[Lerkfish]

In recent threads I'm struck by several instances of what seems like mercenary and callous attitudes towards human rights concerns from the same people who like to claim we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons. As an example, not caring or even in total support of abusive treatment of POWs in Guatanamo Bay.

This got to me to thinking....

Besides the "humanitarian" justification for the overthrow of Iraq, What other compassionate or humanitarian policies or concerns can actually be attributed to the conservatives?

To qualify, these would have to be concerns that extend beyond themselves, altruistic humanitarian of a pure nature.

As a hypothetical example: A platform to meet the needs of the homeless or indigents. OR any goal that does not benefit republicans or business or lead to guaranteeing a bloc of votes.

Now, partially this is an unfair litmus as there are plenty of liberal politicians who could not pass this test, either.

but here is the reason I ask:

My impression (which if its wrong, please demonstrate how it is wrong) is that I don't recall conservatives EVER doing anything on a humanitarian basis except the justification for the invasion of Iraq. There might be instances, but I don't recall them.

My point is that I feel when conservatives wave the "humanitarian" flag they are being disingenuous.

This is IMHO, but I welcome opposing viewpoints that demonstrate I'm wrong, as well as simple general discussion.

[macvillage.net]

That sounds about right.

[pooka]

I'm not following you. Are you talking about the conservatives on this board, the conservatives in the Washington or just conservatives in general? Cause my great aunt is pretty conservative. She travels all over the world building schools and spreading the word of bebe jeebus. If she heard that you were lumping her in with some of the folks on this board she would compassionately beat your ass to a bloody pulp.

[undotwa]

I love it how people love to lump other into convenient 'catagories'.

Oh you're left wing. I'm right wing. I'm liberal. You are Conservative. These terms have been so overused, that they are quite meaningless.

The only time you 'group' people are people who follow a particular philosophy, i.e. 'Marxist', or if people group themselves, in a political party (yet you must still recognize that they all don't think the same). Some people you might consider 'left wing' have many 'right wing' views.

Conservative, liberal, they are all the same. Because, they all mean nothing, and all that really matters is what you think of a particular person's views. Do you agree with his stance on this, and that? If not, I advise, don't vote for him. Not because he is 'ultra right wing', but because you don't like his stance.

Therefore, compassionate conservatism is no more an oxymoron as compassionate liberalism.

[BRussell]

Limbaugh conservatism: Oxycontin?

[Sven G]

Probably, the so-called conservatives tend to mainly consider "compassion in the name of..." (God, etc.), and thus a passively induced and contradictory form of "compassion", rather than being actively involved from a personal point of view (in everyday life, I mean: not so much as a part of a fixed institution).

Anyway, the word "compassion" is another example, IMHO, of a concept which has become contradictory with time (like "socialism", etc.): many religions, for example, tend to consider it from a passive point of view, while in the "liberal", layman's meaning it is something more tied to basic human values, rather than to religious precepts.

Of course, also political parties can become (secularized) pseudo-religious entities, thus adding even more uncertainty to the meaning of compassion.

However, in a few words, I agree that "compassionate conservatism" is an oxymoron: mainly because "their" concept of compassion is rather nebulous (see above), and - above all! - often of a too utilitarian nature...

[einmakom]

Conservatives, as Lil'BabyKitten noted, can be some of the most compassionate people around.

The thing is, most of the conservatives I know quietly donate their own money and time to causes that benefit others, and do so self-lessly. Most of the liberals I know advocate using government to fund these causes.

I have greater respect for the conservatives in a case like that, simply because they are doing it freely, with their own resources, not using government to force the collection of money from everyone's pocket.

Most of the conservatives I know believe that compassion is the greatest when it's an exercise of free will, that the government isn't always the best means of helping folks, and that private and non-profit orgs can be far more effective than government at achieving goals. Just because conservatives aren't boasting about how compassionate they are and you don't see it doesn't mean they aren't practicing good works in the communities they live in, and elsewhere (as Kitten says, her Aunt goes around the world.)

Compassion starts at home, and there's usually no need to brag about it. It's just something you do, whether it's funding the church who provides mid-day meals for folks on the street, working at a shelter, building schools, building homes, providing tutoring afterschool...

[Spliffdaddy]

Bingo.

We have a winner.

Although you meant to say 'pooka' instead of 'kitten'. Kitten rarely, if ever, makes a good point.

[Millennium]

Not oxymoronic, but certainly very different, to the point of being alien to most liberal mindsets. The reverse is, of course, also true; most conservatives don't consider liberals to be very compassionate at all, or if they have compassion, then it is sorely misplaced.

The main difference, as far as I've been able to tell, is that conservatives see little to no value in otherwise "compassionate" things which have been mandated by law. They argue that there is no compassion at all in such things, because people generally do them only because they have to. If left to their own, conservatives argue, truly compassionate people will get the job done just as well if not better than a government which forces pseudo-compassion on people via tax-funded social services.

[Spliffdaddy]

And 'get the job done' they certainly did.

For the first 175 years or so, this country didn't require entitlement programs such as welfare and AFDC. 'Needy' people were taken care of by communities and churches.

Piles of starved or frozen bodies never lined the streets.

Can't argue that it wasn't working.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I love it how people love to lump other into convenient 'catagories'.

Oh you're left wing. I'm right wing. I'm liberal. You are Conservative. These terms have been so overused, that they are quite meaningless.

The only time you 'group' people are people who follow a particular philosophy, i.e. 'Marxist', or if people group themselves, in a political party (yet you must still recognize that they all don't think the same). Some people you might consider 'left wing' have many 'right wing' views.

Conservative, liberal, they are all the same. Because, they all mean nothing, and all that really matters is what you think of a particular person's views. Do you agree with his stance on this, and that? If not, I advise, don't vote for him. Not because he is 'ultra right wing', but because you don't like his stance.

Therefore, compassionate conservatism is no more an oxymoron as compassionate liberalism.

<Robin Williams>

A compassionate conservative,......I don't know what that is -- it sounds like a Volvo with a gun rack.

</Robin Williams>

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Conservatives, as Lil'BabyKitten noted, can be some of the most compassionate people around.

Really? I said that?!

Anyway, the term 'compassionate conservative' was a campaign slogan, that is all. It holds no truths to the current administration.
I don't doubt that there are 'compassionate' conservatives. But it's not a term I would use to describe Bush & Co.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Kitten rarely, if ever, makes a good point.

As opposed to your constant flashes of genius

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
And 'get the job done' they certainly did.

For the first 175 years or so, this country didn't require entitlement programs such as welfare and AFDC. 'Needy' people were taken care of by communities and churches.

Piles of starved or frozen bodies never lined the streets.

Can't argue that it wasn't working.

Between 9/11, Terrorism in the middle east, Kosovo.

I'd agree that Conservativism is very successful.

You really enjoy watching TV eh?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Between 9/11, Terrorism in the middle east, Kosovo.

I'd agree that Conservativism is very successful.

You really enjoy watching TV eh?

Apples to oranges comparison, my friend; you two are evaluating based on entirely different criteria.

And there are still plenty who say that the only people to blame for any terrorist act are the terrorists; all others are blameless. I have to say, I'm inclined to agree. Anyone can choose to target noncombatants, and anyone can choose not to target them.

[Spheric Harlot]

It's just a label designed to alleviate concerns about supporting something.

You know - "Maim, kill, murder, terrorize; feel no guilt, folks: we're *compassionate*."

Sort of like "Homeland Security". Makes you feel all cuddly, dunnit? Just watch what you snuggle up to.

-s*

[davesimondotcom]

To mix two threads, sort of, would you, Lerkfish, consider donations of time and money to charities as being compassionate?

If so, how about the fact that Rush Limbaugh's radio show raises money every year for Leukemia, in the millions?

Or Sean Hannity raising money for the families of fallen soldiers?

Or were you just speaking of Washington, where legislation has to be passed in order for you to consider it compassion?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It's just a label designed to alleviate concerns about supporting something.

You know - "Maim, kill, murder, terrorize; feel no guilt, folks: we're *compassionate*."

Vilification, much?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Vilification, much?

No, just severe disappointment and justified rage.

-s*

[Lerkfish]

well, unfortunately, no one is really addressing my example, which is more indicative of my point than all the other unrelated examples people are bringing up.

how about let's examine my example and get back on track?

How does one reconcile the justification of humanitarian compassion for invading Iraq with not caring or applauding human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay? Are the humanitarian concerns selective? or is the Iraq justification disingenuous?
It seems to me the main thing conservatives on this board keep pointing to is how Saddam mistreated his prisoners, and that was why we needed to overthrow his regime. But when its apparent OUR prisoners are being mistreated, its like "so what? they get what they deserve!"

I appreciate the examples brought up by folks of conservative compassion, especially pooka's relative, but that wasn't what I was getting at. Again, I guess I am being grossly inarticulate.

I don't mean individual conservatives who participate in charitable actions...obviously they do exist. I know many myself and have worked with many when I was on my church's mission board.
What I'm referring to instead is matters of policy...like justifications for the invasion of Iraq and treatment of our prisoners of war...as two examples. Now, individuals on this board might exemplify those policy attitudes, but I'm mainly getting at the overall conservative movement (right wing if you prefer) and what they have done or condone or support that could be considered based on humanitarian concerns.

I cannot recall, beyond Iraq...and maybe marginally "leave no child behind" as compassionate policies or ideals of the republican/right wing/conservative movement...nearly all that I can recall are mercenary or self-serving...trickle down economics, for example. Kicking out the immingrants, for another example.

Its possible (as I stated in my opening post) that they might exist, but I am not aware of them. Unfortunately, not many of you have actually addressed that to demonstrate otherwise.
Rush Limbaugh or someone's relative giving to charity as an individual is not what I'm talking about.

sorry for any confusion.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

I cannot recall, beyond Iraq...and maybe marginally "leave no child behind" as compassionate policies or ideals of the republican/right wing/conservative movement...nearly all that I can recall are mercenary or self-serving...trickle down economics, for example. Kicking out the immingrants, for another example.

Its possible (as I stated in my opening post) that they might exist, but I am not aware of them. Unfortunately, not many of you have actually addressed that to demonstrate otherwise.
Rush Limbaugh or someone's relative giving to charity as an individual is not what I'm talking about.

sorry for any confusion.

Well, did you miss the State of the Union speech where aid to South Africa was discussed?

Uganda's ambassador to the United States, Edith Ssempala, told The Wall Street Journal, "the do-it-yourself Bush administration plans far larger increases in (foreign) aid than the feel-your-pain Clinton administration ever did."

But there's a contradiction here: Bush is not a strong conservative. He didn't really campaign as one, either. A conservative would have not made the decision Bush made on Steel Tariffs, would not have increased the size of government, and so forth.

As a matter of policy, a conservative would strongly condone and encourage people freely acting out individual acts of compassion, and organizing together on their own to commit acts of compassion as a group.

As Millenium said,

conservatives see little to no value in otherwise "compassionate" things which have been mandated by law. They argue that there is no compassion at all in such things, because people generally do them only because they have to. If left to their own, conservatives argue, truly compassionate people will get the job done just as well if not better than a government which forces pseudo-compassion on people via tax-funded social services.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
And 'get the job done' they certainly did.

For the first 175 years or so, this country didn't require entitlement programs such as welfare and AFDC. 'Needy' people were taken care of by communities and churches.

Piles of starved or frozen bodies never lined the streets.

Can't argue that it wasn't working.

Are you seriously arguing that things worked just as well, say, 150 years ago with regard to the poor? Unless I am mistaken, we didn't have niceties like child labor laws, 40 hour work weeks, minimum wages, weekends, not to mention things like welfare etc. I can't believe you could imply (as I think you are) that government programs make no difference because generous rich people will fill in the gap. How naive is that?

As for Lerk's question, I must admit that I have thought pretty much exactly the same thing recently. It seems staggeringly obvious that the attacks on Iraq are mostly motivated by a need to be "doing something" about terrorism. The Bush administration has encouraged the mistaken idea that Saddam was behind 9-11 as part of this. They couldn't have cared less about the Iraqi people's oppression. But hey, I guess you can't come out and say: "We're rich white guys, and we'd really like to stay that way, so we will do everything we can to protect our money and power."

As a sort of aside, it seems to me that the biggest problem with the Republican/Conservative mindset is that they assume people are good. They assume that rich people will help the poor. They assume that if free competition is allowed to work unfettered by government regulations, that product safety etc will be determined by the mass market. The problem is that people are selfish. They will do whatever they can to protect their own self interest in most cases (no not all, but as a general trend? you bet).

They also assume that they are the good guys (which means that there must be "bad guys" out there) and it also means that whatever means they use to achieve their ends are justifiable.

By the way, if anyone sees fit to reply to this, try not to just point out faults in the Democratic party as your main counter-argument, ok? I'm not trying (here at least) to do any kind of Democrats are better than Republicans thing. My comments are about the Republicans alone.

[Spliffdaddy]

Yes, I'm suggesting that things worked just fine 150+ years ago.

How do you know things wouldn't be even better if the 'caring hand' of government hadn't interfered. We'll never know.

Not just generous rich people contributed to 'helping the needy'. Generous people, period.

Yes, Virginia, people ARE inherently good. I know that strikes at the heart of liberalism's ideals, but it's true. How do you figure the concept of 'human rights' came to be? Could it have originated with (*gasp*) PEOPLE?

All the so-called 'good' things that ever existed were made possible by PEOPLE. Amazing.

PEOPLE. You mean those mean, nasty, ill-mannered beings that are inherently bad?

Call me crazy, but 37 years of experience has taught me that people are, indeed, good. And they're even better when they aren't being supervised.

[Sven G]

Charity isn't compassion, but rather a way to "clean" one's conscience in an unjust social context.

Active compassion would be not to merely donate money "from rich to poor", but to make anything humanly possible (and even the impossible!) to eliminate the causes of poverty and unjust distribution of wealth - a thing that the so-called "conservatives" don't even seem to think about...

[icruise]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Yes, Virginia, people ARE inherently good. I know that strikes at the heart of liberalism's ideals, but it's true. How do you figure the concept of 'human rights' came to be? Could it have originated with (*gasp*) PEOPLE?

How do account for the evil in the world? It just boggles my mind that you can think that people will always do the right thing when left unsupervised. Actually, why have government at all? If people are inherently good, then they have no need for Constitutions, Bills of Rights, laws, or anything else. Would you be willing to get rid of those as well?

Mind you, I didn't say that people were inherently evil either. However, they are selfish -- they will tend to look after themselves/their loved ones/their interests before anyone else.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Yes, Virginia, people ARE inherently good. I know that strikes at the heart of liberalism's ideals, but it's true. How do you figure the concept of 'human rights' came to be? Could it have originated with (*gasp*) PEOPLE?

Actually, the concept of human rights is a fairly new one. The term wasn't even coined until the mid-twentieth century. While some of the foundations can be found in certain religious and philosophical works before then, the concepts themselves were not codified until quite recently, and there is still a fair amount of argument over what is a basic human right and what is not.

All the so-called 'good' things that ever existed were made possible by PEOPLE. Amazing.

So have all the so-called "bad" things that ever existed.

Good and evil are, in a way, both luxuries. There are relatively few truly good people in the world, and relatively few truly bad people as well. Most other people have other things to worry about. Your average person just wants to feed their family.

And who is to say that there is anything wrong with that?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Are the humanitarian concerns selective? or is the Iraq justification disingenuous?

Both, and neither.

Humanitarian concerns are always selective, more or less due to the sad fact that no person is omnipresent. If we as people are to be effective at humanitarian concerns, then we all have choices to make. Whether that is cponsoring children in Ethiopia, freeing Tibet, building low-income housing, or whatever, a person who spreads himself too thin trying to help everybody will end up helping nobody.

As for the invasion of Iraq, there were good reasons to invade. However, the current administration did not invade for any of those reasons, save perhaps backing up the threat of war which was the only thing Saddam was responding to at all, and even that unsatisfactorily. Had the administration actually invaded for any of the good reasons which existed for doing so, I think we'd find that the results would have been quite different.

I don't mean individual conservatives who participate in charitable actions...obviously they do exist. I know many myself and have worked with many when I was on my church's mission board.

The whole point of compassionate conservativism, I think, is the individuals who participate in charitable actions. The whole idea is that, if allowed and encouraged (but not coerced) to do so, there will be many more than what we currently see.

What I'm referring to instead is matters of policy...

The problem is, "compassionately conservative policy" is almost an oxymoron in itself. When social policy is focused around the individual, laws and regulations don't work very well. This suits conservatives, who don't think the government should have that kind of sway in society anyway.

I cannot recall, beyond Iraq...and maybe marginally "leave no child behind" as compassionate policies or ideals of the republican/right wing/conservative movement...

No Child Left Behind is hardly compassionate. Read up on the actual law sometime. Plenty of decent ideas, but the implementations are absolutely horrid. If anything, you could hold it up as another example of hypocrisy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Both, and neither.

Humanitarian concerns are always selective, more or less due to the sad fact that no person is omnipresent. If we as people are to be effective at humanitarian concerns, then we all have choices to make. Whether that is cponsoring children in Ethiopia, freeing Tibet, building low-income housing, or whatever, a person who spreads himself too thin trying to help everybody will end up helping nobody.

As for the invasion of Iraq, there were good reasons to invade. However, the current administration did not invade for any of those reasons, save perhaps backing up the threat of war which was the only thing Saddam was responding to at all, and even that unsatisfactorily. Had the administration actually invaded for any of the good reasons which existed for doing so, I think we'd find that the results would have been quite different.

The whole point of compassionate conservativism, I think, is the individuals who participate in charitable actions. The whole idea is that, if allowed and encouraged (but not coerced) to do so, there will be many more than what we currently see.

The problem is, "compassionately conservative policy" is almost an oxymoron in itself. When social policy is focused around the individual, laws and regulations don't work very well. This suits conservatives, who don't think the government should have that kind of sway in society anyway.

No Child Left Behind is hardly compassionate. Read up on the actual law sometime. Plenty of decent ideas, but the implementations are absolutely horrid. If anything, you could hold it up as another example of hypocrisy.

thanks for the thoughtful post. It actually made me think about the issue instead of reacting viscerally to an attack. That is how I would like all discussions here to be. Thanks.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Yes, I'm suggesting that things worked just fine 150+ years ago.

Call me crazy, but 37 years of experience has taught me that people are, indeed, good. And they're even better when they aren't being supervised.

Of course, living in, say, Great Britain, 150+ years ago, you probably never would have got 37 years of experience, since working in coalmines from age 8 isn't terribly conducive to old age.

-s*

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Of course, living in, say, Great Britain, 150+ years ago, you probably never would have got 37 years of experience, since working in coalmines from age 8 isn't terribly conducive to old age.

-s*

Great post.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
And 'get the job done' they certainly did.

For the first 175 years or so, this country didn't require entitlement programs such as welfare and AFDC. 'Needy' people were taken care of by communities and churches.

Piles of starved or frozen bodies never lined the streets.

No—debtor's prisons took care of that problem.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Charity isn't compassion, but rather a way to "clean" one's conscience in an unjust social context.

Active compassion would be not to merely donate money "from rich to poor", but to make anything humanly possible (and even the impossible!) to eliminate the causes of poverty and unjust distribution of wealth - a thing that the so-called "conservatives" don't even seem to think about...

Oh boy, had to get in on this.

I think you'll find that conservative individuals are the strongest supporters of eliminating the causes of poverty -- it's just that Lefties disagree with how that's done. Individual liberty is probably the best common denominator for that. At least the best one so far.

As for the "unjust distribution of wealth", what could be MORE JUST than making sure that everyone keeps the value of what they earn? If by the "unjust distribution of wealth" you mean (but don't say) that we take by force from those who HAVE and give to those who DON'T HAVE -- how the f*ck do you support that position based upon some smear of the term "compassion?" Also, what happens when those who HAVE stop doing what it takes? What incentive is there to HAVE anything at that point?

[finboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, the concept of human rights is a fairly new one. The term wasn't even coined until the mid-twentieth century. While some of the foundations can be found in certain religious and philosophical works before then, the concepts themselves were not codified until quite recently, and there is still a fair amount of argument over what is a basic human right and what is not.

The "concept" as implemented is a fairly new one because lifestyles and wealth levels have changed, making such debate about human rights affordable. The absolute rights of humans haven't changed since we crawled out of the slime, but if we keep a shifting definition it opens up the possibility that we can find some new "right" that everyone is entitled to and therefore gain some political backing with it.

No matter what "rights" we end up listing as a society, there's nothing there that trumps my absolute right to own what I produce and to decide what to (safely) do with it. Nothing. No other person's hunger or pain can supercede my basic right to my own body and time, because when it does there will be an endless sea of others whose "need" ends up being more important than mine, according to someone else. Nobody can compel others to work on the behalf of still others and hope to keep that going for long.

I guess I'm saying that any basic human "right" (in the emerging definition list) that takes away from the individual for the "benefit" of others can't really be a right at all. The "right" to work, the "right" to housing, the "right" to health care -- all those are on the iffy side.

[icruise]

Originally posted by finboy:

No other person's hunger or pain can supercede my basic right to my own body and time

What you are saying is, "f*ck everyone else, I want to keep what's mine." And actually, that's a pretty good summary of the Republican position. Thanks.

My position, on the other hand, is that as human beings and members of a society, we have a responsibility to ensure that everyone in that society has certain minimum standards of living. This isn't communism. We don't want to get rid of personal property, we don't want to take away all your precious SUVs and swimming pools -- we'd just like people not to be living on the streets, thank you. If that means you have to get by with only 5 TVs instead of 6, then so be it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
No other person's hunger or pain can supercede my basic right to my own body and time

yup, that's the opposite of compassion, as was my point.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by finboy:
The "concept" as implemented is a fairly new one because lifestyles and wealth levels have changed, making such debate about human rights affordable. The absolute rights of humans haven't changed since we crawled out of the slime, but if we keep a shifting definition it opens up the possibility that we can find some new "right" that everyone is entitled to and therefore gain some political backing with it.

No matter what "rights" we end up listing as a society, there's nothing there that trumps my absolute right to own what I produce and to decide what to (safely) do with it. Nothing. No other person's hunger or pain can supercede my basic right to my own body and time, because when it does there will be an endless sea of others whose "need" ends up being more important than mine, according to someone else. Nobody can compel others to work on the behalf of still others and hope to keep that going for long.

I guess I'm saying that any basic human "right" (in the emerging definition list) that takes away from the individual for the "benefit" of others can't really be a right at all. The "right" to work, the "right" to housing, the "right" to health care -- all those are on the iffy side.

Word up.

It isn't a 'right' if you have to take money from me to buy it for somebody else.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I notice finboy asks a number of questions in his post, that weather you agree with them or not, DESERVE an answer. Especially if you’re one of the crowd who thinks in some warped fantasy life that you have any authority what-so-ever to dictate to everyone else what ‘compassion’ is.

Yet I see no attempt made to answer those questions. Just more ‘high horse’ finger wagging and redefining (as well as the usual ‘recasting’) of what he said.

Typical.

[vmpaul]

Interesting thread.

It's beginning to sound like a synopsis of 'Atlas Shrugged' with finboy as John Galt.

That's not to criticize or agree but finboy does make some interesting points. Do we have an agreed upon minimum level of basic needs that we have decided on? It seems to change every generation and it isn't consistent even then.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Yes, Virginia, people ARE inherently good.

Good yes, but selfish first.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
All the so-called 'good' things that ever existed were made possible by PEOPLE. Amazing.

Not just people. LIBERALS!


Amerika is the richest country in the world and yet there are people sleeping on the streets.

I THEREFORE CONCLUDE that Conservatives aren't giving enough. I mean... are you all waiting to get a bit richer before fixing your problems? SUV insurance due?

[icruise]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I notice finboy asks a number of questions in his post, that weather you agree with them or not, DESERVE an answer.

Alrighty then. I thought his questions were more rhetorical than anything else, but here we go...

Originally posted by finboy:

As for the "unjust distribution of wealth", what could be MORE JUST than making sure that everyone keeps the value of what they earn? If by the "unjust distribution of wealth" you mean (but don't say) that we take by force from those who HAVE and give to those who DON'T HAVE -- how the f*ck do you support that position based upon some smear of the term "compassion?"

We live in a society. We are not islands. Aside from the fact that as human beings we should care about the welfare of our fellow human beings, we also live in a society. Living in a society entails certain responsibilities to other members of that society.

I think that people are talking about different things when we talk about compassion, so let's leave that word out of the equation. You think that taking money from you to use on someone else is unjust. I assume you must be opposed to the concept of taxation then?

Also, what happens when those who HAVE stop doing what it takes? What incentive is there to HAVE anything at that point?

Don't understand the question. Are you alluding to the idea that if the fruits of your labor are taken from you, you have no incentive to work? If we were talking about communism, that might be a valid point. We are not. We are talking about taking a small portion of your money to help other people.

Originally posted by finboy:
The "concept" as implemented is a fairly new one because lifestyles and wealth levels have changed, making such debate about human rights affordable. The absolute rights of humans haven't changed since we crawled out of the slime, but if we keep a shifting definition it opens up the possibility that we can find some new "right" that everyone is entitled to and therefore gain some political backing with it.

Of course the concept of human rights shifts with the times. This is called progress. I can't think of anything better.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by finboy:
[...] Individual liberty is probably the best common denominator for that. At least the best one so far.

As for the "unjust distribution of wealth", what could be MORE JUST than making sure that everyone keeps the value of what they earn? [...]

In effect, I perfectly agree with you that individual liberty is the best common denominator: but you probably know that individual liberty, if left to itself, quickly tends to create patterns of privilege, arrogance, and so on - in a few words, injustice (just look at the society around you for many examples of this). That is to say that - IMO, of course! - individual liberty is only one part of the solution to the problem: liberty without equality becomes a sterile concept, and monetary "charity" (again, not really a form of compassion, IMO) isn't certainly going to change things significantly on this front.

Similarly about the just/unjust distribution of wealth: it's impossible to assure social equality only by making sure that anyone "keeps what s/he earns" (whatever that might mean, if you don't consider it only from a monetary point of view).

Again, your - and others' - "conservative" points of view seem to focus too much on your own needs (many of which, maybe, not so necessary, after all: what's the point, for example, for every family to have 3 or more cars? Absolute nonsense, when there are people who have nothing!).

Ah, about the "taking from the rich to give to the poor", that's obviously not my point of view, as I'm not an authoritarian socialist: redistribution of wealth should be a voluntary thing, and really requires that we move on from the present status quo and begin to see things in a more multi-dimensional perspective (in poor words, money should not be the central concern!). And do you really need external "incentives" to do things? Personally, I think that the best "incentive" to get work done (and not only that!) is to live in a free community of equals, with values such as love of knowledge and creativity as the main "incentives" to live a fulfilling life (in a complex dimension, also): but, sadly, neo-cons (due to many factors) tend to consider such things as "pie in the sky", "impossible", etc. etc.

What should I say...? Unicuique suum...

[Sven G]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I notice finboy asks a number of questions in his post, that weather you agree with them or not, DESERVE an answer. Especially if you’re one of the crowd who thinks in some warped fantasy life that you have any authority what-so-ever to dictate to everyone else what ‘compassion’ is.

Yet I see no attempt made to answer those questions. Just more ‘high horse’ finger wagging and redefining (as well as the usual ‘recasting’) of what he said.

Typical.

He got some answers, indeed!

And, maybe, what you define as "high horse", etc., simply are opinions: maybe not so "humble" opinions, sometimes, but nevertheless opinions - IMHO/IMNSHO...

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What other compassionate or humanitarian policies or concerns can actually be attributed to the conservatives?

Well, what you're implying here is that all conservative thought is not compassionate, and not humanitarian, which is clearly about as accurate as saying that all liberal thought it ivory-tower mushy-headedness.

Which is to say that unless you're utterly partisan, it's quite clear neither is true.

I think a good argument can be made that many conservative policies amount to "tough love" -- the kind of love that your parents gave you, and you felt they were unfair or unloving, but in the end made you into a better person than you'd ever be if you were coddled and protected.

Clearly "tough love" isn't appropriate in all situations, but then again, many children who don't get it turn out to be spoiled brats with a distorted world view that they are "owed" things.

That's a general statement of course; if you want specifics, we can get into them too.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Icruise:
What you are saying is, "f*ck everyone else, I want to keep what's mine." And actually, that's a pretty good summary of the Republican position. Thanks.

No, not everyone else, just you.

[finboy]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Interesting thread.

It's beginning to sound like a synopsis of 'Atlas Shrugged' with finboy as John Galt.

Yeah, when I reread it I saw the same thing. The funny part is that I could have written that years before I even knew who Ayn Rand was.

There are some absolutes in the world, and the absolute right to my (safe) work product is one of those.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Don't understand the question. Are you alluding to the idea that if the fruits of your labor are taken from you, you have no incentive to work? If we were talking about communism, that might be a valid point. We are not. We are talking about taking a small portion of your money to help other people.

Step 1: Define "small." Also set rules for who it is, exactly, that gets to define "small" in the future.

How about letting ME decide how much of my money goes to helping other people, since it is MY money which is obtained with MY time during which I obviously didn't have to work and could have been playing with the baby (she'd like that too), and I wouldn't have been working if I'd known that some moron was going to take away what I've earned? Any questions?

Step 2: Define "enough." As in the phrase "enough money" or "enough savings." Next, set rules for who gets to define "enough" in the future.

The Lefties are always talking about the rights of "labor." Since when is it OK to force one person to labor on behalf of others? Since "labor" has so much fricking value, isn't it inconsistent to suggest that we can expropriate it at the drop of a hat?

Spouting an allegiance to "human rights" while insisting that some folks are sacrificed to others -- Jeebus, the hypocrisy.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by finboy:
No, not everyone else, just you.

Apart from the very cheap potshot, that comes out to the same thing.

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by finboy:
No matter what "rights" we end up listing as a society, there's nothing there that trumps my absolute right to own what I produce and to decide what to (safely) do with it. Nothing. No other person's hunger or pain can supercede my basic right to my own body and time, because when it does there will be an endless sea of others whose "need" ends up being more important than mine, according to someone else. Nobody can compel others to work on the behalf of still others and hope to keep that going for long.

While I agree with you, the only rub with that is we all have to live together. If the disparity between the "haves" and "have nots" grows too large, there will be more "have nots" out there than anyone else, and they may just decide they're sick of it.

Also the well-being of the society as a whole you live in determines your quality of life as well as your stuff you produce and decide you want to keep.

Therefore, I think a balance must be struck. The rights of the individual should take precedence, IMHO, but it should not be absolute.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Well, what you're implying here is that all conservative thought is not compassionate, and not humanitarian, which is clearly about as accurate as saying that all liberal thought it ivory-tower mushy-headedness.

Which is to say that unless you're utterly partisan, it's quite clear neither is true.

I think a good argument can be made that many conservative policies amount to "tough love" -- the kind of love that your parents gave you, and you felt they were unfair or unloving, but in the end made you into a better person than you'd ever be if you were coddled and protected.

Clearly "tough love" isn't appropriate in all situations, but then again, many children who don't get it turn out to be spoiled brats with a distorted world view that they are "owed" things.

That's a general statement of course; if you want specifics, we can get into them too.

you make a valid point, but specifics is what I was asking for....like I said, I can think of the dubious Iraq justification for humanitarian reasons, and the "no child left behind" which is also arguable whether its compassionate in the long run. I did not mean to say there absolutely weren't any, if you reread my initial post, I said that was all *I* could think of, and if you disagreed, please demonstrate with specific examples....so far, none have been presented.

there were some conservative individuals mentioned who gave to charity, but as I explained, that's not quite what I meant...although that's a good thing as well.

When you say "tough love", can you provide some examples? that makes it easier to discuss them.
Just on the face of the term "tough love" implies to a noncompassionate attitude, but perhaps your specific examples will disprove that.

My opinion or impression is that the general thrust of conservative policy is not compassionate, at least as I view compassion. That is not to say its inherently wrong....For example I might view trickle down economics as lacking in compassion, but you might view it as ultimately leading to a good end, for capitalism. In your view you might think whats good for capitalism is eventually good for the needy or underpriveleged. And that COULD eventually prove correct, I don't know. I don't think so, but that's my opinion.

In general, the intent of the conservative policy appears to me to summed up in the following axiom: "I've got mine, I want to keep it, and I want more...but you'll have to get yours on your own with no help from me".
To me, this covers a host of policies, including the invasion of Iraq to "stabilize" the oil reserves and increase the coffers of the cronies.
I outright reject the "humanitarian" justification as a flimsy codpiece. I think on some level you have to admit that as well. There are several other "real" reasons for the invasion, but they all harken back to what protects american interests in the region or perceived security risks.

my objection is that the humanitarian cause for the invasion is a lie that conservatives are repeating as a mantra until they've hypnotized themselves into believing it. IF there were true immediate humanitarian concerns, they would have been addressed 12 years ago. There would have been more discussion about how groups Bush Sr. encouraged to revolt and then abandoned were slaughtered and our complicity and responsibility to them. There would have been more conservative concern that sanctions were actually causing hardships among the civilians while not harming the ruling elite, there would have been more intervention sooner rather than later for humanitarian causes instead of for weapons inspections.

This is, IMHO, as I've stated.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by finboy:
Step 1: Define "small." Also set rules for who it is, exactly, that gets to define "small" in the future.

How about letting ME decide how much of my money goes to helping other people, since it is MY money which is obtained with MY time during which I obviously didn't have to work and could have been playing with the baby (she'd like that too), and I wouldn't have been working if I'd known that some moron was going to take away what I've earned? Any questions?

Step 2: Define "enough." As in the phrase "enough money" or "enough savings." Next, set rules for who gets to define "enough" in the future.

The Lefties are always talking about the rights of "labor." Since when is it OK to force one person to labor on behalf of others? Since "labor" has so much fricking value, isn't it inconsistent to suggest that we can expropriate it at the drop of a hat?

Spouting an allegiance to "human rights" while insisting that some folks are sacrificed to others -- Jeebus, the hypocrisy.

Indeed, his words are powerful - and his questions will undoubtedly go unanswered by the liberal peaceniks.