This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Does being happy prove you're right?

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby Coyote Goodfellow » 08 Mar 2009, 04:00

Dead White Male wrote
archenland_knight wrote:

Coyote Goodfellow wrote:
Of course there is another side of happiness: feeling superior to others: economically, socially, or morally--which may be the type of happiness Rush is talking about.

:stunned:
What on earth would make anyone think that Rush is talking about something like that?!?! Look, Rush is no paragon of spiritual virtue, nor does he claim to be. But, after listening to him, occassionally, since almost the beginning of the Clinton Administration, I have never heard him say anything that would make be believe he is the sort of person to who would perceive himself to be superior to others, much less take pleasure in doing so.

There is no "happiness" in feeling superior to another. There may be a sort of pleasure, but it poisons the soul and in the end results only in bitterness and sorrow. I can't imagine why anyone would think this is what Rush means.

I'm also pretty sure Rush didn't mean anything like that. I may have already said this, but I think he is saying that a certain personality type -- someone with a certain temperament -- specifically, someone who is confident, optimistic, positive-thinking, cheerful, go-getting, and bursting with vigor, vim, vitality and pep -- tends to automatically be conservative -- i.e., to look to himself and to traditional, organic human and social institutions like the family and religion rather than to the government/State -- to get him through life.

Why? Probably because I haven't actually listened to Rush in about 8 years, and have mostly heard him as portrayed by his liberal detractors. There are certain attitudinal things I didn't like about the way Rush argues--but which I've also noticed on the liberal side of the spectrum. The way you guys have presented things makes sense to me psychologically. As with so many sins, it's very difficult to accuse some one else of feeling smugly superior without the danger that that's exactly what one is engaging in oneself...which is probably the case with me. I was the one demonstrably being smug about some one I don't have much personal experience with. And thanks for pointing that gap out, Stanley.
"I don't care if it is wrong," said one of the moles. "I'd do it again."
"Hush, hush" said the other animals.
User avatar
Coyote Goodfellow
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Foshan, China

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby Coyote Goodfellow » 08 Mar 2009, 04:58

DeadWhiteMale wrote
My general sense of things is that liberals generally favor higher, punitive and confiscatory taxes on productive and/or prosperous people, and ever-more laws and Rules and regulations and control over, well, pretty much everything. It's to their advantage to have a lot of poor, and defenseless, people, because they can be kept dependent on the government, and kept under control. So, they strive tirelessly to keep as many people as possible mired in poverty, and to impoverish (and disarm/geld) whoever managed by hard work or good luck or guts or imagination to be otherwise (except of course for a few uber-rich liberal/Left-wing mega-billionaires like George Soros or Ted Turner or Richard Branson or somebody).

I would say the problem is that the Democratic party is dominated by Lawyers--people who worry about avoiding things, and never have to try to create value. And because of that, when things go wrong--the solution people look to is "There ought to be a Law." I'm not sure it's fair to say about anyone that they "want" a particular set of outcomes from their policies--whether it's that Reagan wanted people to be unemployed, or liberals want people to be mired in poverty. But I do think it's fair to say that liberals often forget that passing a law isn't enough to legislate changes in human nature. I wouldn't say the problem is that liberals want the outcome you mention--it's that they don't understand the human element in the economy well enough to realize the nature of the incentive structures they are creating. The analysis stops with the way people should behave rather than trying to reconfigure things so that the way people do behave leads them in a different direction.

And the fact that a lot of liberalism seems to be motivated by resentment of wealth. I remember a friend who said that we would all be better off if we burned Bill Gates money. I couldn't understand why. I think what we need to do is get rich people to spend money building Cathedrals, Estates and fancy gardens, creating jobs for carpenters and stonemasons and other people in the trades, rather than spending venture capital creating office jobs for middle-class people with fancy resumes. The issue with taxation is whether the large pools of money generated in the modern economy should be distributed by the type of people who succeed in business, or taken from them to be allocated by the type of people who succeed in politics.

What I see as the implicit assumption of liberalism is that one day everybody will be educated to be lawyers and bureaucrats. That their solution is to improve the lives of farmers and working class by teaching them to lead bourgeois lives--rather than allow them autonomy while remaining in the working class. And I often feel like they are criticizing things with reference to a solution whose performance or existence has never actually been demonstrated. That's why I hope Doctor Dean gets his wish about the Democratic party making more space to listen to redneck farmers with that disreputable symbol on their pick-up trucks--and that we never again have a race in which a contest between three lawyers is portrayed as representing diversity, just because the bodies their thoughts are occurring in are different colors and shapes.

I think in many ways the way we are taught to think by our profession and activities says more about the solutions we come up with than our supposed "liberalism" or "conservatism" or other political philosophy. I think when the liberal discourse is less dominated by trial lawyers whose job is to portray everything as the other guy's responsibility, we'll all be a lot better off.
Now, if Medicare changed its mind about cutting us off and just leaving us to be sucked dry into impoverishment, riches-to-rags, and offered to step back in and pick up the $5,000-plus-a-month tab for Dad's end-of-life nursing home care, I might conceivably be tempted. The cost of health care is probably the biggest chink in my ideological armor. But so far they haven't offered me anything that would make me even change how I vote.

Amen to that. But so far lawyers have been much better at driving the cost of medical up, rather than driving it down.

Even though my inspirations tend to be socialist, I actually like Ayn Rand--I think she makes some good points about how emotions work--my favorite is when she points out that when you criticize people saying "you don't care about me" it is a criticism which will only ever work on people of whom it is untrue--people who do have feelings. Although my own background is too intellectual to be the sort of union member who ended up as a Reagan Democrat, I've come to realize in my brain what they realized in their bones--that Carter had the wrong attitude for a Head of State. Any type of -ism contains good observations and bad observations--but I think where Objectivism, liberalism, socialism, etc go astray--is that they try too hard to be the sole source of truth--trying to forge the one ring to rule them all.
"I don't care if it is wrong," said one of the moles. "I'd do it again."
"Hush, hush" said the other animals.
User avatar
Coyote Goodfellow
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Foshan, China

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby Karen » 08 Mar 2009, 13:07

Coyote Goodfellow wrote:I do think it's fair to say that liberals often forget that passing a law isn't enough to legislate changes in human nature.


As a moderate, I agree with you up to a point. But I would also remind you of this:

There are always those who say legislation can’t solve the problem. There is a half-truth involved here. It is true that legislation cannot solve the whole problem, but it can solve some of the problem. It may be true that morality can’t be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that legislation cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.


As for personality type, the conservatives I know tend to be angrier and more dissatisfied with life (and not just since Obama's election) than the liberals. But of course anecdotes do not equal evidence, and it may just be the part of the country I live in.

Also, here's a very good (IMO) article by David Frum, a conservative, on Rush: http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1

P.S. Please don't like Ayn Rand. Whatever one may think of her philosophy, the way she treated her fellow human beings was appalling. The shenanigans inside the Objectivist movement read like a soap opera!
I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library. -- Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Karen
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3727
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby deadwhitemale » 09 Mar 2009, 08:13

Karen wrote:
Coyote Goodfellow wrote:I do think it's fair to say that liberals often forget that passing a law isn't enough to legislate changes in human nature.


As a moderate, I agree with you up to a point. But I would also remind you of this:

There are always those who say legislation can’t solve the problem. There is a half-truth involved here. It is true that legislation cannot solve the whole problem, but it can solve some of the problem. It may be true that morality can’t be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that legislation cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.


As for personality type, the conservatives I know tend to be angrier and more dissatisfied with life (and not just since Obama's election) than the liberals. But of course anecdotes do not equal evidence, and it may just be the part of the country I live in.

Also, here's a very good (IMO) article by David Frum, a conservative, on Rush: http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1

P.S. Please don't like Ayn Rand. Whatever one may think of her philosophy, the way she treated her fellow human beings was appalling. The shenanigans inside the Objectivist movement read like a soap opera!



Like I said previously:

"Just because I quote Ayn Rand now and then does not mean I'm a Randian or Objectivist as they call themselves (though I do consider the battle between small-o objectivism and big-S. Subjectivism kind of my own struggle). I have many differences with Rand and the Randians, but I quote her when she says something true and quotable."

I'm not actually a big-O Objectivist or a Randian, I don't think. I've occasionally been mistaken for one, partly because I let it be known that for several decades I have felt myself to be at war with what might I call (perhaps incorrectly) Subjectivism -- at any rate the denial of moral absolutes and even objective truth and reality -- a denial that two plus two equals four


' Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true? Smith writes, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_%2B_two_%3D_five


and partly because called myself a libertarian, and partly because I sometimes quoted Rand.

I quote all sorts of people. I used to have a little paperback book titled The Bad Guy's Quotation Handbook. Unfortunately I gave it away in 1988, but it was an invaluable resource while I had it. The quotes in it were not always necessarily from bad guys, but were rather the sort of quotes a bad guy would want to have on hand for appropriate occasions.

One of my favorites was from none other than Charles Manson, and I still use it sometimes when people just assume, or leap to the conclusion -- in the absence of any evidence, without even trying to rule out one single other possible cause -- that some health problem is psychosomatic or due to "stress": "Death is psychosomatic," quoth Charlie.

Others I still misquote or paraphrases from faded memory:

"I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than pre-frontal lobotomy." (unknown, possibly some Prhobition-era gangster)

"You can accomplish more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone." (usually attributed to Al Capone)

"Whenever I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my revolver." (somebody high up in the Third Reich, maybe Goebbels)

"They told me I'd been tried in my absence and sentenced to be shot. I told them they could shoot me in my absence." (Brendan Behan)

There were many, many more, mostly attributed to various gangsters, Nazis, serial killers, burglars, pick-pockets, and corrupt, depraved drunkards. I'm sorry to say I've forgotten most of them.

As for conservatives being angry and dissatisfied with life, I actually do resemble that remark, which kind of brings us back full-circle to the original topic, and how I don't understand what Limbaugh means by asserting "Conservatives are naturally happy. It's their nature."

I do not fault Limbaugh for being too conservative, or for "driving off 'moderates,' " but only for his (to me) odd assertion that conservatives are happier than liberals, and the implication that happy=right.

I don't think being happy or unhappy, contented or disgruntled necessarily has that much to do with one's ideology. In my case that does enter into it somewhat, because I'm a radical and I really want what Clinton famously called a "radical amount of freedom," (see Footnote 1) and could never be satisfied without it. No matter how big my bank account or how comfy and cozy my living quarters might be, I could never be happy without the full, free exercise of all my rights, all the time, in deed not in word, in practice not in theory.

But my present discontent is mostly about my personal circumstances. Things haven't gone very well, or not for long, ever. Nothing ever seems to go right, and I don't seem to be able to do anything about it. I have what could be called special needs in housing, clothing, transportation, and training, none of which is within my reach, financially. I'm poor and my poverty and squalid living conditions are bitter to me, beyond words, and the one ghost of a chance I ever had of escaping it is slipping away fast.

I'm what many rich liberals like to deride as a "loser." That I don't generally expect the government to fix everything that's wrong with my life just proves to them that I'm too stupid to know which side my bread's buttered on. I should be voting for the guys who keep promising everybody a chicken in every pot, forty acres and a mule, cradle-to-grave welfare, and the sun, the moon, the stars, instead of "bitterly clinging to guns and religion." Except they have yet to offer me anything that really means anything to me. Somehow I never seem to be eligible for any of their largesse. I'm always too old or too young, too this or too that, too much or too little of one thing or the other.

Footnote 1. "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." -- Bill Clinton, appearing on MTV's "Enough is Enough" 4-19-94

Of course, he had that exactly backwards: the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the government, not individuals. And the Bill of Rights never created the rights of the people; it assumed them. It's curious, how all these "constitutional law scholars" always look at it that way -- as something that empowers the government rather than individuals.


DWM
Last edited by deadwhitemale on 10 Mar 2009, 03:12, edited 1 time in total.
"It is when we try to grapple with another man's intimate need that we perceive how incomprehensible, wavering, and misty are the beings that share with us the sight of the stars and the warmth of the sun." -- Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim(1899?)
deadwhitemale
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Far Western Kentucky

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby john » 09 Mar 2009, 16:06

Completely off-topic, but if you wish to recover your copy of Bad Guys' Quote Book, you can find one for under a dollar on Amazon.com
john (aka DrZeus)
Chief Wardrobian
User avatar
john
Chief Wardrobian
 
Posts: 6462
Joined: Jul 1996
Location: near seattle

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby Coyote Goodfellow » 10 Mar 2009, 14:08

Karen wrote
As a moderate, I agree with you up to a point. But I would also remind you of this:
There are always those who say legislation can’t solve the problem. There is a half-truth involved here. It is true that legislation cannot solve the whole problem, but it can solve some of the problem. It may be true that morality can’t be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that legislation cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Point taken. Certainly their are reasons that some things should be illegal. And I suppose making certain things illegal was part of what the Civil Rights movement accomplished. I actually wasn't thinking as much about crimes of passion as much as issues of economics. Certain forms of pollution can be stopped by passing a law, but they will probably be stopped more effectively by designing an alternative. And I also think there is a difference between passing a law against lynching and passing laws against "hate speech"--which it sounds like King understood.

I like some of Ayn Rand's ideas. I don't know much about her biography, and found Atlas Shrugged, for instance way way too long--and inaccurate about how railroads made their money. I'm sure some of her ideas may have been responsible for how she behaved in her personal life--but lots of people behaved badly in their personal lives--and almost everyone is rumored to. Even generous-hearted idealists like Louisa May Alcott's father hurt people when they attempt to put their ideas into practice. So I just compare one imperfect philosopher to another and see what I can come up with.
"I don't care if it is wrong," said one of the moles. "I'd do it again."
"Hush, hush" said the other animals.
User avatar
Coyote Goodfellow
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Foshan, China

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby cyranorox » 03 Apr 2009, 16:24

Greenberg's inquiry, presuming to 'find the lie', is front-loaded to find, or create, that which he desires. Whiny kids whine in any context; moreover, the idea that conservatives are on the defensive is one of their myths. They hold most of the wealth and position; in my recollection, the conservative kids' parents had more status and power, and the kids took a coloring from that.

I am a sanguine, merry person, and a liberal after the mode of Bellamy, Chesterton and Chrysostom. Neoconmen, money conservatives, and randroids are costive, crabbed, miserly sorts, in my experience, focussed on holding their own, pushing away others as intrusive, and defining freedom as absence of obligation - especially to pay - and stratification by desert. We define freedom principally as absence of want, liberty of expression, and an apophatic stance regarding the merits of others. Most people don't use the word, but it means that, since we cannot sort persons by relative merit or deserving, the differnce in material satisfaction of needs must be mitigated. There are forces that falsely rank people, such as birth, pay, and accident; no one in his right mind believes all men deserve what befalls them.

DWM- re: sun, moon and Stars: if the Haves really hold all these treasures, necessary to life and joy, then the citizens do right to demand that they be shared, even to levelling. Inasmuch as the great owners hold the arable land, the usable airwaves, the reserves of energy beneath the earth, and the waters upon it, mitigated only by our common claims, ie, government, they do, and we should.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby archenland_knight » 03 Apr 2009, 18:04

cyranorox wrote: moreover, the idea that conservatives are on the defensive is one of their myths. They hold most of the wealth and position;


As someone else once said to me, "That's a might broad brush you paint with there, mister".

I was conservative even when we were dirt poor; when we litterally couldn't affort to put food on the table; back when I couldnt' afford cheese or butter for the potato I was having for lunch ... a 10 lb bag of russets was pretty much my food budget for a week.

Of course, my church kicked in, and stocked my pantry more than once until I got out of that mess.

And never, during all that time, did I think the government should be helping me. It never crossed my mind. Never, even at my absolute dirt poorest, did I ever belive that the government should take from those that had in order to give to me. Those that should have been helping me, The Church, in fact did, and did marvellously so. I don't know how I would have survived without them.

At times I despaired of life itself. But I never thought it was the government's job ... never did I even consider the possibility that it might be the government's job ... to take from those who had rightfully earned to give to, of all people, me.

Now, Praise be To God, the situation is very different. Now, I am the one able to reach out and help others. And, I feel it is my right, not to keep the material possessions, but to decide who I believe needs them the most with whom I will share. I do not want the government doing it for me. Why should the government be better able to do that than I? I believe they are woefully inadequate to the task.

I have people around me, people who live in this very neighborhood, who need my help. They are getting it, without the government's interference.

Romans 13 authorizes the state to "bear the sword", not to "bear the serving spoon". The government is good at tracking down criminials and punishing them, when they concentrate on that and don't try to be everyone's provider.

Cyranorox wrote:miserly sorts, in my experience, focussed on holding their own, pushing away others as intrusive, and defining freedom as absence of obligation


Those are just selfish, crabby people and you will find them just as plentiful among liberals. The difference is that a selfish, crabby Conservative says, "Leave me alone, nobody can have what I've earned no matter how much they need it," whereas a selfish, crabby Liberal says, "Hey! You have more than me! That's not fair. GimmeGimmeGimmeGimme."

Both are clearly going to be miserable people.

And then there are kind, generous people on both sides as well. Karen once shared with us (partially to prove a point to me, but a point well-taken nonetheless :wink: ) that whle being a Liberal, politically speaking, she did give a good deal of her own free will to help others. She is not the sort of person to say "GimmeGimmeGimee", Liberal or not.

And I try to be the kind of person to share freely as well. I know a bit of help from me can make the difference for others. Legally, do they have a right to what I have? Well, I don't think it should be a matter for the Law of The Land. It's the command of Christ ... and that should be good enough for me.
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby Karen » 03 Apr 2009, 19:40

archenland_knight wrote:And then there are kind, generous people on both sides as well. Karen once shared with us (partially to prove a point to me, but a point well-taken nonetheless :wink: ) that whle being a Liberal, politically speaking, she did give a good deal of her own free will to help others. She is not the sort of person to say "GimmeGimmeGimee", Liberal or not.


I should point out, however, that I have never been poor. It's easy for me to give, coming from the circumstances I do, so I don't think it particularly laudable on my part (although I certainly appreciate you saying so. :smile: )

It's wonderful that the church helped you. And indeed, if everyone gave to help those around them, we might not need govt. to do quite so much. But we have to deal with the reality that such is not the world we live in. How, for instance, are all those people without access to adequate healthcare supposed to get it without some help from the govt? What, in fact, have we been recommending to DWM if not free mental health care, which most likely will come from a govt.-subsidized health clinic? Individuals can (and should) do a great deal, but there are some problems that need the much larger scale of the govt. to be done effectively. Private enterprise usually winds up being all about the money, not the people, as the current state of our health care system demonstrates.
I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library. -- Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Karen
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3727
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby archenland_knight » 03 Apr 2009, 20:09

Karen wrote: How, for instance, are all those people without access to adequate healthcare supposed to get it without some help from the govt? What, in fact, have we been recommending to DWM if not free mental health care, which most likely will come from a govt.-subsidized health clinic?


I think what most Conservatives would like to see is a re-working of the whole health care system AND the tax code so that more help could come from charity based organizations. I realize that now we do have some mix of government and charity based organizations. I think the big difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives think the best solution is to move toward the Charity-based side, while Liberals, concerned that people may not support such charities, prefer a move toward the government side. If both sides could stop accusing the other of "not caring", and understand that they both care, we might be able to stop fighting. We'd still argue, we just wouldn't feel so bad about each other afterward.

The hospital system I used to work for was, in fact, a "Baptist" system. And as such, did quite a bit of charity work, including subsidizing treatment at a mental health facility on one of it's campuses.

But I agree that, in the system we currently have before us, the help would likely come from a government-subsidized clinic. And, without major reform, that right now is the best we can do.


Karen wrote: but there are some problems that need the much larger scale of the govt. to be done effectively.


True. "To provide for the common defense" is one of the primary reason we have a Federal Government. The disagreement comes on which problems fall into that category. Providing healthcare for every American would be one of those problems if you try to do it for the whole country. If you break it down into counties or cities, we think a network of smaller organizations could handle it.


Mostly, though, I was just responding to Cyranorox's rather broad characterization of Conservatives as a whole. Certainly there are misers among us, just as there are among Liberals. But there are good, kind, and caring people among us too.
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby Karen » 03 Apr 2009, 20:50

archenland_knight wrote:Mostly, though, I was just responding to Cyranorox's rather broad characterization of Conservatives as a whole. Certainly there are misers among us, just as there are among Liberals. But there are good, kind, and caring people among us too.


Amen to that.

My boss is a devotee of Ayn Rand. We have (friendly) arguments about this from time to time. He's a really nice guy anyway :wink: and quite generous, as far as I can tell, with his charitable giving.
I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library. -- Jorge Luis Borges
User avatar
Karen
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3727
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby john » 03 Apr 2009, 21:14

archenland_knight wrote:Mostly, though, I was just responding to Cyranorox's rather broad characterization of Conservatives as a whole. Certainly there are misers among us, just as there are among Liberals. But there are good, kind, and caring people among us too.


I would like to expand upon this and say that the majority of Conservatives, Liberals, and everything in between are good, kind, and caring people. That goes for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists, too.

There are many in all these groups who are complete idiots, of course, but as loud as some of them may be at times, they are still in the minority.

:pleased:
john (aka DrZeus)
Chief Wardrobian
User avatar
john
Chief Wardrobian
 
Posts: 6462
Joined: Jul 1996
Location: near seattle

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby cyranorox » 03 Apr 2009, 22:02

I do paint broadly - that was the tenor of the conversation, broad generalizations about temperament and politics.

The perennial problem with private charity is servility and petty tyranny. Those who have, set up criteria to distribute, and it all too often devolves into sob stories, brownnosing and exaggeration on one side; favoritism, bossiness, or intrusion on the other. you start to ask about deserving or undeserving. you give to the articulate, charming, or busy; less to the gruff, angry, or smelly. you start to assess motive. All of this is simply bad. Half of victorian novels seem to deal with this issue, and it's no secret how awful people become when they are giving or asking for money.

much better to set up a common treasury, with objective criteria of need and fixed allowances paid over time. this will assure relatively even and reliable distribution to those in need. since not everyone belongs to the same churches, and we know that wealthy communities have better schools, police, etc. - ie tend to keep money at home - the broadest gathering is best. since we are governed by representatives [not Government in the old world sense], we do it by taxation. As I've often said, this is basic civics and neither liberal nor radical.

It's also not perfect; it is good for private charities to supplement the public distribution. one major use for private charity organizations is to assist the poor to use the public system, get signed up, deal with the forms and deadlines, etc. Again, nothing new or strange.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby archenland_knight » 04 Apr 2009, 04:15

Cyranorox wrote:The perennial problem with private charity is servility and petty tyranny. Those who have, set up criteria to distribute, and it all too often devolves into sob stories, brownnosing and exaggeration on one side; favoritism, bossiness, or intrusion on the other. you start to ask about deserving or undeserving. you give to the articulate, charming, or busy; less to the gruff, angry, or smelly. you start to assess motive. All of this is simply bad. Half of victorian novels seem to deal with this issue, and it's no secret how awful people become when they are giving or asking for money.


Sounds terrible. I'm sorry if that's been your experience. It has not been mine. Actually, that has been my experience with the government run programs in this particular area, but I know good and well that is the fault of the particular bearucrats in charge here, and that just as there are good and bad people employed in private charities, there are good and bad people employed in government offices. So, I will not pretend that the pettiness or lack thereof displayed by some government employees to be a valid argument against the system itself.

Now, one might think that a government system will have hard and fast rules, "objective criteria", I believe you said. Well, they do have such criteria, but it is still up to a human to interpret them. And I have more than once witnessed a government employee interpret the rule to fit their own bias. And when the rules are bad, or are out-of-date, changing them can litteraly take an act of Congress.

The number of people initially rejected for disability claims who eventually win during the appeals process should prove that a government system with supposedly objective criteria is just as subject to the problems you mention as a private organization.

I'm afraid I don't read many Victorian novels.


cyranorox wrote:much better to set up a common treasury, with objective criteria of need and fixed allowances paid over time.


That's a common point of view. Of course, the opposite is just as common. Neither point of view can be proven or disproven. Advocates of both sides can point to examples where their own system has worked and the other failed. Let's not get into that cycle.


cyranorox wrote:and we know that wealthy communities have better schools, police, etc. - ie tend to keep money at home - the broadest gathering is best.


And yet, the system you suggest is being used to run the schools, police, etc. And still the wealthy communities have the best public schools. I'm not sure I'd agree on the "best police force" argument. Downtown Birmingham, AL was pretty poor, but I'd rather deal with their police department than with that of the nearby suburb of Mountain Brook, where million dollar homes were common.

So, I just don't see your solution fixing that problem. It never has, and I don't think it ever will.

cyranorox wrote:As I've often said, this is basic civics and neither liberal nor radical.


No, that's basic Liberal policy. And an opinion held by many intelligent, caring people. Not particularly radical, true. But the opposite opinion is also held by many intelligent, caring people. "Civics", however, is the study of the structure of government, how governments work, how they perform whatever functions they choose to perform. Properly done, "basic civics" makes no judgement about what government should do, it only studies how to do what they choose.

John wrote:I would like to expand upon this and say that the majority of Conservatives, Liberals, and everything in between are good, kind, and caring people. That goes for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists, too.

There are many in all these groups who are complete idiots, of course, but as loud as some of them may be at times, they are still in the minority.


Amen Brother John.
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Re: Does being happy prove you're right?

Postby Xara » 13 Apr 2009, 10:37

deadwhitemale wrote:Does being happy mean you're right, and does being unhappy prove you're wrong?


In the wise words of Slartibartfast: "I'd much rather be happy than right any day."
Experience: that most brutal of teachers.
Xara
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Wales

PreviousNext

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest