out that you misuse because you don't understand them. You get only partial credit, for a change, as the misdefinition of "selfishness" is very widespread – though your inability to understand conservativism, as usual, is both unsurprising and idiotic.

Selfishness, as correctly defined, is about minding your own business – the widespread definition is about trampling others thinking the pie is fixed, and what the neighbor has can't be had for the self.

True selfishness is oriented to improving the self and getting as much as possible, unlike the widespread definition of selfishness which is oriented on preventing others from having, lest it be impossible to have for themselves.

Truly selfish people do what's best for the self. They do what's best to obtain. It is pragmatism defined; when two authentic humans interact, the result tends to be bigger than the sum of the parts – and that the resulting interaction naturally brings out the principles of conservativism as necessary, true and workable… that's because they are.

This is how wealth is created. This is why wealth is created, and the idea that it can be "redistributed" is a ridiculous, childish coinceit. One which fits the typical (if wrong) definition of selfishness to a tee, and one which is the bread and butter of liberalism. In other words, liberals are selfish (as typically defined, as defined in the original post) – this is beyond any possibility of debate.

It means that when someone isn't able to take care of themselves

Define "when" someone isn't able to take care of themselves.

It's a trick question. You can not make such a broad definition within the constraints of lawmaking, without giving the state a wedge through which gain as much power as politicians can get away with.

Your entire vision of the world is fallacious and cannot stand to scrutiny. This is life for a liberal. No wonder they're always angry, and react to facts like vampires to sunlight.

what would be the conservative solution?

The conservative solution would be to (generously) let people work that out how better they prefer. This is both scientifically, socially and historically proven to provide better everything for everyone.

That you idiots would claim that natural, spontaneous interactions are "nothing" shows how little you know and how little you respect your neighbor as a fully-grown, independent, mature individual with his own thoughts, aspirations, dreams and talents – and would rather he be dependent on the state's mercy rather than let him weather the storm of life as a human being.

Mostly because that would mean you'd have to do the same thing. Liberals would have no excuse to hide behind in a free society.

But when something happens and you become sick and can't work then seeya wouldn't want to beyah is the conservative response.

Hmmm….not so sure I can agree. My wife recently was quite sick. She needed to have an extended stay in a hospital. I've had a number of acquaintances suggest to me that I should basically dump her and be rid of the burden. I've had a number of people treat my standing by her as some sort of remarkable or heroic feat.

Those people have consistently been proud liberals.

It means that when someone isn't able to take care of themselves eg MS, ALS, gets f'n old then a government program kicks in ie medicare or medicaid.

You realize that's precisely the opposite of "an individual's responsibility to the whole" don't you? What you just described is the whole catering to the needs of an individual.

A more appropriate example would be a person who works hard, saves his money, makes sound investments, and buys a good quality health insurance plan so that, if the day comes when he is incapacitated by some unfortunate turn of fate, he isn't forced to rely on the largess of society. After all, isn't it an individual's responsibility to not be a drain on the resources of the group?

But when something happens and you become sick and can't work then seeya wouldn't want to beyah is the conservative response.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like anyone can save for the future or anything, right? Only uncool squares do that, man.

You realize that's precisely the opposite of "an individual's responsibility to the whole" don't you? What you just described is the whole catering to the needs of an individual."

You're right Mighty, I stand corrected.

"Only uncool squares do that, man."

Look, I'm not suggesting at all that you shouldn't be prepared and start at an early age to save etc but what about the guy who is just starting out and he/she comes down with ALS.

Who should take care of her?

Does society have an obligation to this person knowing if they hadn't gotten sick they would have been a productive contributing member of society?

Boy oh boy, this sort of stuff does get the leftists all tied into an intellectual tizzy.

Hey, remember, when the airbags drop from the aircraft ceiling, WHAT DO YOU DO? You put on YOURS first. Why? Because you must take care of yourself before you can take care of ANOTHER.

Rescuers act with bravery but not foolishness. They do the best they can to ensure thier OWN safety before they go rescue ANOTHER. Why? Because if they get hurt, some other poor schmuck has two rescues to perform.

Are you getting the point, or is it just going over your pointy heads?

Look, I'm not suggesting at all that you shouldn't be prepared and start at an early age to save etc but what about the guy who is just starting out and he/she comes down with ALS.

Well what about the teenager who was walking down the street and got mauled by a lion? Or what about the guy just out of college who spontaneously combusted? What about the professional tree-climber who lost his feet in a tragic bee-keeping accident?

Are we going to make a government program for every highly unlikely scenario?

Besides, a guy "just starting out" will almost certainly have family available to help him deal with his situation.

Does society have an obligation to this person knowing if they hadn't gotten sick they would have been a productive contributing member of society?

You may feel that society has an obligation to help everyone, but what if I don't agree? What right do you have to force such an obligation onto me?

Again, I defy any liberal to explain how this is NOT shoving your morality down other people's throats.

Does society have an obligation to this person knowing if they hadn't gotten sick they would have been a productive contributing member of society?

But, there is no independent entity out there called "society" that you're suggesting this obligation be imposed upon. It is individuals whose own hopes, dreams, and goals you're necessarily undermining to give that person that "obligation". And you do so, independently of their own judgement of the recipient's deserving of that help.

My responsibility is to me, my loved ones, my friends, and the people who work for me and depend on me. During past times when we took care of ourselves, everything worked pretty well. When we start saying that the individuals responsibility to the body politic, well, the individual is lost.

Posted by Rickvid_in_Seattle

2009-09-16 21:01:13

You're talking about an emergency. We're not talking about an emergency scenario.

"Are we going to make a government program for every highly unlikely scenario?"

How is getting old an unlikely scenario?

Medicare's budget was appr. 400 billion dollars in 07 even if it is way over budgeted say about 300 billion you're still looking at 'highly unlikely scenarios' costing you a 100 billion a year.

"You may feel that society has an obligation to help everyone, but what if I don't agree? What right do you have to force such an obligation onto me?"

I'm not trying to be smug here I'm just answering your question as best I can, but isn't that what our reps are for, eg my rep votes for medicare yours votes against it. One side has more votes than the other and that's that.

Posted by Bill_Dalasio

2009-09-16 21:16:13

In all honesty I don't quite follow your post especially the last sentence. I'm not accusing you of vagueness but could you just clarify a little bit.

Interesting that all of those same countries still have small economies, lower living conditions, and fewer innovations than the USA.

Posted by snohomish

2009-09-16 21:35:36

Thank you for that rambling, nonsensical piece of gibberish.

PS: We still don't care what you think.

How is getting old an unlikely scenario?

Way to shift those goal posts. First it was "a guy just starting out who contracts ALS", now it's old folks.

Besides, what do the elderly have to look forward to under a government healthcare system anyway? An extra-long wait before the death panel bureaucrats recommend assisted suicide to save the system money?

I'm not trying to be smug here I'm just answering your question as best I can, but isn't that what our reps are for, eg my rep votes for medicare yours votes against it. One side has more votes than the other and that's that.

Ah, I see you've decided to dodge the question because it makes you uncomfortable.

Posted by snohomish

2009-09-16 22:26:58

Yes or no, are you the poster formerly known as hogground?

If we are serious about stopping the plague of government run socialized medicine let's bring home our troops now.

And that, children, is an example of why you should never post comments while high.

"Besides, what do the elderly have to look forward to under a government healthcare system anyway?"

You're right medicare needs to be greatly improved.

"Ah, I see you've decided to dodge the question because it makes you uncomfortable."

I presume you mean with this:"You may feel that society has an obligation to help everyone, but what if I don't agree? What right do you have to force such an obligation onto me?"

Because I can't do it myself and I need your help.

Posted by snohomish

2009-09-16 23:38:17

Shut up, hoggo. Nobody cares what you think.

Because I can't do it myself and I need your help.

Bullcrap. You absolutely can do it yourself. All we're asking you to do is save for your future to make sure you can take care of yourself when you're no longer capable of working. Is that so hard?

Be honest, the real reason you don't do it is because you're too lazy to do it. You're capable, you just don't want to. You want the government to do it for you.

I'm not accusing you of vagueness but could you just clarify a little bit.

Not a problem. When you impose an obligation on "society", you are not doing it on some independent entity. You impose an obligation on the individual members of society. You demand that they pay for this person's healthcare. But, the resources you demand of them are resources those people would otherwise have available to pursue their own hopes, dreams, plans, and goals. They are forced to either sacrifice those goals or put them off or trudge all the harder to still afford them.

Now in some cases, that extra work or sacrifice might be something the individual people might be okay with. They might judge helping the person a greater priority than the dreams, plans, hopes, and goals they are deferring or foregoing (the extra work option is really equal to these options in that the extra work would otherwise provide extra resources for their initial goals) is worth it.

But, when you make it a social obligation enforced by the state, rather than an individual choice through individual cooperation, you tell them that their opinions or judgements are irrelevant in the matter. Sure, the recipient might be some good, hard-working, young guy starting out stricken with ALS. But it could equally be some crackhead whose body is worn out by years of abuse with no intention of ever changing. But, once it becomes a state obligation, it no longer matters. Or if it does, the only thing is matters is the judgement and opinions of the state, and not those of the individuals being asked to sacrifice or defer their goals and dreams.

Vega also misses the point of conservatism. It is not to hoard or not be charitable toward the individual. It is to keep the traditions that have proven to be successful and trigger prosperity. To "conserve" what has worked over "liberally" applying every foolish and hasty idea ever conceived by man.

Posted by Bill_Dalasio

2009-09-17 07:58:33

OK, but the problem remains we live in a society governed by reps elected by us.

The classic counter to your argument is a peacenik who resents his tax money funding the largest defense budget in the world. He could argue that it goes way beyond our obligatory basics for self defense iow it is overkill and spending all that money beyond our essential needs for self defense takes away from our hopes and dreams.

You could argue all day long on what those essential needs are just like you can argue all day long what the essential needs for our civilian population are.

Do we want the crackhead wandering our streets or worse grandma or Lou Gehrig slumped over in their wheelchairs at the street corner?

The fact that he doesn't live up to conservative standards doesn't take away the fact that he is still on the street and can become a public nuisance ie spreading disease etc or becomes a moral issue-grandma dies from complications from a neglected decubitus because she is in a w/c 24/7.

Do you want to be in the position of having to say "hey grandpa, you did't prepare yourself well enough for your old age, good luck but I ain't going to help you, because I have my dreams, so you're on your own."

That's pretty cold and it is morally offensive to say the least.

I know that probably isn't how you feel but am I missing something?

If volunteerism and charity don't work then what?

If volunteerism and charity don't work then what?

Posted by libliever

2009-09-17 09:55:55

Well before the Great Depression, those with disabilities were, generally, well cared for by their families and charities. Then allong comes big govt with it's social programs, and gradually because govt is far less efficient, health care, charity, and personal retirement savings are in free fall. What is the common denominator?

OK, but the problem remains we live in a society governed by reps elected by us.

See, this right here is what we call a cop-out.

Yes, we live in a society governed by representatives elected by us.

So Goddamn what?

How does this abrogate our right to complain when those same representatives do something wrong? Do you liberals even realize how much of a fallacy this "we won, shut up" mantra is?

The classic counter to your argument is a peacenik who resents his tax money funding the largest defense budget in the world.

Considering that our defense budget is VASTLY outweighed by our entitlements budget, these so-called "peaceniks" don't really have a leg to stand on. Claiming our defense budget is too big when our entitlement spending is literally bankrupting us as we speak tells me that the priorities of these "peaceniks" are about ten kinds of out of whack.

Do you want to be in the position of having to say "hey grandpa, you did't prepare yourself well enough for your old age, good luck but I ain't going to help you, because I have my dreams, so you're on your own."

I'm wondering why you keep repeating this blatant strawman when it's so obviously wrong.

After all, the topic of this very thread is the fact that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. The idea that this ridiculous strawman is the "conservative position" is absurd on the face of it.

If grandpa doesn't make preparations for old age it sure won't be liberals he turns to for help.

Well before the Great Depression, those with disabilities were, generally, well cared for by their families and

charities.

Posted by bthewolf

2009-09-17 10:55:16

Your lack on knowledge on this subject is astounding, those with disabilities before the Great Depression usually died much earlier and many of them were not cared for at all, most families didnt have the resources to care for the disabled. You should really invest in studying the actual history of the United States, not your little fantasy version.

That's pretty cold and it is morally offensive to say the least.

So you admit that your goal is to force your morality down everyone else's throats. Thank you.

Your lack on knowledge on this subject is astounding

Notice how Whats_up doesn't bother providing any evidence to back up his claim of Bthewolf's alleged "astounding lack of knowledge".

Notice how Whats_up doesn't bother providing any evidence to back up his claim of Bthewolf's alleged "astounding lack of knowledge".

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-09-17 11:07:08

Notice that no evidence was provided by Bthewolf's about the statement that the disabled were generally well cared for. Nor does Mighty provide any evidence that this was the case either.

Notice that no evidence was provided by Bthewolf's about the statement that the disabled were generally well cared for.

Ah yes, the "you guys do it too" defense. That one never gets old.

But then, if it was your intent to question Bthewolf on his lack of evidence, why not just say that? Instead you decided to run your mouth and make yourself look foolish by presenting an utterly unfounded claim, and when challenged on it your only response was "well-but-y-y-you guys do it too!"

Your lack on knowledge on this subject is astounding, those with disabilities before the Great Depression usually died much earlier

So did those without disabilities, MORON, Life expectancies for ALL people are up in the last 60 years.

and many of them were not cared for at all,

and your proof is what?

most families didnt have the resources to care for the disabled.

And that's different from today how? We pay more in taxes now to support other people, than we do support our own defense!!! And now we can't support OURSELVES.

You should really invest in studying the actual history of the United States, not your little fantasy version.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-17 11:03:21

Back at you, MORON!

Well, I didn't know I would get this much response.

I will try to respond to the positions presented.

Thats what I thought

That's what you "thought"? What did you "think" exactly? I have yet to see any evidence that you expressed anything close to what might be called a "thought".

The fact of the matter is, you expressed a positive claim (that Bthewolf is ignorant and wrong) and yet you provided no evidence in support of this claim. If your intent was to demand proof then you would have simply demanded proof. Yet you did not. You merely said that Bthewolf is wrong and you are right, and the entire extent of your evidence for this is apparently "because I say so".

You merely said that Bthewolf is wrong and you are right, and the entire extent of your evidence for this is apparently "because I say so".

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-09-17 13:18:13

Exactly, but that's more typical of WU. It's all he knows probably because in his own arrogance and demonstrable ignorance. He just thinks we should all accept his word for it because in his feable mind he's always right!!

Exactly, but that's more typical of WU. It's all he knows probably because in his own arrogance and demonstrable ignorance. He just thinks we should all accept his word for it because in his feable mind he's always right!!

Posted by bthewolf

2009-09-17 13:27:23

Sure bthewolf, just like we should just accept your word for it, right? Classic conservatives demanding things of others that they dont demand of themselves.

He could argue that it goes way beyond our obligatory basics for self defense iow it is overkill and spending all that money beyond our essential needs for self defense takes away from our hopes and dreams.

And on the latter part, he would largely be right. The question then is not one of principle, for which he has conceded my arguemnt, but that of an assessment of what is necessary, as you note. And this is the basic reason for having a government. That is to say, the protection of our rights from coercion is the need that government is instituted to address.

Do we want the crackhead wandering our streets

Fine, arrest him. But, that's hardly a reason to seize the wealth of others for his healthcare.

or worse grandma or Lou Gehrig slumped over in their wheelchairs at the street corner?

But, I'm willing to pay to help my grandma. Why should I also have to pay for yours (oh, alright, not yours, Realpolitik's then).

Do you want to be in the position of having to say "hey grandpa, you did't prepare yourself well enough for your old age, good luck but I ain't going to help you, because I have my dreams, so you're on your own."

No, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge my responsibilties to my family. Why do you feel it's right to saddle me with the responsibility for everyone else's?

That's pretty cold and it is morally offensive to say the least.

Good thing it's a straw man, then.

Posted by Hotspur

2009-09-17 09:11:19

Dude, I know it's way off-topic, but are you a Tottenham fan?

Not only is that stupid, it's simply wrongheaded. Focusing on securing individual rights is not the same as being selfish, you moron.

That's not what I said, samurai.

Perhaps you should listen & understand before you get to name-calling.

As for "an individual's responsibility to the whole", what does that even mean?

It means we are have a personal responsibility to each other. It's quite simple, really.

More to the point, since when is it the government's business to enforce that "responsibility"?

Because the gov't is By The People, For The People.

Isn't that, by definition, shoving your morality down other people's throats?

That is the definition of any policy you don't agree with.

As soon as you can come to a definition of "an individual's responsibility to the whole" that all of society can agree on, I'll agree that the government should be enforcing that responsibility.

There is no one definition, that is the source of many policy debates. Right now, we are having the debate as to what the role of gov't is in healthcare.

D-vega, you miss the point that Conservatives focus on the individual to be the best they can be, for the betterment of themselves, their families, and society.

Most Americans focus on the betterment of themselves & their family. But you are correct that conservatives have a narrower focus on the individual, even if its at the expense of society as a whole. Hence, they are more selfish.

It's not a negative connotation necessarily, but its true.

Liberals focus on society ponying up and taking care of them

That's not true. Most poor people are given support either way, and most conservative even support such support for true hardship.

Most liberals take care of themselves fine. We are not asking for someone else to take care of us. We are asking for an even playing field.

An interesting contradiction by Vega:

Most Americans focus on the betterment of themselves & their family. But you are correct that conservatives have a narrower focus on the individual, even if its at the expense of society as a whole. Hence, they are more selfish.

That's not true. Most poor people are given support either way, and most conservative even support such support for true hardship.

So conservatives sacrifice the society but support the poor, which are a part of society? O….K….

Posted by mightysamurai
2009-09-17 11:38:56

Thats what I thought, still no evidence, nor have you provided any that says my statement was wrong, typical for you sam, typical.

I didn't say in all cases, King. I said you would defer to the individual, even if its at the expense of the whole.

Like you would certainly agree it's part of the gov't responsibility to build a highway, but if school vouchers blow a hole in the public school budget then so be it.

It's not a contradiction. Conservatives are not 100% selfish. But they are more selfish than liberals.

Most Americans focus on the betterment of themselves & their family. But you are correct that conservatives have a narrower focus on the individual, even if its at the expense of society as a whole. Hence, they are more selfish.

The concept of "selfish" vs. "unselfish" is what the individual personally sacrifices.

If you want socialized healthcare "for the poor" but sacrifice nothing out of your own personal finances then you're selfish because you're demanding that other people must sacrifice. I can demand that Bill Gates gives money to the poor but by doing so, I am the one who is selfish if I don't give any of my own money.

If paying for one's own health care is considered selfish then money exchange in general is selfish because I have to pay for my own food, shelter, water and clothing and all four are required for survival. If I demanded that these were to be given to me free of charge then I am still selfish because someone would have to work or give money to make these possible.

To say that conservatives are more selfish is unfounded because you would have to know how both groups (liberals and conservatives) contribute to charity. Giving to charity is an unselfish act.

Posted by whats_up
2009-09-17 12:37:10

And yet YOU never provided ANY evidence I was I wrong. You want to claim I’m wrong YOU have to prove it, or STFU!!

We already have socialized healthcare for the poor, King.

And yes, myself as well as millions & millions of liberals pay for it just like you.

I do demand Bill Gates give money to the poor. And that's why we have a progressive tax system. I give my fair share. I don't leach off of the gov't. I live in the most taxed state in the union – NY.

That's not what I said, samurai.

I know, that was the whole point. What you said was WRONG (I would have thought the my use of the word "wrongheaded" would have been your first clue). I was correcting you. As I find myself doing all too often it seems.

It means we are have a personal responsibility to each other. It's quite simple, really.

If when you say "simple" you mean it in the "simple-minded" sense.

You don't even know what the phrase "personal responsibility" means, do you? Personal responsibility is personal. I do not have any responsibility to anybody but me and my family. That's it. That is the definition of PERSONAL responsibility. Responsibility for your own person.

What you're talking about is not "personal responsibility" at all but collective responsibility, which I submit does not exist.

Because the gov't is By The People, For The People.

So the government can do whatever they want so long as they claim it's "for the people"? Is that really the argument you want to go with, D-Vega?

That is the definition of any policy you don't agree with.

And yet it only seems to be wrong when a Republican tries to do it. Funny how that works out.

There is no one definition

Thank you. You have just conceded the argument.

I know, that was the whole point. What you said was WRONG (I would have thought the my use of the word "wrongheaded" would have been your first clue). I was correcting you. As I find myself doing all too often it seems.

You are saying something is wrong with something that I didn't say. Good job!

If when you say "simple" you mean it in the "simple-minded" sense. You don't even know what the phrase "personal responsibility" means, do you? Personal responsibility is personal. I do not have any responsibility to anybody but me and my family. That's it. That is the definition of PERSONAL responsibility. Responsibility for your own person.

No, it's not. You have a personal responsibility to obey the law. To pay your taxes. To make sure you drive safely. To "support our troops when they are in harm's way". To vote and participate in the electoral process.

All of those things are examples of how you have a personal responsibility to the whole of society.

What you're talking about is not "personal responsibility" at all but collective responsibility, which I submit does not exist.

Collective responsibility is the responsibility of the whole to the individual or another group. Collectively, we have a responsibility to Iraq (no matter who is President). To the Constitution. To the UN. To the Treasury.

So the government can do whatever they want so long as they claim it's "for the people"? Is that really the argument you want to go with, D-Vega?

Well, if they did "whatever", no matter what people wanted, they wouldn't be BY THE PEOPLE, now would it?

Even the Constituion can be changed if its by the people.

And yet it only seems to be wrong when a Republican tries to do it. Funny how that works out.

Well, uh, yeah! That's our process. You have what you think is right, I have mine. Our elections decide who's morality takes the lead.

Thank you. You have just conceded the argument.

My argument is that conservatives are more selfish than liberals are. Me saying there is no one definition of an individual's responsibility to the whole does not affect that arguement.

You are saying something is wrong with something that I didn't say.

Wow, did you get hit with the dumbass stick today or what? What I said to you was me correcting you. You know what a correction is, right? It's a change that rectifies an error or inaccuracy. That's why I quoted you directly above my statement. To show you that I was correcting you.

What you said was wrong. I corrected you. I literally cannot make it any simpler than that. If you still can't understand this, I can't help you.

No, it's not. You have a personal responsibility to obey the law. To pay your taxes. To make sure you drive safely. To "support our troops when they are in harm's way". To vote and participate in the electoral process.

No, child, I do not. I have a civic responsibility to do all those things. It is my responsibility as a citizen to obey the law, drive safe, support the troops, and vote.

So what are you saying? That it's now my responsibility as a citizen to make sure that someone else's healthcare is paid for? Feel free to take that position. It'll make it that much easier for me to compare Obamacare to a Stalinist regime.

Collective responsibility is the responsibility of the whole to the individual or another group.

And Obamacare would make American tax payers collectively responsible for every individual's healthcare. Thank you for confirming that you are advocating collective responsibility and not personal responsibility.

My argument

…Was conceded. Thank you.

He could argue that it goes way beyond our obligatory basics for self defense iow it is overkill and spending all that money beyond our essential needs for self defense takes away from our hopes and dreams.

And on the latter part, he would largely be right. The question then is not one of principle, for which he has conceded my arguemnt, but that of an assessment of what is necessary, as you note. And this is the basic reason for having a government. That is to say, the protection of our rights from coercion is the need that government is instituted to address.

Do we want the crackhead wandering our streets

Fine, arrest him. But, that’s hardly a reason to seize the wealth of others for his healthcare.

or worse grandma or Lou Gehrig slumped over in their wheelchairs at the street corner?

But, I’m willing to pay to help my grandma. Why should I also have to pay for yours (oh, alright, not yours, Realpolitik’s then).

Do you want to be in the position of having to say “hey grandpa, you did’t prepare yourself well enough for your old age, good luck but I ain’t going to help you, because I have my dreams, so you’re on your own.”

No, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge my responsibilties to my family. Why do you feel it’s right to saddle me with the responsibility for everyone else’s?

That’s pretty cold and it is morally offensive to say the least.

Good thing it’s a straw man, then.

"No, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge my responsibilties to my family. Why do you feel it's right to saddle me with the responsibility for everyone else's?

Posted by Bill_Dalasio

2009-09-17 14:25:45 "

OK Bill, let's just get this straight once and for all.

Mr. S has run out of money. His family is gone there is no one left. He is chrnoically ill. He is solo in the world.

What do you do?

A. leave him be and hope he can maitnain himself on his own.

B. Help him as far as charity and goodwill can but if that isn't enough that's all society is obligated to do and leave him.

C. set up a system to catch those that fall through the cracks after everything else has been done.

Posted by libliever

2009-09-17 19:14:26

How is that even a question? This entire thread has been all about private charities over government entitlements. Why on Earth would you even need to ask such an obvious question?

Posted by libliever

2009-09-17 19:14:26

Well, B, ideally. Hell, I'd write a check to help out myself. However, we already do make exceptions for the worst cases. But, let's be quite frank here. You're moving back and forth between this honest, hardworking, guy down on his luck and my friendly neighborhood crackhead. And, honestly, in the latter case, A seems an entirely reasonable option.

Posted by Bill_Dalasio

2009-09-17 22:05:50

Thanks for answering.

Both you and martinhale are mistaken about my motive for posting on RWN. I don't do it to change minds. Highly partisan political bloggers are not composed of people who are open to rational debate or having their minds changed. I don't do it to keep score. There is no designated unbiased RWN scorekeeper to perform that function.

I post on RWN because its easy and fun to fluster political ideologues who are more obsessed with attacking the opposition than they are in boosting their own positive aspects. The vast majority of RWN OP's and its responders focus their ideological energy on the negative by attacking the opposition. Fortunately for me, there almost always exists in the real world examples of both sides committing the same types of infractions for which negative focused political bloggers attack the opposition. That is what makes many RWN OP's and their supporters such easy marks to fluster. I can almost almost always find a real world example of when the other dog got kicked. The leftist blogs are just as vulnerable in that regard. I've actually tried it. Its not near as much fun. The liberal bloggers don't get their panties in as much of a knot as do conservative bloggers when I infuse the "whoose dog got kicked" game into their partisan negative attacks.

Posted by snohomish

The best website……

Hey Websmaster , Awesome blog , if you need backlinks to your website I provide upto 10,000 high quality SEO backlinks for only $5. Check it out here :http://bit.ly/msweL2...