Happy recluse

I understand the frustration of life such that sometimes I think, “Somebody outta pass a law. . . .” But the moment passes, I laugh about my own impatience, and then I move to other things. I understand that nonsmokers like a world free from tobacco smoke, and so they want laws forbidding smoking in resturants, stores, malls, and even outdoors on a college campus. But I am bothered by the notion that we have a right to force the restaurant owner to forbid smoking in his establishment. After all, he owns the restaurant, and whether I like it or not, his ownership must protect him from legal and political action brought by majority opinion.

Conservative or libertarian thinking says we let the owner alone. He decides whether or not anyone is allowed to smoke in his restaurant. Presumably majority opinion sways his actions without the club of political action. The population will determine whether to frequent his business or not, and if he can maintain his business by allowing smoking or by forbidding it, he is free to make those choices. In this way of thinking we omit the govermental middle-man, and we escape the more terrible oppression by law.

The issue of smoking tobacco is only an example where the majority decides to compel the minority to live according to the larger group’s decisions, but my support of conservative thinking follows a similar path in most things where liberals support legislation forcing everyone to live and act as they see fit. Liberals want to see health care being available to everyone regardless of cost. I have the same sympathies. I am saddened to hear of anyone suffering due to some minor lack of funds. But I don’t think it’s right to compel everyone to pay for such a system. How does the premise, “I wish no one suffered due to a lack of money,” justifes the conclusion, “Therefore, we have a right to compel everyone to pay these costs”? Of course, there must be a second premise, or more, tying the first premise to the conclusion, but I can’t think what it might be without appealing to something absurd like, “Whatever I wish gives me the political authority to make it so.” So, what premises fit to make the liberal argument sound?

Of course, we all agree that crime justifies our eliminating someone’s freedom. Committing a crime requires that you freely choose the crime, that’s the difference between a crime and an accident. His criminal choice, then, requires that we mete out punishment. (Neglience is more complicated, but basically it occurs when freely choose to ignore some circumstance that you should have paid attention to.) But crime occurs only when the bad guy violates someone’s freedom. He steals from you, thereby violating your freedom. His freedom is violated in turn.

Liberals often argue a sense that the wealthy person commits a crime by not being charitable when it is easy for him to do so. I admit that is a moral crime, but I see no justification for compelling him to pay through higher taxation. We are morally required to help our neighbor when we can, but instead of helping that neighbor or giving to a charity liberals tend to pass laws. It’s amazing that all of the time, money and energy spent on getting health care for the poor, no politican or political leader stood up an announced his contribution to a charity that provides health care for the poor. The cry is always to pass a law and make other people pay with little consideration for what the speakers themselves are willing to sacrifice. Let me give an example.

We had a local referendum to raise property taxes for the schools. One of my neighbors said, “I’m willing to pay more for better schools.” I asked him if he ever made a voluntary contribution to the school system. “Well, no,” was his answer. But if you’re willing to pay for more better schools, then why don’t you do that? Affirmative action is another example.

Our political leaders decided to provide greater opportunities for minorities who are less qualified than the rest of an applicant pool. (I say that these minorities must be less qualified, for if they were equally qualified or more qualified, there would be no reason for Affirmative Action, but that gets me off my main point.) We’ve seen a generation affected by these laws and yet during that whole time I’ve personally not heard of a single person announcing his decision to step down from his career path midstream to make room for minorities. Those who passed the laws and enforced Affirmative Action guidelines in the name of justice have offered no sacrifice for their beliefs in that justice. I did hear of a professor who retired early forcing the unversity to hire a minority in his place, but his early retirement cost him nothing that he needed for his retirement. In fact Congress fully supported Affirmative Action as long as it didn’t apply to them and whomever they employ.

I can imagine compassionate people doing without a family vacation, a new and large home, or a typically over-priced Christmas to give that money to the poor or to the local school. I can image these compassionate people leading the charge against poverty and illiteracy by imploring the rest of us to contribute. But when people show their compassion by passing laws forcing everyone else to contribute, I begin to think their interest isn’t in helping other people, but in controlling everyone else. Their “compassion” is only a means for securing political power. And that shows more clearly when compassionate people don’t give of themselves and haven’t tried to encourage others to give voluntarily.

So, I don’t see the contest between liberals and conservatives as one between compassionate people who only want to help others as opposed to greedy folk. The contest is honestly between those who want to control everyone else and those of us who think people ought to be left alone, to be free, and seek a course in life that suits each of them best.

filtherton

First off, I don't think your use of labels is accurate. There are tons of conservative folk who loooove government intrusion. In fact, the next time you hear about a gay marriage amendment being pushed, check the ideological persuasion of the person doing the pushing. Odds are, they'll be far from liberal. They'll likely self-identify as conservative.

On top of that there are a fair number of liberals who can't stand the government one bit. Some of them are left-anarchist types.

You might accuse me of being liberal. However, it is my belief that there are certain necessary tasks at which the market fails miserably. It is here where government must act. I also know that in order for communities to thrive, they must invest time and resources in themselves. This is the role of government.

I think that progressive taxation policies are easily justifiable under the idea that we should tax people proportional to their prosperity. It is stupid to think that this process will discourage people from seeking prosperity. No one ever turned down a raise because they didn't want to pay a marginally higher tax rate on all that extra money.

I also think that progressive taxation makes senses from a national self-preservation perspective, since apparently nations with high income inequality are typically unequal in many other ways and are more prone to social unrest. Rich people should want to pay more taxes because it is in their best interest to do so. If I were rich, I'd be happy to pay a higher tax rate. I'd be fine paying a higher tax rate now and I make barely above a livable wage.

I also think "conservative" policies that defund education are helping to hasten the steady decline of american prosperity.

I will acknowledge that the people running the government are frequently corrupt, contemptible and incompetent. I would also point out that so are the people in charge in the business community. I suspect the government might work better if we weren't so intent on electing people who suck at running the government.

Baraka_Guru

I don't know of any liberals who think this way.

And I think it would be more accurate to suggest---if you are to say that liberals are about control---that conservatives/libertarians are about selfishness/ignorance.

At this point, I'm not sure what else to say here other than that I agree far more with filtherton than with the OP.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

mixedmedia

So why is that liberals can't just want what they say they want? You're asking why liberals think the way they do, then you proceed to tell us why they think the way they do. Which, of course, is contrary to what they say they want.

I agree with everything that filtherton says. And I will go on to add that the liberal movement in this country sprang into life in the late 19th-early 20th centuries by the very realities of an ever-widening income disparity and the greed and corruption prevalent in business that we are seeing again today. Since then, it has found wellsprings of opportunity at times of great national crisis such as the great depression and the civil rights movement. People can agree or disagree with many of the laws, policies and constitutional amendments that were enacted during these times but one thing is for sure: there is not a single person in this country, rich or poor, that doesn't benefit from the principles that were adopted during the very few times when liberal thought held sway in America. I mean, liberals died in this country at the hands of our own police and federal troops fighting for the right to an eight-hour workday. Before that, the average work week was a 12-hour day, 6 days a week. Who is it that cared about the quality of life of average working people? Add to that women's suffrage, minority suffrage, the right to organize, rural electrification, the prohibition of child labor, workplace safety, family leave and paid time off, equal opportunity in housing, education and employment, ending segregation and prisoner leasing, WIC, food stamps, social security, medicare and medicaid, the interstate highway system...just to name a few. In fact, considering the dearth of liberal ascendancy in the annals of this nation's history, it's pretty f-ing amazing that we managed to accomplish so much. And so much that so many conservatives take for granted in this country.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Derwood

There, fixed that for you

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

samcol

Replies like that don't do anything to convert conservatives to a different way of thinking if that's your intent.

You are like the angry mean spirited drunk who chimes in on calm discussion at the bar to piss everyone off.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Derwood

It was a novel length opening post that lobbed false accusations left and right. I'm not convinced the TC wants to have his mind changed

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

roachboy

i am not sure what the op is supposed to do beyond provide a cloudy window into the imaginary world of a particular conservative who seems quite concerned with matters of self-justification using the not-terribly-surprising technology of projection.

it's one of those tedious "when did you stop beating your wife" things.

it's impossible to detail how each individual conservative thinks, but at the same time there's a **very** present and well-funded ideological machine that produces statements and images that have the effect of making (far-)right politics a matter of identity rather than one of argument and interpretation.

"the liberal" in this ideological imagination is a fictional character whose function is the enable conservatives to imagine that the identity politics they inhabit--to the extent they inhabit mainstream neo-fascist populist conservative statements--are not bizarre, but rather are a normal mode of interacting with political statements. because "the liberal" does it too.

it's a tedious novel involving lots of john galts running around being heroically individual except when they are thwarted in their heroic individualness by any number of persecuting Others---the evil state, the evil affirmative action, the evil redistribution of wealth, the evil modern world. the reality this novel sets into motion is a rather purple melodrama of self-pity amongst the heroic individual set.

there's a huge range of political viewpoints outside the uniformity of statements brought to you by the usual conservative sponsors. there is no "the liberal." except maybe in one sense: most of the folk i know from moderates through people quite left of what gets any access to the mainstream/corporate opinion manufacturing machinery agree on one thing: that the conservative novel that features all these john galts running around being heroically individual except when they are thwarted by the forces of Evil is fucking stupid.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

I get frustrated when conservatives bitch about how liberals just want to spend their money, particularly conservatives in the lower and middle classes, who benefit directly every day of their frigging lives from ideas that sprang from the minds of people who cared about their grandparents and great-grandparents when no one else did. Liberal ideology doesn't just spring forth in spite of a just and adequately functioning society. It originates in the void created by injustice, greed, corruption and an unworkable quality of life for the least empowered in our society.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Jinn

Painting a caricature of "liberals", no matter how lucid, will get you nowhere. As BG, "I don't know of any liberals who think this way." Turns out not all liberals think alike, particularly alike in the way you'd believe. Drop the labels, and perhaps investigate the liberals you personally know regarding their beliefs. And even if their beliefs confirm your conception (confirmation bias?), remember that they still are not indicative of the greater. As much as I'd like to similarly indicate that conservatives are all selfish buffoons, I recognize that I'm speaking to one or a handful, rather than a disparate group of people who are linked only by singular political belief.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Rekna

It seems to me the difference between liberals and conservatives is that of many to one. Liberals act to benefit society as a whole. They implement social programs to help the least of these, they fund public school, etc. Conservatives on the other hand are concerned only about themselves. They have a very ego-centric world view. To them everything comes down to what do they directly get and what do they have to pay. The could care less about someone on the down and outs until it becomes them on the down and out. At that point they have an epiphany and switch parties....

samcol

Liberals feel they've been cheated in life and they need a godlike figure to correct everything and make things fair. Then they pay their taxes as a sacrament to this god even though the god is corrupt, unjust, and squanders the money at every opportunity.

No matter how much evidence there is of the abusiveness of government, they still want more of it. The solution to every problem is giving more money and more power to this system despite it's failed efforts in the past.

With that being said liberals do a lot of things right. There is a general compassion for human rights and equality. The constituents tend to disapprove of wars and intrusions on personal freedoms, however their leaders tend to do the opposite.

I guess that's my biggest complaint with liberals. Why do the continue to support the established leftwing politicians in this country? Obama had both the house and senate and didn't get us out of the wars, didn't get healthcare done correctly, didn't stop torture, didn't stop wiretaps, didn't revoke the patriot act and on top of all that the economy is still in shambles. He might as well be the third George Bush. It's more of the same.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

roachboy

so "the liberal" is an imaginary category that refers to all the people who are not john galt. they wish they were john galt. they are driven by resentment. their Evil originates in the fact that they cannot also be john galt.

what separates conservativeland---and here we are talking about conservativeland, and not about the complexes of positions occupied by individual human beings, who are always more complex than the ideological frames they can take up would have you think---from everyone else are fundamental differences on political and ethical priorities and differing conceptions of how to move the social machine from a--where it is now--to b, where it could or should be.

there are business and moral reasons to make such arguments.
the state is typically seen---one way or another--as an instrument for directing the largely blind and self-serving machinery of capitalism away from pathological outcomes.
there are basic philosophical differences that separate conservativeland from other people on the question of the redistribution of wealth--what it does, what it can do.

basically, conservativeland is a self-help manual for petit-bourgeois self-disempowerment. if it is taken seriously as a policy map, it does not open onto some imaginary "real capitalism"-----it opens onto a kind of feudalism in which the plutcracy does what it wants and the lesser beings run around bragging about how very john galt they are while they work as sharecroppers for the Lords and console themselves by hoarding weapons.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

StanT

There isn't much about your premise I can agree with.

So, where did the Patriot Act come from? The Defense of Marriage Act?

Politicians in general are controlling. Conservatives are against big government, except, of course, when they are in office. Liberals are against big business, except, of course, the ones that support them. Liberals want more control of money, conservatives want to control morality.

Liberal believe in a safety net, conservatives do not.
Conservatives believe that our debt should be socialized and that profits should not. Liberals don't agree.

Derwood

Conservatives worship the rich and demonize the poor. The poor deserve to be poor, and if they just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, everyone would be rich and the evil gubment wouldn't need to give them free SUV's and flat screen TV's.

See, I can make broad generalizations too

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

mixedmedia

this is so very true. and it is perverse.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

ASU2003

We tried giving bar owners and restaurants the ability to dictate the smoking rules. It didn't work out very well for the non-smokers and the workers at these places.

Then cities tried to do it, and it didn't work out very well when the smokers all flooded into the next city over and brought their friends with them.

Then the states banned smoking indoors, and it is working OK.

We all live in society, and some things need to be done to make it a better place.

Willravel

I'm liberal because I reject the idea that selfishness is a virtue. I've seen what selflessness can do, how it can overcome hatred, greed, and ignorance. While selfishness certainly isn't always bad, it's more of a default than selflessness, which often requires more difficult action, but it also makes the world a better place. It's an extension of one of the most basic rules of human interaction: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I were in need of help, I would want others to help me, therefore when others need help, I try to help them. Social programs, ending the wars, fair progressive taxation, social equality for all people, things that are considered by Americans to be liberal, all extend from the golden rule.

Happy recluse

Your comment is important because no one believes that those who are needy should be ignored. The debate is whether such charity should be legislated, i.e., forced upon other people. I wish to be charitable in my own way. I do not necessarily wish to be charitable as the law commands. By what right do we allow such laws to be imposed on the minority?

You mention "fair" progressive taxation, but why is your conception of "fair" the right one, and mine is wrong? Is your argument any more than, "Well, that's just how I feel about it"?

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 AM ----------

I would like to know what you mean by something's "working out" or not. I think letting owners decide for the property they own "works" fine. But what is my argument for that?

To own something means that you have disposition over it. You control it, and you have authority to determine what goes on with your property and what does not go on. You do not have the authority to compel anyone to do anything against his or her will, whether that person is on your property or not. You may however permit activity, such as smoking, but you are never allowed to compel anyone to enter your building and you are not allowed to compel employees to be in the building, if they don't want to.

If government is able to make demands on what goes on in your building, outside of cases where you are compelling someone to do something, then government has assumed ownership of your building. Still, government and society still claim that you own the building. Thus, there is a logical contradiction in the notion that you own it and that government owns it.

Willravel

This is, no offense, a false argument. You're misusing the term force, and you choosing to ignore the social contract. You were born into or became a citizen of the United States of America. By benefiting from the services the government provides—military, police, social safety net, fire protection, etc.—you are agreeing to pay into the system. The nice thing about our system is that our system is a Republic, a social entity wherein the people are allowed the ability to change laws and redress the government, which creates and enforces the law. If you are no longer able to tolerate the system and the change you wish is highly unlikely, you also have the opportunity to opt out of the agreement and enter into a different one. Assuming the new government will have you, you can switch your citizenship.

There's no force, only voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. Acting as if there's force is a way to rationalize the stripping of successful social programs away from the people they benefit the most.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, many social programs have been proven to stimulate the economy more than any form of charity. Food stamps, often the target of libertarian mire, increases economic activity $1.73 for every dollar spent, making it the most efficient economic stimulus in modern history. Unemployment insurance returns $1.62 for every dollar spent. These are wildly successful programs, programs that contribute greatly to economic stability that you benefit from.

Tax breaks, btw, generally return a dollar or less for every dollar spent.
Do you really want me to lay out the various argument for a progressive tax system and against a flat tax in a pub discussion? I can, but it will probably take me a good three hours.

Let me put the argument in its most simple terms: If make $250,000 a year and you make $25,000 a year and there's a flat tax of 25%. Is this your idea of fair? Who in reality is shouldering more of a personal burden for the sake of the state? The simple answer in this hypothetical situation would clearly be you. You would lose over $6,000 a year in income, which would be financially devastating. I'd still be taking home nearly $190,000 a year. As I'm wealthy, I'd statistically be less prone to use all of my income to consume. I'd be able to invest more, thus getting a return. In the end, a flat tax is a regressive tax. If you actually take a look at the reality in the 24 countries that currently have a flat tax, it's hugely beneficial to the wealthy and burdensome to the poor, particularly in former communist countries.

If you want me to elaborate, I can, but as this is a pub discussion, I can't cite my sources so you'll have to google them yourself.

Derwood

The truth is, if personal/private charity were enough to provide a safety net, there wouldn't be the need for government programs. But while everyone likes to say "I'd just give of my own free will, I don't want to be forced to, etc., etc.", the vast majority of people would just happily keep the money for themselves

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

This, basically.

With regard to "Somebody ought to pass a law," it's easy to point out the more trivial issues such as smoking laws when there is a long and storied history of more important issues relating more generally to human rights and liberties.

You know, there are parallels to liberals and libertarians. (The similarities in the words should give you a hint.) For example, I imagine many liberals and libertarians are on board regarding allowing for gay marriage. It's only the methods that vary. Liberals are most likely to suggest that the federal/state governments should legislate it as a way to protect the right (you know, like how most rights are protected), though I'm sure many libertarians would rather it just be a case of telling the government to simply GTFO and ensure gay marriage isn't illegal.

Where libertarianism falls short is in the fantasy that society will be freer if people and organizations just simply get out of the way. If it were that simple, there would be no need for a constitution or a bill or rights or a code of laws, etc. If you want rights, they need to be protected. They almost invariably need to be actively protected.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Happy recluse

I’m never sure what the contract in Social Contract theory states. It says, at least, that I agreed to do as society says, but does that conception of “what society says” the majority of the population, the majority of those who vote, the majority of those who have greater political clout? My argument is that any majority can be wrong, and I am raising instances where that is so.

I assume that no contract can contain contradictions within it. I cannot have nor can I enforce a contract that says I must do x while at the same time I must not do x. Since, ownership seems to mean that one has the right of disposal over the thing he owns, and the social contract gives government the rights over an owner’s property, then there is a contradiction in the social contract.

The social contract is whimsical. You may own an African; you may not own an African. You may kill an Indian; you may not kill an Indian. Women may not vote; women may vote. You may consume alcohol; you may not consume alcohol; and then, you may again consume alcohol. Our intention, I suppose, is always to improve the contract for the sake of the people, but (1) if the contract can be changed through majority opinion, then what stops us from changing it back so that we may again own Africans, kill Indians, etc.? (2) Since slavery really is wrong and it should be illegal whether the majority approves or not, then we have appealed to something much higher than the social contract. If I think slavery is wrong because that’s what the majority thinks, then I am following the social contract. If I think slavery is wrong in the U.S. in 1817, then I am denying the social contract.

I think social contract theory is mistaken because it serves as no standard for judging right and wrong due to its whimsical nature. The standard for right and wrong goes beyond majority opinion so that the minority might be protected. And one instance of that protection for minorities is ownership.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------

No, please don't. I am much more interested in your conception or definition of "fairness." You have a concept of "fairness" in mind because you appeal to it. I am only asking what the concept is.

"Fairness" is difficult to understand because it takes different forms. I have two children, so I give each the same amount of cake. The older child complains that such is not fair because she is older. Since one child is 10 and the other child is 5, then the older child gets twice as much cake as the younger, in order to be fair. But then the younger child complains about fairness.

You say that the progressive tax is fair while alternatives are not fair. Is your conception of "fairness" tied to how you feel about the rich versus the poor? If your conception is how easy it is for someone to pay the tax, then should not be based on income at all; rather, it should be based on the ease of payment. I make the same amount of money now that I did ten years ago, but now that my children have left the nest paying taxes is much easier for me. It would still be easier for me to pay more even if I made far less than I did ten years ago.

So, what is your conception of "fairness"?

Happy recluse

I have heard of this by listening to Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi, but I'm afraid I have no idea what it means. If the government gives Smith a food stamp worth $1, and Smith buys a loaf of bread (on sale) for $1, how does that transaction stimulate the economy beyond $1?

If I put a dollar in my savings account, the bank lends that dollar and gets, say, 4% back on that investment. I get 2%, so I can see that the economy grew that dollar by 4% that year assuming that the bank and I both get paid. Is the idea that a dollar in food stamps creates $1.73 in economic activity the same thing?

Willravel

In very basic terms, the social contract is a concept explaining the relationship between individuals and centers of authority, usually governments.
This isn't something which can be put into "right" and "wrong" categories, because it goes to the personal preference of what government should be. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but you shouldn't assume your opinion is right. I want single-payer healthcare, you, presumably, do not. Neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong. I have an opinion and you have a differing opinion. We can put our opinions to the test, we can try single-payer healthcare to see if it works. If it works my opinion will become fact and yours will become false (notice fact and false are not the same as right and wrong). Until we have the hard data, they're just opinions, possible avenues based on different political philosophy.
Please cite a specific example of this seeming contradiction so I can address it.
I believe John Locke will be disappointed to learn this.
By whimsical, did you mean that the social contract changes over time? I certainly agree with that. Whimsical means playful or capricious, neither of which I would apply to the social contract as I understand it.
I suspect you have more than just a passing understanding of the Constitution of the United States. The way our founding documents were drafted include a balance between majority rule and protections for minorities. As the document has evolved through amendments and court rulings, this has expanded to keep up with the times. Initially, slavery was allowed, but it was later disallowed because the minority required protection from the majority. Initially, women lacked the right to vote, but this was later rectified because the minority (50/50 in population, perhaps, but a minority when it came to political power) required protection from the majority. You can see a clear and magnificent trajectory of social evolution marked in part in the way our government and society function.

Speaking more specifically to what you posted, the law, which exists in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, keeps us from reverting to slave owners or perpetrators of genocide against the Native Americans. Slavery and genocide are both illegal, and there are judicial and law enforcement systems in place to prevent or punish those actions.

And please don't think I'm saying the social contract is always "right" (in my opinion). It's often wrong. Look at gay marriage. We're only just now seeing the tide turn against the bigots in the majority.

Do you remember what I said above?

I am working to change laws and redress the government regarding equal rights for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) individuals. I'm following my own advice, as it were. Because we exist in a republic wherein I and my fellow citizens have the right to change something because we feel it's unjust, I see an opportunity for progress and I fight for it. If, however, there were a fundamental problem with my country I was unable to tolerate living under and I could not possibly change, I would either have to learn to live with it or leave, would I not?
Right and wrong are subjective terms. They imply opinion, not fact.
My conception of fairness in this case is equal burden. Not equal percentages of income, equal burden. I tried to make this as clear as I could above with the $250k vs. $25k incomes being equally taxed at 25%. You do see what I was trying to get at with that, right? While a flat tax seems equal at first glance, in actuality, it's regressive, which is unfair. A person making $25,000 a year, under a 25% tax rate, makes $18,750. A person making $250,000 a year, under a 25% tax rate, makes $187,500 a year. Who's life is more affected by this tax rate?
For every dollar's worth given out in the form of food stamps, the amount spent as a direct result of that stimulus is $1.73. The idea is to provide people with the means to be active in the economy again. There are generally two goals in giving money/resources to those in need: they get what they need, and they become a part of the economy again. Private charity is good at getting people what they need, but poor at also helping them become a part of the economy again. Tax breaks are good at helping people keep what they need (tax breaks for the poor, mind you), but they usually end up removing people even further from economic activity. Social programs should both provide people with the temporary assistance they require AND they should help to stimulate the economy. Food stamps and unemployment insurance are great at helping people out who are in need of temporary assistance, but it also helps the economy, far more than a tax break or a private charitable donation.

BTW, if I come off as snide, it's only because others who share your opinion have been incredibly rude to me in the past. I apologize if any of what I write comes off rude because that's only meant to be directed at those who were rude to me.

Baraka_Guru

The social contract also generally refers to an individual's acceptance of the public's general will. For example, if it's generally accepted that smoking should be banned in places of business---and especially if a law is passed----one may disagree all they want. However, taking action to have the law revoked, finding a loophole, or possibly even simply breaking the law is either challenging the social contract or outright breaking it.

I imagine the social contract in all its applications would conflict to some degree with most libertarians, as they are fundamentally about individualism rather than social integrity. Metaphorically, it's the difference between those who think it's the norm to wait in line for your turn vs. the guy who bypasses it wherever he can, thinking, "If they want to wait in line, that's their right."

One tongue-in-cheek way to describe libertarianism is to suggest its about exercising one's right to be a dick.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

ASU2003

The person buys food at a supermarket. The supermarket makes some profit, pays their employees a little, pays property taxes, the power company gets paid, and pays some taxes in employee salaries.
The farmer (or food producer) who sold the grocer the food gets paid, the company they get their equipment, seed, etc gets paid...

It is the velocity of money and getting the dollars circulating in the local and national economy helps more than spending dollars on oil/gas from big oil companies and countries around the world.

boink

I smoke, but it's been decided that smoking in enclosed environments is a detriment to the health of of others in an enclosed environment

I can deal with that. it's hurting others who don't willingly partake in destroying their lungs teeth heart, eyesight and general overall health, like I do.

so, I smoke in open air places or my apartment, my car, etc.

I do think, and it's open for debate in my state, that it should be legal to have private smoking clubs. and I think one could find some smokers who would work as waiters and cooks etc. in a place like that.

as it is at the moment, everyone I work with smokes, so we all smoke at work. but we arn't a public place really. we are getting a new employee who doesn't smoke, if he makes enough of a stink about it (har har) I think I'd be willing to stop at work because I think he's gonna be a good guy. but honestly there is plenty of dust and fumes to worry about even if the smoke is gone. I mean it's metal fabrication with chemical patina and paint in a giant open space...what can ya do ?

tons of people work in a soup of industrial filth every day, all day. taking away cig smoke is a drop in the bucket.

and I'm a liberal.

it's also a $500 fine for talking on a cell phone while driving, I see plenty of people doing it though. I think there are probably a few other places where people smoke where they arn't sposed to.

I don't really see this issue as much of a lib/con thing. find me enough cons that will vote to make weed legal, I mean pursuit of happiness freedom, constitution and all....or gay marriage ? where's mention of gay marriage in the constitution ? cons all want to take away a whole laundry list of other freedoms that bother me.

__________________
when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

smooth

as fun as this seems like it might be, I'm not going to dive in

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman