The other day I received the following email from a friend:
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he does not buy one.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he does not buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he demands that a law be
passed so that nobody can own one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he does not eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative does not like second-hand smoke, he avoids places that allow smoking. If a liberal does not like second hand smoke, he demands that a law be passed to prevent smoking everywhere.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. If a liberal does not like a talk show host, he demands he be taken off the air.
When a conservative complains about taxes, it’s because he thinks he is paying too much. When a liberal complains about taxes it’s because he thinks everyone else is paying too little.
If a conservative loses his job, he looks for a new one. If a liberal loses his job, he expects someone else to provide him one.
Conservatives are concerned about making their own salaries larger. Liberals are concerned about making other people’s salaries smaller.
To a conservative, health care reform means allowing him the freedom to choose how he pays for his health care. To a liberal, health care reform means someone else paying for it.
A conservative controls his destiny by starting his own company. A liberal controls his destiny by joining a labor union.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. If a liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God or religion silenced from every walk of life.
A conservative feels he can make society better by adhering to his beliefs. A liberal feels he can make society better by forcing his beliefs on everyone else.
If a conservative does not like second-hand smoke, he avoids places that allow smoking. If a liberal does not like second hand smoke, he demands that a law be passed to prevent smoking everywhere.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. If a liberal does not like a talk show host, he demands he be taken off the air.
When a conservative complains about taxes, it’s because he thinks he is paying too much. When a liberal complains about taxes it’s because he thinks everyone else is paying too little.
If a conservative loses his job, he looks for a new one. If a liberal loses his job, he expects someone else to provide him one.
Conservatives are concerned about making their own salaries larger. Liberals are concerned about making other people’s salaries smaller.
To a conservative, health care reform means allowing him the freedom to choose how he pays for his health care. To a liberal, health care reform means someone else paying for it.
A conservative controls his destiny by starting his own company. A liberal controls his destiny by joining a labor union.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. If a liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God or religion silenced from every walk of life.
A conservative feels he can make society better by adhering to his beliefs. A liberal feels he can make society better by forcing his beliefs on everyone else.
A friend of mine from high school responded to this:
I think that's because conservatives tend to represent the status quo which the law does too, where liberals have to actively change the status quo and laws to get what they want. if it were the other way around, then if a liberal didn't want to be in a same sex marriage he wouldn't enter into one, but if a conservative didn't want to be in a same sex marriage, they would try to pass a law so nobody could be in one.
My response:
I see how it goes the other way in regard to same sex marriage (IE. if a liberal doesn't want to be in a same sex marriage, he doesn't get into one, if a conservative doesn't want to be in a same sex marriage he passes laws so no one else can.) The point of the argument is that in most cases (with the exception of same sex marriage) conservatives do not try force other people to live according to their preferences or ideals. You don't like meat, don't eat it - but don't try to take that right away from me. In the US, conservatives tend to vote Republican and liberals tend to vote Democrat. There are inconsistencies in both parties.
Take abortion for example. Many conservatives would like to make it so that no one can have an abortion except in certain circumstances. Conservatives also don't like the idea of the government interfering in the everyday lives of the ordinary citizen. So does it stand to reason that if the government were to tell ordinary citizens that they could no longer have abortions, is that akin to the government reaching into the lives of ordinary people?
Yet perhaps the issue with abortion isn't so much about one group imposing their views on another person - but the inability of people to decide when human life begins. I say it begins at conception, but my friend says it starts at 2 weeks. Who is right? I believe I am right, he or she believes they are right. The problem we have, is that no one will agree on everything, but laws must be respected whether we agree with them or not. That is why I think abortion clinic bombers, and people who block clinics are out of line. They employ totally nonsensical methods will never change people's minds. And it is in changing people's minds that allows you to change laws.
Take abortion for example. Many conservatives would like to make it so that no one can have an abortion except in certain circumstances. Conservatives also don't like the idea of the government interfering in the everyday lives of the ordinary citizen. So does it stand to reason that if the government were to tell ordinary citizens that they could no longer have abortions, is that akin to the government reaching into the lives of ordinary people?
Yet perhaps the issue with abortion isn't so much about one group imposing their views on another person - but the inability of people to decide when human life begins. I say it begins at conception, but my friend says it starts at 2 weeks. Who is right? I believe I am right, he or she believes they are right. The problem we have, is that no one will agree on everything, but laws must be respected whether we agree with them or not. That is why I think abortion clinic bombers, and people who block clinics are out of line. They employ totally nonsensical methods will never change people's minds. And it is in changing people's minds that allows you to change laws.
Other responses of his:
I think this is the most grown up conversation I've ever had on facebook! I like your point about how a persons freedoms should not impose on the freedoms of others, and I think that the word rights can be substituted for the word freedoms, one or both. In this world we have chosen the unit of law to be the country and in this country, the state.... the reason that you can't choose to withhold something from someone based on your personal convictions is because almost everyone else in the state or country also has convictions that they would use to withhold something from someone.to use your example, you might withhold something from gays. I might withhold something from anyone not in my religion (since everyone else is going to hell anyway). someone else might choose to withhold benefits from anyone who has taken a life, especially cops and soldiers.The only way to avoid everyone having something taken from them is not to give that power to anyone. It's true that the major dogmatic religions (except Buddhism) are very opposed to homosexuality. I argue, however, that if we were implanted with the wisdom of the gods thousands of years ago, we would be a stable race, not one growing, learning, and evolving at breakneck speed. I posit that through our sucesses and failures we are gaining the wisdom of the gods ourselves, and the historical status quo (in this case a universal institutionalized hatred) is less an indication of truth and more an indication of our past, right or wrong. I would also caution against too much trust in the majority. The majority represents historical best practices for survival and prosperity. in the 50s conformity was a winning strategy. as were unions and blue collar jobs. today people tend more towards white collar jobs, and at the edge of today, the only people who submit to corporate cube farms are those who can't escape or who have never tasted free life and don't know any better.The majority will always vote for the safety and comfort of the majority, and may actually hinder the evolution of the state, country, or species.I'm enjoying this! ru in WI? I get back a few times a year and I bet we would have an awesome coffee conversation!
My response:
"Corporate cube farms" - I like that. I really don't consider myself an ultra conservative. I am not saying that because I don't have the guts to take a side. I just have problem with any ism that encroaches on individual liberty or the rights of the individual. In my mind, the most important entity in our society is the individual. And it is the duty of all organizations to promote the rights of that person. Allow me to be more specific.When you graduate from college, sometimes your first job, is not so great. For example, I worked in a call center making $10 bucks an hour. I did this for a couple of years, and realized that I was wasting my time and talent. I also realized that I worked for an organization that conned college graduates into thinking they were getting an "executive job." They gave young inexperienced people big titles. This often went to the persons head and gave them a false sense of their true ability. If the hire ups didn't like the person, they played on the person's insecurity and tried to make you feel like the best thing you could do was work as a call taker in a call center. This is a corporate con game. There was no interest in promoting people or helping people develop their potential. This is a perfect example of corporate abuse . Destruction of individuality and the potential of that person fed the machine.
My wife on the other hand works for a manufacturer in Milwaukee. The people working in the factory and plants are unionized. The unions keep asking for more and more of the company. You have people pushing a broom making $19 bucks an hour. That person gets hurt and they can no longer do their jobs; they are going to at best make $9 hour in a non-unionized environment. Instead of helping people develop their individual potential, the emphasis is on taking from the corporation, giving it to the unionized worker even if contradicts market forces. The worker develops a false sense of his or her worth in the competitive marketplace. This also hurts the company because the cost of their product is so high, they become priced out of the market, and eventually go out business. Everyone is a loser. Look what happened to the car companies. Ultimately, I believe that our society operates best when the government stays out of the daily affairs of the individual. We live in a society that is constantly trying to stifle individual liberty and expression and you have to have a hard-heart to stay on top of it.
So what is better socialism or capitalism? I would argue in favor of capitalism, because I believe that hard work, ingenuity and entrepreneurship is rewarded in capitalism. If you are lazy, there is no safety net in capitalism, but this could the biggest motivator of all. Unions, big government and greedy corporations sap away at our individuality. Socialism I believe hurts people more than capitalism, although there is no perfect system. This is a good article:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hillsdale.edu%2Fimages%2FuserImages%2Fmvanderwei%2FPage_4221%2FImprimisSept09.pdf&h=7aa78230ae8006b011a7fb6a9d6eaf2e
My wife on the other hand works for a manufacturer in Milwaukee. The people working in the factory and plants are unionized. The unions keep asking for more and more of the company. You have people pushing a broom making $19 bucks an hour. That person gets hurt and they can no longer do their jobs; they are going to at best make $9 hour in a non-unionized environment. Instead of helping people develop their individual potential, the emphasis is on taking from the corporation, giving it to the unionized worker even if contradicts market forces. The worker develops a false sense of his or her worth in the competitive marketplace. This also hurts the company because the cost of their product is so high, they become priced out of the market, and eventually go out business. Everyone is a loser. Look what happened to the car companies. Ultimately, I believe that our society operates best when the government stays out of the daily affairs of the individual. We live in a society that is constantly trying to stifle individual liberty and expression and you have to have a hard-heart to stay on top of it.
So what is better socialism or capitalism? I would argue in favor of capitalism, because I believe that hard work, ingenuity and entrepreneurship is rewarded in capitalism. If you are lazy, there is no safety net in capitalism, but this could the biggest motivator of all. Unions, big government and greedy corporations sap away at our individuality. Socialism I believe hurts people more than capitalism, although there is no perfect system. This is a good article:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hillsdale.edu%2Fimages%2FuserImages%2Fmvanderwei%2FPage_4221%2FImprimisSept09.pdf&h=7aa78230ae8006b011a7fb6a9d6eaf2e
No comments:
Post a Comment