Progressive Value Alternative: Responsibility Part of the Failed Conservative Values of: Irresponsibility , individual responsibility
Some Questions To Ponder: - What is scapegoating all about? - Why does the conservative movement that says they value 'individual responsibility', yet seem to always blame others and is always looking for scapegoats? - How does this conservative value of scapegoating differ from progressive values? - What are some examples of conservatives using scapegoating? liberals, welfare queens, immigrants, Muslims?
Failed Conservative Values Project I ask for your assistance to systematically build the arguments and tell the stories that reveal how Conservative Values have Failed. Join in our effort to create a documentary and book on the subject by contributing articles, posts, chapters for the book and video clips. Check our website for more information and a growing outline of tasks that need to be done on this project. http://progressivespirit.com/Projects/FailedConservativeValues
Below is a reply to a comment at "The Nature of the Income tax". While there are major differences between libertarians & conservatives, individual responsibility is an area that we agree on (at least in theory). While I agree with your criticism of conservatives for using scapegoats, my reply below is apropo to your article.
**********************************************
As Randy Jackson says, check it out, dog. LOL
Good points you bring up that I'm happy to respond to.
I have a number of reactions to "libertarian" criticisms of the income tax.
I'll start by asking a fundamental question: Do the wealthy have any obligation, be it moral, legal or otherwise, to the poor?
Legal, no. Moral, yes. The same consideration anyone owes to anyone else.
I see traditional libertarianism as "selfishism." Hidden away under all the "the government is stealing my money" rhetoric is a selfish, greedy, survival-of-the-fittest, me-me-me agenda. If that floats your yacht, so be it; it doesn't float mine.
Exept that in liberty people prosper. Under the various forms of statism they languish in poverty & oppression. Libertarianism isn't about survival-of-the-fittest it's about voluntary cooperation to mutual benefit.
My understanding of libertarian thought goes something like this: government is greedy and government is corrupt so let's not continue to allow them to steal our money.
Correct. Though, even if they were good I wouldn't want them stealing money.
The view categorically denies the possibility that we could ever have good and honest people in positions of power.
Jefferson put it this way:
"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.... There has never been a moment of my life in which I should have relinquished for it the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends and books."
&
"Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence."
So, yes, it's the nature of the beast that power will be abused.
Libertarianism is a cynical view of other people that argues that "my money" is happiest when it remains in "my pocket." Libertarians refuse to accept the possibility that good governance could do good things to bring about a more just society.
Actually, quite the opposite. We think people are best at running their own affairs. The statist view comes across to us as the cynical one, that people are too stupid to be left to decide things for themselves. The corolary of the above is the statist's willingness to use force on people to achieve their goals. That to me is cynical.
Also, no good ever came from using force to achieve ones ends.
Libertarianism, at least as I define it, is an "every man for himself"
No, it's about uncoerced interaction & cooperation.
survival-of-the-fittest view that ultimately sees no social responsibility for building society and assisting others who are less fortunate.
I already addressed the survival-of-the-fittest thing. Social responsibility is a sham used by governments & coniving preachers to get people to go along with their frauds. I know you mean well, but in practice it only hurts people.
There's a long history of voluntary organizations in the US & UK that helped people before the welfare/warfare state arose & wiped them out. See here.
Don't get me wrong; we are not arguing over the tragic state of corrupt governance. I have no illusions whatsoever about those who have poisoned our dreams for a better society. Where we differ, however, is that I don't believe that "that which has been is all there can ever be." I don't accept that.
And so, regardless of what "this doesn't get you anywhere" arguments you might raise about the unconstitutionality of the income tax, I support economic mechanisms that, under systems of governance with a genuine interest in serving the best interests of the people, would take from the rich and give to the poor. My goal is NOT to force a totally flat distribution of wealth. My goal is NOT to squash incentive for productivity and creativity. My goal is certainly NOT to keep in force the corruptions of corporate welfare we currently suffer from.
Instead of trying to make being poor easier, wouldn't it be better to make it easier to escape poverty? In the post-war US poverty rates were falling until the late sixties & the begining of the Great Society. This is well documented in "Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980". While well intentioned dogs like you ;-) support such things, politicians see welfare, etc as a way to buy votes. They don't care about the consequences of their policies.
But democracy itself, or republican (small "r") government if you prefer, cannot possibly exist in a country with such an immense gap between rich and poor. There can be no argument against the reality that wealth equals power and poverty equals lack of power. Because of this reality, capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist. We are badly in need of "wealth leveling." Again, the goal is not one of absolute economic parity; the goal is one of absolute political empowerment and political parity. Economic systems, like libertarianism, that make no effort to balance winners and losers in the economic marketplace, leave us with the same political inequality we currently have.
In any free system there will be great inequality of wealth. That's human nature & nothing to worry about. People have different levels of drive, intelligence, talent, & ambition. So, of course, there will be inequality. The thing that I don't get about Progressives is that they seem to want everyone to be equally poor rather than unequally affluent.
Though, I'm not sure that I see a lack of elites in non-Capitalist societies either. The equality thing is just an idealistic dream.
In my view, the problem is NOT The income tax; it's a failed system that puts profits before people. I am not willing to discard the pursuit of a better government that seeks to benefit all of its people solely because the governments we have (and have had) cater to the wealthiest elites. The objective should not be every man for himself; it should be institutions and policies, including the income tax, that seek to find the best balance between individual rewards for economic success and a just, sustainable society. As our world grows smaller and smaller and we, the people, are piled closer and closer on top of one another, it's clear we must emphasize the "we" over the "me" if we are to have any future at all. Libertarianism fails to understand that.
Actually, libertarianism is about the we. We need to work together voluntarily. That's the whole point. The core of libertarianism is that no one may initiate the use of force on anyone else. Everything flows from there.
You may be wondering about the title I gave this reply. It's Ayn Rand's view of the word selfish or selfishness:
The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.
Which brings me to my last point. For all the Progessive's proclamations of doing good for others when it comes down to it they really want to benefit from the redistribution of wealth themselves. A statist society becomes one of survival-of-the-fittest the winners being the ones that can grab the most loot.
I hope this reply helps.
by
Darren Wolfe (2 articles, 74 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 399 comments)
on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 1:17:48 PM
tell me how libertarianism relates to empathy. Morality is a rules based intellectual construct and not of interest to me. Tell me how libertarianism relates to empathy and caring? Values are felt body experiences, in your gut, in your heart. Lets hear about that.
by
Edwin Rutsch (51 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 1:49:14 PM
tell me how libertarianism relates to empathy. Morality is a rules based intellectual construct and not of interest to me. Tell me how libertarianism relates to empathy and caring? Values are felt body experiences, in your gut, in your heart. Lets hear about that.
Wow! I really apreciate your honesty, though I don't think you realize what you're saying. Your point of view allows you to behave in the most immoral ways. I would like to thank you because you've just helped me to better understand how socialism becomes such a nightmare.
Let me explain. Morals aren't just "a rules based intellectual construct" but the compass that guides you in the real world. What you say might apply to those who base their morals on ghosts (religion). It certainly doesn't apply to those who base their morals on reason.
Empathy is great. Without it people do all manner of evil. But bear in mind that empathy must be guided by reason & morality. Blind, emotional empathy only results in destruction & misery too. People need food, for example. you might say "there's food in the store so lets give it to the hungry". That might seem like the empathetic thing to do, but when the store goes out of business people will have less food to eat. Have you helped anyone?
The same with land reform. Zimibabwe is a great example of what not to do. At one time it was a food exporter. Now, after their land reform that included raping & murdering, they can't even feed themselves anymore. Has this helped? Especially at a time of rising food costs around the world a food exporting Zimbabwe would be great.
By now the empathetic reformer is frustrated that his reforms aren't working. So what does he do? He sends in the police to make people behave the way he thinks they should. Socialism needs the police state to enforce it's edicts. I don't know about you, but I don't like police states.
Ultimately, doing the empathetic thing of throwing "help" at people only ends up hurting them. Doing the reasonable thing of alowing people to prosper in liberty is the only way to help them.
I haven't even touched on the political side of this issue. Politicians love pork. When you empower them to do all these empathetic things they will inevitably use these powers to assure their election. Every givaway becomes ameans of buying votes. Consequences are irrelevant to the politicos. The only thing that matters to them is staying in power. Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
--H. L. Mencken
by
Darren Wolfe (2 articles, 74 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 399 comments)
on Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 9:03:29 AM
Seems to me that reason needs to be guided by empathy. totalitarian governments, like the extreme case of the Nazis had plenty of intellectuals that could create reasons for every barbarity. What they lacked was empathy. Reason is just another value, it's no be-all end-all in itself. When not used in conjunction with empathy and caring, it can be used for any sort of brutality.
When your mother and father nurtured you as a child, did they do it because they had some moral rule that they had to follow? I doubt it.. Were they creating all kinds of mental constructs and games of why they should care for you? I doubt it. they cared for you because they empathized with you, they could feel what you felt and tended to your needs.
Here's an interview I did that you may find interesting. Ralf talks about his intellectuality and reason and where it took him.. Almost flying off the edge of the high building.
Seems to me that reason needs to be guided by empathy.
I say tomato & you say tomahto.
totalitarian governments, like the extreme case of the Nazis had plenty of intellectuals that could create reasons for every barbarity. What they lacked was empathy. Reason is just another value, it's no be-all end-all in itself. When not used in conjunction with empathy and caring, it can be used for any sort of brutality.
The brutality of the nazis wasn't rational, it was quite the opposite. Their whole ideology was based on hate, not reason. Their racial ideas completly unscientific.
I think we need to get down to a definition of reason. I'm not sure how you define the word from the way you use it.
4. power of orderly thought: the power of being able to think in a logical and rational manner use reason rather than force
5. ability to think clearly: the ability to think clearly and coherently
I'm using these defiitions when I use the word.
When your mother and father nurtured you as a child, did they do it because they had some moral rule that they had to follow? I doubt it.. Were they creating all kinds of mental constructs and games of why they should care for you? I doubt it. they cared for you because they empathized with you, they could feel what you felt and tended to your needs.
This example misses the point. A parents love for their child isn't rational, its emotional. However, to be a rational person one must consider that people have emotions & make that part of the equation. It's not like Hansen said about logical people being like Spock. Thats not the goal.
A good parent does use their reasoning ability to provide for their children. Every decision they make is based on, you guessed it, reason guided by empathy.
Here's an interview I did that you may find interesting. Ralf talks about his intellectuality and reason and where it took him.. Almost flying off the edge of the high building.
I touched on whats wrong with Hansen's view of reason above.
Here's what one of the greatest advocates of reason, Ayn Rand, had to say about it:
Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.
The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action. It means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one’s power and to the constant, active expansion of one’s perception, i.e., of one’s knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one’s own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one’s goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one’s convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought—as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, as one’s fullest capacity permits. It means one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one’s convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)—that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects—that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one’s own purposes and motives—that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one’s knowledge—and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life.
But what about people's emotions you might ask? Rand again:
There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.
So when Hansen felt like killing him self it meant that values were out of wack with reality. Unfortunately, he seems to have chosen to turn off his mind rather than have the moral courage to face reality.
by
Darren Wolfe (2 articles, 74 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 399 comments)
on Friday, May 2, 2008 at 2:37:47 PM
Zimbabwe is an authoritarian conservative dictatorship and no example of empathy. Dictatorships come in all forms, monarchy, secular, communist, fascist, Maoist, etc. etc. They are all conservative by their authoritarian nature. I'm not against authority, but authoritarian is when authority and control is valued more highly than empathy. I'm sure you've seen the cop that acts authoritarian with their power. then there's others where you feel their humanity.
I remember being stopped for speeding in Germany. I told the cop I was from California. He got his national geographic magazine he'd been reading and showed me an article about California and said he wanted to visit and we had a long friendly talk. He still gave me a ticket, ;- ) but I knew he was a nice guy that cared about people. He was just doing his job and enforcing the law, but he didn't make a power ego trip out of it. He maintained his human connection.
by
Edwin Rutsch (51 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 11:48:57 AM
