tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post115833100362417217..comments2024-03-28T12:10:26.197-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Aloha, Mr. King, I am So Wasted! And What is a Conservative, Really?Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158466611644299142006-09-16T21:16:00.000-07:002006-09-16T21:16:00.000-07:00ADDENDUM:For the leftist, moral relavism and the i...ADDENDUM:<BR/>For the leftist, moral relavism and the inate goodness of humanity are always inseperable. For humans cannot define their own truth unless they are good, and they cannot be good unless they live in the truth. <BR/><BR/>If it is discovered that humans are, in fact, not really good then true morality cannot be left to the individual. The whole philosopy falls apart. <BR/><BR/>I want my utopia, dangit! If humanity is inately good, and morality is relative, seems that over the past 5,000 years of history utopia would have been shaken to the surface by now. If we are basically good, wouldn't little utopias be springing up every where? I thought, according to the "First Law of Thermoevolution", human systems whether biological or social always lead to more ordery systems? Right? <BR/><BR/>If we are to take the lead of that great secular profit Darwin,and amino acids started spontaneously becoming more orderly in the Primordial spit and spontaneously became more organized (again w/o intellect)with each preceding generation, wouldn't the arrival of human intellect, which has already been defined as moral and good, have supercharged the whole shebang? <BR/>Surely we would be there by now....<BR/><BR/>BTW, I have been to Utopia, and it's a long way from Bugtussle!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158463234373299332006-09-16T20:20:00.000-07:002006-09-16T20:20:00.000-07:00This is a very interesting thread! I have been lu...This is a very interesting thread! I have been lurking for several months and just have to dive in.<BR/><BR/>What is philosophy, really? It's basically the understanding of Truth and the understanding of humanity, right?<BR/><BR/>The differences in how the left and the right view humanity and the Truth are really pretty simple, but must always be remembered when trying to understand the other side, and when trying to be true to one's own philosophy. The following is just a brief rundown of what I have seen. It is, in effect, stereotypical (The heart of all stereotypes is brevity) of both sides, so please do not take offense.<BR/><BR/>HUMANITY:<BR/>The left tends to see people as being basically, innately good.<BR/><BR/>The right tends to see humanity the same as the Judeo/Christian/Muslim view of humanity, that we are fallen. Prone to sin. So what is sin? Well if one reads the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes one can see clearly what sin is. <BR/><BR/>Sin is selfishness. Pretty simple really. If someone lies, cheats, steals, kills, rapes or buggers alter boys they do it because IT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO and they have decided, either in a passionate impulse, or cold-hearted calculation that what they want is more important that what ever negative impact their sin may have on others.<BR/><BR/>The Left-we are inately good.<BR/>The Right-we are inately selfish.<BR/><BR/>THE TRUTH:<BR/>The Left sees the truth as relative, of course. What was once true 230 years ago may not be true today. What is true in China may not be true in Bugtussle, Texas. <BR/><BR/>The Right sees the Truth as absolute. This, again fits in with a monotheiastic view of the Truth. The Truth is eternal, like He who spoke it.<BR/><BR/>When Mr Clinton put one hand on the Good Book and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and thensaid, "it depends on what the difinition of 'is' is", he was not just being "slick Willie", he was being a Lefist. "Is" is relative.<BR/><BR/>When Mr Gore sees the constitution as a "living document" he is being true to his philosophy too.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>So, at least on the surface, there is a "hipocracy" in how the opposing sides approach how the Govt should approach social problems. If the Right sees humanity as selfish, why do they not want the govt to help the weak, the infermed, the most vulnerable of our society? If the Left see humanity is basically good, why would the govt NEED to?? If we are good, we would take care of the needy w/o the govt.<BR/><BR/><BR/>GRACE IS MANIFESTED BY RESTRAINT.<BR/>If we are "saved by Grace, through faith", thenwe are really saved by restraint. The immediancy of the purity of God is restrained by His knowledge of the justice on the Cross. <BR/><BR/>But we are called to be restrained too. We must restrain the flesh, the id, the selfish heart. (Not that the purity of God is to be compared to sin!!!). I believe that this is another truth that should be self-evident to all thinking people, that self-restraint is the lifeblood of any civilization.<BR/><BR/>God understands the best restraint is responsiblity. That is the real reason men are called to lead in church (Unfortunately, Paul's writingssmack of sexism on this). Women were already restrained by childbirth, men HAD to be restrained by responsiblity. <BR/><BR/>I believe the real danger of socialism is that itsremoved the responsibility of the citizen (and the church, mosque, temple etc) to personally ensure the well-being of society. If the govt didn't remove this heavy burden from the church, maybe the church wouldn't have the "extra cash lying around" to entice them. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I am a Christian first, then a conservative. I understand the the free enterprise system offers the most freedom and opportunity, but I also understand human nature. Careful regulation is always necessary to avoid exploitation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158437239073600882006-09-16T13:07:00.000-07:002006-09-16T13:07:00.000-07:00I put myself in the Thucydidean camp of a Tragic v...I put myself in the Thucydidean camp of a Tragic view of man, that we are not innately good, that "Man" is not perfectible, still I do believe that, individually, we are innately capable of Being Good, of choosing to be good. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that if God exists, and he must be raising an eyebrow at my presuming to suggest how he behave, I don't think that it's so much that he takes an interest in and guides us, what would be the difficulty or interest in that for an all powerful deity?, but that he has the patience ( as Joan of Argghh! said... "Goodness that is so supremely confident, it even allows the weeds to grow."), to wait for us, confident that we eventually will be attracted to find and give attention to the divine within us.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that that choice is more likely to be made, as you widen and deepen your perspective on life, then the clearer the existence of Goodness & Truth become. It always seems to be that more carefully you examine the external world, the more you become aware of the internal one. As you find others who you value and love, and you take the time and attention to care for them, the more you find the value and warmth within yourself.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158427328178185372006-09-16T10:22:00.000-07:002006-09-16T10:22:00.000-07:00joan said:"You were made alive by the Will of Anot...joan said:<BR/><BR/>"<I>You were made alive by the Will of Another and given all the serendiptious opportunities of parents and environment, rich or poor as they may have been.</I><BR/><BR/>"<I>It's difficult to extricate the Good in a plot of weeds, but perhaps the point is more along the idea of the amazing Goodness that is so supremely confident, it even allows the weeds to grow.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Again, I didn't say any of that to imply that there is no possibility of good in man, no spark, merely that we, in our 'fallen' state, will not naturally gravitate towards it without outside (Divine) influence.<BR/><BR/>That we are so blessed as to attract the constant attention and "gardening" of the Divine is often bewildering to me (it should bewilder me far more often than it does). It is nothing short of miraculous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158417081548257262006-09-16T07:31:00.000-07:002006-09-16T07:31:00.000-07:00Paul G,Speaking from experience, I would have to p...Paul G,<BR/>Speaking from experience, I would have to point out that the Divine Spark counts for more than you allow. Weeds can grow in any fallow ground, but the power to grow still resides in the very life of the ground, sere or loamy as it may be. <BR/><BR/>You were made alive by the Will of Another and given all the serendiptious opportunities of parents and environment, rich or poor as they may have been. But I, for one, am glad you were born. There's a Goodness in that very first breath that transcends all the evil or relative "good" we can muster up in life.<BR/><BR/>It's difficult to extricate the Good in a plot of weeds, but perhaps the point is more along the idea of the amazing Goodness that is so supremely confident, it even allows the weeds to grow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158386645672879962006-09-15T23:04:00.000-07:002006-09-15T23:04:00.000-07:00devil's advocate said:"I don't rely on the kindnes...devil's advocate said:<BR/><BR/><I>"I don't rely on the kindness of strangers and I realize how evil people can be. I just have trouble believing that underneath all the corrupt and evil actions, an innate goodness isn't waiting to flourish."</I><BR/><BR/>To bring this down to a personal level, I would say to examine one's own self first. In looking at my thoughts and the resultant actions of say, the last half hour, I can see quickly that my first and quickest inclination is always the selfish option. Whether it suggests mere laziness or outright felony, the thought is always there, waiting to leap into action.<BR/><BR/>I think it is this selfish inclination, and the fact that it is <B>always</B> a struggle to repress it, that marks man's 'fallen' state. What is at the root of all evil if not the constant desire to better one's own percieved position, often at the expense of others? <BR/><BR/>Selfishness isn't learned, it's there from the get-go. <I>"...And ye shall be as gods,"</I> as a serpent once said. Children don't have to be trained to be selfish (although the impulse can certainly be nurtured and amplified), they must be taught to repress it in favor of 'doing the right thing.'<BR/><BR/>The unattended garden quickly fills with weeds and all sorts of dangerous creatures if left unattended. I would say that man in his natural state has the same inclination.<BR/><BR/>Which is not to say that man is incapable of doing good, but merely that we have no natural inclination to do so. We are selfish. It takes supernatural intervention in a person to change that tendency. To stop, turn around, and head the right direction is not something that we are capable of doing on our own (and that repentance, both personal and societal, is a whole other discussion).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158386135399969692006-09-15T22:55:00.000-07:002006-09-15T22:55:00.000-07:00"The unequal distribution of power and wealth is a...<I>"The unequal distribution of power and wealth is a natural and legitimate state. but nobody should have to start out with a huge headstart or way behind."</I> <BR/><BR/>It sounds really nice but in reality it is absolutely impossible. Who decides how much is too much of a head start? What do you do next? It seems clear to me that the only solution would be confiscation and redistribution. <BR/><BR/>If it is money that gives the individual a greater head start, then the bank accounts of those people must be emptied and redistributed. That's communism and we've seen how well that worked for the Soviets. <BR/><BR/>But what if the "head start" is superior intellect? If you are born a genius, then you are going to have a huge head start on your peers. Since we cannot take the intellect of one person and put it in the head of another, you can only "dumb down" the smart people. Thus you have our modern public school system.<BR/><BR/><I>"Measures should be taken not to ensure that everyone achieves equal success, but rather to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity for success -- i.e. an equal playing field."</I><BR/><BR/>Were you born in America? Congratulations and welcome to the most equal playing field in the history of the world courtesy of our Founding Fathers. Those great men laid the foundations for a playing field that was so equal, that it doesn't matter if you were born here or immigrated here; if you have the guts and are willing to work hard enough for it, you can achieve anything. A haberdasher from Missouri can be president. A dirt poor Scottish immigrant can become a fabulously rich captain of industry.<BR/><BR/><I>I was surprised by the reaction I received and how unwilling everyone was to consider opposing positions at first. Or maybe I got a little bit to into the role and became a contrarion myself.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps. As a former Liberal, I have already considered the opposing position having espoused it once myself and found it wanting. I think you will find that there are many Conservatives who used to be Libs so with that in mind; our reaction shouldn't be all that surprising.<BR/><BR/><I>I mean that when the government secures a human right for its constituents, it should simultaneously take steps to acknowledge and promote the responsibilities inherent to those rights.</I><BR/><BR/>Our "rights" are endowed upon us by our Creator and are enumerated in the Constitution. It is our job as citizens of this country to defend our rights against government intrusion. It is the government's job to uphold our laws and protect the country from foreign invasion. Unemployment, healthcare, social security and welfare are not rights. It is the government saying that we're too stupid to know what's good for us and unable to take care of ourselves so they are going to take a percentage of our hard earned money and hold on to it for us so that if we ever need it, it'll be right there waiting for us and gosh, don't we all sleep better at night knowing that government is there to take care of us. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The money the government takes from us for welfare, unemployment or social security could be given to charity or put in a bank or buried in the backyard (at least it would be there when I retired!). The point is the less government meddles in the lives of the citizens, the better. <BR/><BR/>The government took 10% of my paycheck and I didn't even get a lousy t-shirt. I just got a bloated bureaucracy.Eeevil Right Wing Nuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11536536336630930054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158383902437189952006-09-15T22:18:00.000-07:002006-09-15T22:18:00.000-07:00What a fun thread to read! I feel the need to sha...What a fun thread to read! I feel the need to share some wisdom from another favorite, Jack White of The White Stripes....<BR/><BR/>fall is here, hear the yell <BR/>back to school, ring the bell <BR/>brand new shoes, walking blues <BR/>climb the fence, book and pens <BR/>i can tell that we are gonna be friends <BR/><BR/>walk with me, suzy lee <BR/>through the park, by the tree <BR/>we will rest upon the ground <BR/>and look at all the bugs we've found <BR/>then safely walk to school <BR/>without a sound <BR/><BR/>well here we are, no one else <BR/>we walked to school all by ourselves <BR/>there's dirt on our uniforms <BR/>from chasing all the ants and worms <BR/>we clean up and now it's time to learn <BR/><BR/><BR/>numbers, letters, learn to spell <BR/>nouns, and books, and show and tell <BR/>at playtime we will throw the ball <BR/>back to class, through the hall <BR/>teacher marks our height against the wall <BR/><BR/>and we don't notice any time pass <BR/>we don't notice anything <BR/>we sit side by side in every class <BR/>teacher thinks that i sound funny <BR/>but she likes the way you sing <BR/><BR/>tonight i'll dream while i'm in bed <BR/>when sill thoughts go through my head <BR/>about the bugs and alphabet <BR/>and when i wake tomorrow i'll bet <BR/>that you and i will walk together again <BR/>cause i can tell that we <BR/>are going to be friends <BR/><BR/><BR/>P.S. Devil's ad- Most likely everyone of us that comments here wants to believe in the innate goodness of man. 9/11 has made the belief inconsistent with reality. Is there hope for the future of certain people when they raise/abuse their children to love death more than life?Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04969685296436358865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158382532340806872006-09-15T21:55:00.000-07:002006-09-15T21:55:00.000-07:00grant said:"It is said that Hitler was not an asur...grant said:<BR/><BR/>"It is said that Hitler was not an asura but under the influence of one."<BR/><BR/>PSGInfinibluster replied:<BR/><BR/>Dude, you just completely freaked me out. To use a profane analogy, that Hitler was only Darth Maul? My God, who do you have in mind?!PSGInfinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09778921507090905909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158375685458226602006-09-15T20:01:00.000-07:002006-09-15T20:01:00.000-07:00Devil's advocate probably has it right about innat...Devil's advocate probably has it right about innate goodness. It is the default setting for the human being. Evil is an added program that you can download, and it can be deleted also. Goodness, on the other hand, cannot be deleted, only covered up temporarily.<BR/> Aurobindo, drawing on a Hindu tradition, does however posit that some "people" are actually "asuras" or hostile beings from another plane of reality, incarnate on earth. They are innately evil and are indistinguishable from ordinary human beings except by a spiritual discimination. <BR/> It is said that asurass are rare, and God allows them on earth for inscrutable reasons. If you encounter one of these, you will feel spooked for no logical reason. <BR/> It is said that Hitler was not an asura but under the influence of one.black holehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366633817665791528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158371500433902382006-09-15T18:51:00.000-07:002006-09-15T18:51:00.000-07:00D.A. - >>I've assumed that even people who commit ...D.A. - >>I've assumed that even people who commit evil acts, have the capacity to return or repent to this innate goodness . . . Please, Dr. Godwin or other bobbleheads, would you explain why my experience of innate goodness might be so inaccurate?<<<BR/><BR/>Is not inaccurate. The problem, I think,(for some) is in not recognizing that evil can reach a point, in individuals and groups, whereby it almost totally subsumes the capacity for goodness. In the fullness of time, perhaps, such evil can be redeemed - ultimately, this does have to be a volitional redemption. In the short term, however, it's destructiveness has to be stopped.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158367881603822582006-09-15T17:51:00.000-07:002006-09-15T17:51:00.000-07:00One last thing I'd like to make clear; even when I...One last thing I'd like to make clear; even when I suggest something, such as lower taxes or a more generous business climate, which I think would make society better, I'm not describing my ideal society; I don't beleive there can be such a thing as an ideal society. This is probably the biggest disagreement between those like devil's advocate, and myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158367478962612592006-09-15T17:44:00.000-07:002006-09-15T17:44:00.000-07:00devil's advocateIf goodness were waiting to flouri...devil's advocate<BR/><BR/>If goodness were waiting to flourish, on a broad scale, in the human race, I suspect it would already have done so. <BR/><BR/>Nothing I see in history encourages me to think that all mankind needs is just the right push, and goodness will break out everywhere. Goodness seems to me to belong to individuals, or to small groups of people. I don't really see it in mankind as a collective whole.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158365254825209432006-09-15T17:07:00.000-07:002006-09-15T17:07:00.000-07:00Talkinkamel,I don't rely on the kindness of strang...Talkinkamel,<BR/><BR/>I don't rely on the kindness of strangers and I realize how evil people can be. I just have trouble believing that underneath all the corrupt and evil actions, an innate goodness isn't waiting to flourish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158364987584073622006-09-15T17:03:00.000-07:002006-09-15T17:03:00.000-07:00devil's advocateMy own limited experience suggests...devil's advocate<BR/><BR/>My own limited experience suggests to me that human goodness exists---but so do human stupidity, and evil. Human beings can be corrupted by power, or ideologies, or warped by envy, or other evil passions. Good men can make mistakes. Evil men can repent, but they can't undo the evil they've done. A murderer can't give his victims back their lives, or erase the chaos and pain he's sewn in the lives of others.<BR/><BR/>Take a look at history. How have minority groups, such as the Jews, or Gypsies, benefitted from humanity's alleged innate goodness? Or the victims of the Nazis, or the Communists? All attempts to create Utopia, on the presumption of man's inherent perfectibility, collapse in war and suffering. <BR/><BR/>Think of the ancient world, with its widespread slavery, pederasty and debasement of women? What about the many massacres of Islam, and its enroachment across much of the Middle-East, and India, by the sword? Where was innate human goodness then? (And Bob, maybe you could run your columns about the ancient world again sometime? Excellent reading!)<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you've been so lucky in your experiences with other people. Not every one is so lucky; too many have suffered under war, and tyranny. It is naive, and dangerous, to wander about hoping---like the fool, in the Tarot card deck---that one can rely on "the kindness of strangers."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158362075517705832006-09-15T16:14:00.000-07:002006-09-15T16:14:00.000-07:00Van,I learn through "roleplaying." I like to put ...Van,<BR/><BR/>I learn through "roleplaying." I like to put myself in others' shoes and evaluate their positions from inside out. It's ok if you don't like this approach. <BR/><BR/>You're just arguing semantics now. We're getting at the same ideas using different words. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the intriguing discussion. I'm tired.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158361582283200672006-09-15T16:06:00.000-07:002006-09-15T16:06:00.000-07:00In response to Bostonian:"It's hard not to conclud...In response to Bostonian:<BR/><BR/>"It's hard not to conclude that leftists believe that later generations of people will somehow mysteriously be nicer or wiser. I'm sure (or I hope) that they don't think some kind of behavior change is occurring at the genetic level, so I literally have no idea what they think they mean."<BR/>Again, I think this stems from the belief that people are innately good, and that as society becomes more complex, we will devise more effective means to extract this this innate goodness and supress our impulses towards evil and sin.<BR/><BR/>Gagdad, maybe you'd be willing to chime in here because I'm still having some trouble with this point. <BR/><BR/>My limited life experience thusfar strongly supports the innate goodness of people. Time and again in my life, people have consisently done the right the thing when confronted with choice. <BR/><BR/>I'm open to the possibility that I'm just naive or that this is wishful thinking. Or that I've just been incredibly lucky.<BR/><BR/>Maybe because I know that I am innately good, I incorrectly assume that that others share this knowledge. My experience of my life strongly tells me that I am either not capable or not willing to choose evil. A violent act, yes if need be. But nothing evil. Even when I succumb to sin, nothing shakes my knowledge of my innate goodness.<BR/><BR/>I guess I've always assumed that the same core goodness existed at the foundations of all people. I've assumed that even people who commit evil acts, have the capacity to return or repent to this innate goodness. <BR/><BR/>Please, Dr. Godwin or other bobbleheads, would you explain why my experience of innate goodness might be so inaccurate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158360765247776322006-09-15T15:52:00.000-07:002006-09-15T15:52:00.000-07:00devil's advocate - Uhm... I think I'll pass on you...devil's advocate - <BR/>Uhm... I think I'll pass on your roleplaying.<BR/>As a really quick comment before changing back into my Dad costume...<BR/><BR/>"I mean that when the government secures a human right for its constituents, it should simultaneously take steps to acknowledge and promote the responsibilities inherent to those rights."<BR/><BR/>I see nothing but disaster flowing from "government secures a human right" Gov cannot secure a right for it's citizens. Gov't can only defend it's citizens rights from physical attack or infringement - any attempt by the Gov't to go beyond defending the rights of it's citizens, such as providing a safety net, etc, which I'm guessing that to secure (which I'm equating with giving, granting) would be similar to, can only end not only in weakening their personal sense of responsibility, but in eroding their proper rights as well.<BR/><BR/>There was a book out in the 90's(?) called the "Death of Common Sense" that did a good job of showing how regulations weakened the citizens resolve to make sure that things were done properly on their own, and led to the snowball growth of more and more regulations, and less and less individual responsibility and apathy we see so prevalent today.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158359876500077642006-09-15T15:37:00.000-07:002006-09-15T15:37:00.000-07:00devil's advocateCare and compassion are in extreme...devil's advocate<BR/><BR/>Care and compassion are in extremely short supply in government run programs. Even when the bureaucrats treat you politely, and pleasantly (which they don't always)far too many of them are simply clueless and ignorant about the problems they supposedly have answers for. They're good at smiling, and pushing papers, and trying to cut costs (so the bigwigs at the top will have more money for raises, and re-decorating their offices). <BR/><BR/>I think charity should be turned over to religous organizations, such as the many churches and religious groups which fund, and run, the kitchen/community center for the homeless, here in my home city. Secular groups are certainly welcome to join in, as well as agencies which deal with helping cure drug abuse, and helping people find jobs---real jobs, and real cures, not just shuffling people from clinic and/or day job to another. <BR/><BR/>Judging by what goes on in countries with socialized medicine, hospitals are probably best left as a private venture; again, encourage religious groups, such as the Catholics, 7 Day Adventists, etc. to open up new hospitals. <BR/><BR/>I think our business climate should be revamped to make it easier for people to start up their own businesses, and that any welfare that is given should be given strictly limited, and based on welfare-to-work programs. Also, we are going to have to go after those business owners who undercut wages by hiring illegal workers---law enforcement is something the government is set up to do. <BR/><BR/>Lower taxes, by letting workers keep more of their income. It's ridiculous, the amount of foreign aid we dole out to world, and the UN. If Americans get to keep a bigger share of their income, they'll be more willing to support favorite charities, and help out friends and relatives who are down on their luck. <BR/><BR/>Two big problems in our society, leading indirectly to homelessness and poverty, are the breakup of the family, and lack of real edcuation, and adequate training for jobs. These subjects are just too big to go into here---but improving both would help society in general. Simply making government everybody's big nanny, handing out checks and too-easy disability which causes people to drop out of the work force infantalizes citizens---as many other poster on this thread have pointed out. It doesn't solve any problems, it simply keeps people docile by giving them money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158359245644335452006-09-15T15:27:00.000-07:002006-09-15T15:27:00.000-07:00In response to Van:"You can protect (proper Indivi...In response to Van:<BR/><BR/>"You can protect (proper Individual) Rights and enforce consequences for violating them, but I'm not following how you would 'promote and protect the responsibilities that these rights entail.'?"<BR/><BR/>First of all, let me make it clear that we are fundamentally in agreement. I've been playing the role of devil's advocate in the same way that the Church has classically employed the role. <BR/><BR/>I find that I learn the most by critically evaluating all sides of an argument. It was in that spirit that I approached these discussions. <BR/><BR/>I was surprised by the reaction I received and how unwilling everone was to consider opposing positions at first. Or maybe I got a little bit to into the role and became a contrarion myself. <BR/><BR/>Anyways, I do identify with much of classical liberal ideology. In playing devil's advocate, I've been trying to think outside my self-imposed box. Bob is clearly a spiritual genius, and I often find myself agreeing with his arguments without considering the opposing views. This has been my attempt to critically evaluate some of Bob's positions and reconcile them with some competing leftist ideas I'm still trying to grow out of.<BR/><BR/>In regards to my last post, I was referring to the metaphysical connection between rights and responsibilities and how they are two necessary sides of a greater truth - agency, freedom, authenticity, whatever...<BR/><BR/>I view the leftist agenda, the progressive agenda, as an attempt to grant people rights without acknowledging the responsibilities that they entail. Granting welfare or healthcare without requiring the recipients to take steps towards becoming self sufficient. Ensuring peoples' freedoms without acknowledging the sacrifices that this freedom requires. You get the idea.<BR/><BR/>But this approach is destined to fail because it is not honest. Rights without responsibilities is a fundamentally unbalanced construct. It negates the true structure of the cosmos and will always fail.<BR/><BR/>When I say that the government should "promote and protect the responsibilities that these rights entail," I mean that when the government secures a human right for its constituents, it should simultaneously take steps to acknowledge and promote the responsibilities inherent to those rights. Of course, I don't mean that the government should impose stringent behavioral codes or anything like that. But ideologically, governmental policies should be authentic and in line with the nature of reality - they should implement policies that honor both rights and responsibilities.<BR/><BR/>And I see the leftist agenda as a push for greater rights while completely denying individual responsibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158356982705759732006-09-15T14:49:00.000-07:002006-09-15T14:49:00.000-07:00In response to dicentra: "But my experience is th...In response to dicentra: <BR/><BR/>"But my experience is that most people don't Think, religious or otherwise, at least not in a way that is recognizable to people who consider themselves Thinkers. Most people in the world are more interested in what their neighbors are up to, who's marrying whom, where they can get a good deal on something, and other mundane things."<BR/><BR/>You make a great point. I guess ignorance does have a tendency to invade all facets of human experience, including religion. <BR/><BR/>I've often wondered what differentiates "people who consider themselves Thinkers" from the people only interested "in mundane things." Intelligence or upbringing don't seem to be primary causes. Why is teleological recognition so strong on the fringes of the Bell Curve, and almost non-existant elsewhere? Why are so many people content in their ignorance when the seeker impulse is so strong in others?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158356032134178182006-09-15T14:33:00.000-07:002006-09-15T14:33:00.000-07:00devil's advocate,Your last comment seemed to be mo...devil's advocate,<BR/><BR/>Your last comment seemed to be mostly in agreement with me, so I am trying to understand where our disconnect is, and I'm thinking that it lies somewhere between:<BR/>"they often grant rights without enforcing the responsibilities that those rights entail. "<BR/>and<BR/>"It is the business of the government to enforce our rights and to promote and protect the responsibilities that these rights entail." <BR/>probably particularly here:<BR/><BR/>"without enforcing the responsibilities" and here "promote and protect the responsibilities that these rights entail."<BR/><BR/>What does it mean to Enforce responsibilities and promote and protect responsibilities?<BR/><BR/>You can protect (proper Individual) Rights and enforce consequences for violating them, but I'm not following how you would "promote and protect the responsibilities that these rights entail."?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158354635905289982006-09-15T14:10:00.000-07:002006-09-15T14:10:00.000-07:001. Religion as it is practiced today actually prom...<I>1. Religion as it is practiced today actually promotes <BR/>"metaphysical ignorance" on a grand scale. Certainly, there exists a small fraction of people who actually understand their religion and the spiritual significance of their tradition. But for the most part, religion just gives people a framework to NOT THINK. For the ordinary man religion promotes blind faith in dogma, unsupported moral injunctions and a limited, childish understanding of God.</I><BR/><BR/>You are assuming that absent formal religion, these currently unthinking people would commence Thinking Great Thoughts and become Enlightened.<BR/><BR/>But my experience is that most <I>people</I> don't Think, religious or otherwise, at least not in a way that is recognizable to people who consider themselves Thinkers. Most people in the world are more interested in what their neighbors are up to, who's marrying whom, where they can get a good deal on something, and other mundane things. It isn't religion or atheism or anything else that is keeping people from being great Thinkers, it's the simple fact that humanity is a Giant Bell Curve, with the vast majority of us in the mediocre middle.<BR/><BR/>Take Russia, for example. Did fifty years of enforced atheism produce a nation of Thinkers? Can you honestly say that most Europeans are better Thinkers than Americans? They might agree with you (which would bias your perception), but I'd bet that on an objective test that measured Thinking ability (assuming that such a test could be devised), the whole of humanity would fall on that Bell curve without any one society significantly out-Thinking the others.<BR/><BR/>Are there ignoramuses in formal religion? Of course there are! Just as there are ignoramuses outside of it. Get rid of one "opiate" and people will just find another. The attachment to dogma, blind faith, and childish notions about reality is endemic to the human condition. A few people outgrow it; most don't. That's just how it is.dicentra63https://www.blogger.com/profile/18265008441951516140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158352136675954372006-09-15T13:28:00.000-07:002006-09-15T13:28:00.000-07:00I'm getting tired of playing devil's advocate. I ...I'm getting tired of playing devil's advocate. I didn't realize how exhausting this would be. Anyways, here's another idea. <BR/><BR/>I said, "How exactly do these programs do anything but good?"<BR/><BR/>There is a necessary link between rights and responsibilities. The two must always go hand in hand. But when government tries to implement "progressive social programs" they often grant rights without enforcing the responsibilities that those rights entail. <BR/><BR/>Welfare benefits and government-sponsored fiscal security programs invariably infantilize their beneficiaries. They foster an entitlement expectation of dependance without agency. And this viscious circle spirals out of control.<BR/><BR/>Now there are indeed certain people who will always be dependant, because they were either born that way or because their lives have been damaged beyond repair. These people require our compassion and care. <BR/><BR/>But the government should not be the vehicle of protection for these people. As Van points out, the institutionalization of compassion and care actually lowers the standard of care received by dependants. <BR/><BR/>It is the business of private organizations and individuals to express our humanity through aid and compassion. It is the business of the government to enforce our rights and to promote and protect the responsibilities that these rights entail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1158350624158204592006-09-15T13:03:00.000-07:002006-09-15T13:03:00.000-07:00devil's advocate, Please tell me, what is it that ...devil's advocate, Please tell me, what is it that leads you to believe that If aid programs WERE institutionalized, that they would significantly INcrease the standard of care and compassion?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com