Glen, everyone thinks in terms of community and of individualism. We are all individuals within the context of individualism provided by our communities. In fact, I’m sure we all know plenty of individuals who have formally or just in their heads moved from one community to another because their original communities were poor fits for them as individuals.

Unlike you, I’m not trying to say “us right, you dumb.” I’m trying to get people of all political persuasions to think about the definitions they use for the abstractions at the base of their political ideals. Because if we start to do that, we may be able to reach some sort of consensus on the point at which we can balance individual and communal needs.

And I’d like to point out that when you say that “conservatives give millions to charity, not only charity within their own community, but to charities all over the world” you are in fact agreeing that you share the definition of community that I suggested conservatives use.

I don’t think talking about it will enable anyone to reach a consensus, nm. When self-defined liberals/conservatives can’t agree with others of their ilk about what liberal/conservative means, how could you ever get opposite spectrums to agree on common ground?

/sings: Did you ever know that you’re my heeeero? Hahaha.

That’s the worst idea I’ve ever given you, Ivy.

nm, I really didn’t intend to come across as “us right, you dumb”. I don’t think your answer was dumb at all. Actually I think that it was pretty good and also respectful.
-
I believe there are two strains of thought or philosophy. One is individualistic and the other is collectivist. That is certainly an oversimplification, but for the sake of this discussion, I believe it to be pretty accurate
-

When a conservative says “we should do something”, the “we” he is talking about is himself and whoever he is speaking to.
-
When a modern liberal says the same thing, the “we” they are talking about is everybody. They are basically advocating that everybody be forced to do something whether they want to or not. And yes, they are advocating that it be done at the point of a gun.
-
You either believe in liberty or you believe in fairness. When a government attempts to achieve fairness instead of liberty, it ends up with neither (Milton Friedman paraphrase).

They are basically advocating that everybody be forced to do something whether they want to or not. And yes, they are advocating that it be done at the point of a gun.

That explains perfectly why that goat-screw in Iraq is working out so well!
.

When you oversimplify to this point (”you either believe in liberty or you believe in fairness” — um, no, I know plenty of people who believe in both) “for the sake of discussion,” you pretty well have ruled out any meaningful discussion at all. And Ron, I think it’s worth trying to work out the basis of the discussion, even if we can’t ever do so completely to everyone’s satisfaction, because we learn from it. Which benefits everyone.
-
Nevertheless, Glen is my hero of the moment (Ivy, sing for him, please) because he has shown me how to cope with the line-devouring features of MCB. Don’t say I can’t learn from conservatives when it’s appropriate.

Jeff -

**cough** First, let me gently observe that you seem to be a bit off topic.

Second, the guns we’re using in Iraq are in response to guns being used against us first. Self defense, while part of self determination, isn’t the same thing.

BCM

Can I get in on the secret of pragraph breaks, too?

nm, that’s funny. You guys just stick to government, we righties will handle private sector issues like line breaks.
-
Okay, let me put it like this. I understand that modern liberals do believe in liberty and fairness at the same time. But it is my belief that the two goals can not coexist. You have to choose one of the other. The only way to ensure fairness is through government and government is not in the “granting liberty” business, they are only in the “taking liberty” business. The only way that a government can achieve fairness is at the expense of liberty.
-
Socialism and communism are examples of economic philosophies meant to promote fairness. Those types of ideologies require force to implement them because they run counter to human nature.

BCM, you hit the return, type in a dash, and hit the return again.
-
It is my belief that only the extremes of individualism and communitarianism can’t coexist. History is the narrative of the different ways humans have tried to balance the two. You evidently disagree, but with all respect, the fact that you disagree with me doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
-
Yeah, yeah, or vice versa.

Second, the guns we’re using in Iraq are in response to guns being used against us first.

Exsqueeze me?
.

But it is my belief that the two goals can not coexist. You have to choose one of the other.

Where does the idea of the judiciary fall in your either-or paradigm of either liberty or fairness, Glen?
.

Jeff, I am not talking about fairness under the law, as in you steal from me and go to jail. I am talking about economic fairness, you know Huey Long, Karl Marx stuff.
-
nm, if people choose to go and live in the Black Bear commune, then that is fine, or if people choose to live in any commune. But when you force somebody to live like that, it’s different. Notice though that nobody ever stays in a commune for their whole life. Many try that way of life and then realize that the “rat race” is actually better.
-
History, in my opinion, is the narrative of how individualism and capitalism has succeeded while collectivism is failed.
-
Its not about right and wrong. It is about which system is best and what outlook one has.

Glen, I can recommend some nice surveys of world history (or of Western Civ, if you’d prefer) that might remind you of all the stuff you’re leaving out.

Jeff, I am not talking about fairness under the law, as in you steal from me and go to jail. I am talking about economic fairness, you know Huey Long, Karl Marx stuff.

So, you’re basically (as Mack opined) railing about taxes. You shouldn’t have to pay the taxes you disagree with. Fair enough. Let’s all do that.
The word you’re looking for is anarchy, Glen.
(and if someone doesn’t fix that bloody cookie issue, I’m going to take a HOSTAGE!!!!!!)
.

nm, cite me some examples of successful collectivism.
-
Jeff, I am not talking about anarchy. Govt. did not always take from one party and then redistribute to a third party. Was the United States, prior to Roosevelt and LBJ, anarchy?

That’s not what he’s saying at all JP.

The government exists because the people will it to. Ronald Reagan said it well when he said “protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.” And the rights of all individuals are spelled out in the constitution. You have a right to pursue happiness. You don’t have a right to money or food or housing. The government can provide that, but in doing so, it must take away the liberty of others. And this is done through the income tax.

All Glen is saying is that in trying to make things “fair” (giving housing to those without or who have trouble affording it) they must take away the liberty of others (the rest of us who are penalized for producing by the income tax.

All I’m saying is Ron Paul 2008

Govt. did not always take from one party and then redistribute to a third party.

Governments in these here United States have indeed always taken money in the form of taxation, and distributed to third parties — whether that be to dig canals, pave roads, build Minuteman missiles or buy a kid baby formula makes no difference. Someone got a check from the federal, state or local treasury. You’re talking about percentages of income, no doubt. Then, compared to now.
.

Okay Jeff, power to the people.

That’s not what he’s saying at all JP.

But it’s exactly what he’s saying — whether he realizes it, or not. He disagrees with the laws his elected representatives have written that say, “here’s what you owe, and here’s how we’re going to spend it.” He’s angry on how the money’s spent — I am, too! I’d rather not kill Iraqi children with my tax dollars, but I am. My other choice is to be a tax resistor; an outlaw.
Maybe if Glen feels strongly enough about it, he’ll become an outlaw, too.
.

Sparta, Scandinavia, Iceland?

And before Theodore Roosevelt, the gov’t took away from one party (workers) the right to organize for their collective benefit and gave that right to industries (trusts and monopolies) instead. Gov’ts always redistribute rights and wealth. What changes is how they do it.

Feudal overlords took from the peasants to fill their own coffers, for that matter.

nm, I’ll concede. If the group is small enough and everybody wants to do it, you might can pull it off. Libs always love to cite the tiny Scandinavian countries.

I misspoke about “the only option”; the other option is to renounce citizenship, and go elsewhere, where the income is distributed more to one’s liking. Iraq should be a paradise, by now, owing to Jerry Bremer’s imposition on the Iraqi people of a flat tax, btw.
.

At the root of Conservatism is an abhorrence to taxes.

No. While that may be your perception it is not accurate.

nm is closer but still not there.

Conservatism is about individualism more than collectivism.

It is about self reliance and self determination. It is about inalienable rights and constitutional rights. It is about what is the role of government. It is about not having a law for every single wish people can dream up.

The idea of “Conservatism Defined By Liberals” is like asking gazelle what they think about lions. An interesting exercise but the answers may be more than a little biased.

I don’t know what y’all are talking about. I’m a conservative because I hate minorities, women, and poor people.
-
Seriously, people are far more complex than what is being discussed here. For instance, married women are FAR more likely to be conservative than single women. Why? Because when one gets married, she suddenly starts believing in fairness over collectivism?
-
No, there are many, many layers to one’s political philosophy at a given moment. And it changes over time. Stage of life, monetary status, marital and parental status, education (along with what KIND of education and where)geographical location: all of these and more are factors in making up our political (and sociological) philosophies.
-
But really, at the heart of things, we conservatives just want to starve children and poison the air.

Well, you do, naturally, but I’m pretty sure that Glen is coming more from a let’s-kill-all-non-Christians place.
-
In light of some of the contributions to this thread, I guess I’d better point out here that I know Slarti is joking and I’m joking back.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can so completely mischaracterize conservativism.

It’s really not that complicated, and I don’t understand why people are so befuddled by it. The funny thing to me is that there is a similar problem with capitalism; people continually attribute things to capitalism that have nothing to do with capitalism.

Conservatism seeks to preserve the rights of the individual. Conservatives believe that the government should not be used to do anything but preserve and protect the rights of the individual, which in this country are spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

Collectivism/Socialism/Communism looks at government a different way. It attempts to make everyone “equal”, and usually has to do this by force because the simple fact of human nature is that we aren’t all “equal”. Some of us are faster, some of us work harder, some of us are less inclined to math, some of us better at building stuff, etc.etc. History has proven without a doubt that the socialist/communist/collectivist ideals are a failure when put in to practice, and have failed so badly that they ended up murdering each other for the benefit of the group.

http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/

Ditto to T-Man’s last paragraph.

T-man - I don’t think many conservatives would quibble with governments building highways, regulating air traffic, and protecting us from manipulation of the stock market - just to name a few. The position you describe starkly could also be used to describe libertarianism, and there are differences between that and conservatism.

The problem I have with all the traffic coming ‘the other way’ is equating liberalism with communism and the stifling of freedom. I don’t think that government can make things fair, but there are plenty of things the government can do to protect us beyond police and the armed forces. A free market is certainly parallel with a free society, but if you are a chemical company, you don’t get to dump your poisonous effluvium into just any stream or lake. The market says, dump it the cheapest way.

The difference between most conservatives and liberals isn’t that one wants to suppress freedom, it’s that one side believes that government does have more of a role in ensuring the welfare and health and safety of the public.

John,

You bring up an important point in this conversation that I agree with with whole-heartedly, in that there exist no absolutes in this world when it comes to the true definition of the said terms.

I agree with you that there is a grey area in between the true ideals of conservativism/libertarianism and socialism/collectivism. For instance, I believe in having the private marketplace dictate what the true price for health care services should be, as competition between providers of services always benefits the consumer. But at the same time I believe that we have enough money in the federal budget to be able to provide a social safety net to provide free healthhcare for those who are slipping through the cracks.

This also applies to capitalism, in that I believe in free markets, but without a rule of law it would be like the wild west and only the strong would survive. It makes sense to have an FTC to regulate trade so that people aren’t always cheating each other. It makes sense to have an EPA to prevent faceless corporations from dumping toxic waste without penalty.

The problem I have with the happy medium that we enjoy in the US is that too many people (*cough*Michael Moore*cough*) believe that if only we could lean towards more socialism and collectivism that the deficiencies in our systems would go away. But the problem is that we have history to prove to us that the government is never the answer for the large deficiencies that exist in our society. In fact, it’s almost garaunteed that it will make them worse.

As PJ says, it like you’re trying to fix my wristwatch with a ball pein hammer. It’s the wrong tool for the job.

nm, I just realised I could get Gilbert-ed for that one.

If we learned any lessons from that whole fiasco, it’s that we can’t assume everybody reading something you write “gets it”.

So, a disclaimer: I don not HATE anyone, and most of the above comment by me was meant as a joke (except for the argument that demographics may have more to do with our political philosophy than we’d like to mention).

John, I’ll try to tackle your last paragraph. Most conservatives I know view it as a zero-sum game: if you must give up a freedom to gain a gurantee of safety or welfare. Tman and Glen can correct me if I’m wrong on that.

Funny, it’s the mirror image of the way many liberals view the economy: that it’s a zero-sum game (they don’t exactly subscribe to the rising-tide-lifts-all-boats theory of economics).

Anyway, I guess I’d better say it again in case anyone from the Jesus General crowd is here: anythiing inflammatory in my previous comment was an attempt at humor. Now,get over yourself.

Conservatism seeks to preserve the rights of the individual.

How do you feel about illegal, warrantless wiretapping? Does that set off your 4th Amendment alarm in any way?
.

I mean, the simple truth of the matter is… anyone can be as wealthy as Paris Hilton, if only one uses one’s bootstraps to pull themselves up into the proper uterus.
.

Another look at Tnman’s thesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

Liberals will not rest until we are completely equal. Conservatives will make sure someone can run faster, jump higher, and achieve more than the average man. Conservatives will always fight for the individual, so they will always fight Liberals.

Vonnegut had it right, the theme of the story is egalitarianism and the story is set by the first line: “The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal.”

Liberals will not rest until we are completely equal.

Oh, what utter horseshit. When the richest Americans were taxed at the highest historical rates, they still had many thousands of times the disposable income of people just scraping by. What an absolute load.
.

Thank you for helping make the point.

How heavy should we weigh them down Ms. Diana Moon Glampers?

Thank you for helping make the point.

Well, I know you’re not talking to me, because if you think someone with $100 million and another someone with $50 is equal, you obviously either completely suck at math, or are severely brain-damaged.
.

JP, you willing to go back to those halcyon days of what the richest Americans paid at the highest historical rates?
-
Can you live, given your current budget, on those tax rates you espouse for “the rich?”
-
Just asking…

Can you live, given your current budget, on those tax rates you espouse for “the rich?”

Paying the rates that people in my income quartile paid at that time? Damn right I can. So could you. Trust me — you are NEVER in any danger of paying 70% of your income in taxes. If Bill Gates paid this percentage, he could still buy your wife 1000x/day on eBay. Oh, and still own a stable of cars, have a very nice roof over his head, and never, ever go hungry.
.

How do you know I’m not in danger of paying a 70% tax rate, now or in the future?
-
I don’t have a wife, but if I did I surely hope she doesn’t have a price on eBay. He can have all the cars he wants, no problem.
-
Again - let’s take 70% of your current income, apply that deficit it to your outflows, and could you really afford it?

Today’s book report assignment. Everyone read “Anthem” by Ayn Rand.
-
“There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers.”

Again - let’s take 70% of your current income, apply that deficit it to your outflows, and could you really afford it?
-
Well, let me treat you like you’re a serious, rational person, for a moment. At what time in American history has someone earned what I earn, as a mean, ever paid 70% tax? I make ~$40K/year, currently, in 2007 dollars. My effective tax rate this year will be around 18% (likely more, since I do not have a mortgage deduction… and yes, a much larger percentage of my tax burden will be FICA/Medicare than someone earning even 5x what I earn would be).
-
So, what’s your point? That I couldn’t live on $12K/year? Actually, I could, because I did survive on less than that, for most of the last four years. Would 70% tax rate be reasonable on anyone? No… and certainly not on someone in the 2nd quartile of income earners.
-
So, really… what is your point?
.
.

Well, let me treat you like you’re a serious, rational person, for a moment. At what time in American history has someone earned what I earn, as a mean, ever paid 70% tax?

Let me ask you another question:

As a person who admittedly pays very little in taxes, do you think you are in a position to tell others that they should pay MORE taxes than you?

-

Can’t we apply one of your oft-used, much-loved arguments to your situation? Call it Taxinhawking or Ten-Key Commandoing or whatever silly code name you like. I’m always amused and bemused at people who pay less than 30% income tax making grand pronouncements about the wonders of taxation and the fat cats who refuse to pay their share.

As a person who admittedly pays very little in taxes, do you think you are in a position to tell others that they should pay MORE taxes than you?

Absolutely, I do, when they make significantly more money — what’s more, I write my elected representatives to insist that they write into law the requirement that people DO so. It’s called “progressive taxation,” KatCo; you know this. I doubt that you even disagree with it, if you think about it.
.

I mean, let’s get real — current tax code exempts the first ~$6500 of income. Yes, if you live in a cardboard box, and work a 20-hr. week, minimum wage, you owe no federal tax. That’s quite fair and conducive to liberty, no?
.

Good to know you believe everyone else’s work and resulting income is subject to your personal whims regarding tax rates.
-
What is, just for the fun of it, your definition of the cut-off rate of taxes that “the rich” should have redistributed to the “not-so-rich,” or do you have the ability to quantify it?
-
Rhetorical question, of course, but should be fun nonetheless…

I’d be happy if we kept the tax code exactly as it was in 1994, if we added a $4000 tax credit for proof that the taxpayer voted.
.

What is, just for the fun of it, your definition of the cut-off rate of taxes that “the rich” should have redistributed to the “not-so-rich,” or do you have the ability to quantify it?

It needs to be a curve, obviously.
-
You haven’t answered a single question of mine, but again, let me treat you as a serious, rational person.
-
There needs to be a floor of income, beyond the present tax code, that is not taxable. That would be the amount it takes for a human to actually survive in this country. It might be under $20K/year, but it sure the hell needs to be more that $6500.
-
And your argument about income redistribution is complete bullshit. I await your rant about the $20 billion missing taxpayer dollars in the goatscrew known as “the occupation of Iraq,” but I won’t hold my breath.
.

If I made more money than anyone else in the U.S., would I be happy to pay the Treasury Department 40% of my cut? That’s a bargain, given the nukes that keep those dirty Chinese from coming over and stealing it from me, outright.
.

It needs to be a curve exactly why? I appreciate that you don’t believe I’m a serious, rational person. However, I’ll look past that and again ask for numbers.
-
I would like my standard of living to be around one million dollars income, after tax, per year. How do we get me and all of the others who want that standard of living to it?
-
Is it 20K per year or 40 that is sufficient for the appropriate standard of living?
-
Who makes those decisions in the end, in your scenario?

I would like my standard of living to be around one million dollars income, after tax, per year. How do we get me and all of the others who want that standard of living to it?

That’s not a serious question. As Sally Struthers would say, “Sure… we all would!”
-
I mean, are you telling me that people who could have an $600K/year income would sit at home and collect $200 in food stamps and ride the bus, rather than try to make a million that the government would tax at 40%?
-
Bullshit.
-
Is it 20K per year or 40 that is sufficient for the appropriate standard of living?
-
It’s not $6500. That’s what I said.
-
Who makes those decisions in the end, in your scenario?
-
Our elected officials, as always.
.

It needs to be a curve exactly why?
-
Because people who benefit more from the infrastructure of this great nation (and I know it comes as some surprise to you rugged individualists that you didn’t actually pay for every advantageous interstate highway, postal service and air traffic controller, just yet, but…) need to pay more thn the person who had to eat ramen and tuna fish and ride the bus to work. I know this is a shock, but let it sink in, and relax.
.

It ain’t what one pays — it’s what one has left over after tax day.
.

I am laughing my ass off watching Ms. Diana Moon Glampers explain to Harrison Bergeron, who has exceptional intelligence, height, strength and beauty, why he must endure the enormous handicaps including distracting noises, three hundred pounds of excess weight, eyeglasses to give him headaches and cosmetic changes to make him ugly just so he can be made equal to Jeffraham Prestonian.

Perhaps there is a better way, maybe JP you should apply yourself and try to obtain your potential rather than weighting down those whose abilities exceed yours?

Did you ever consider your viewpoint comes from your own self loathing?

Tell me JP, who should be the United States Handicapper General?

You seem to be a qualified candidate.

watching Ms. Diana Moon Glampers explain to Harrison Bergeron

-
;-p

#9 needs to go back and re-read my comment @ 26 July, 2007 at 7:41 pm.
-
And then, last para @ 26 July, 2007 at 9:04 pm.
-
Or, he can keep thrashing the $100 million strawman = $50 strawman.
.

In the end it is about who will be the decider. Rather than accept that all people are not equal, liberals and socialist like JP need to have a United States Handicapper General to level the playing field by dragging down those who achieve above the average.

They call this compassion. Put enough weight on someone and you can drag them down to the average. What happened JP, were you picked last in gym class?

who will be the decider
-
Once more, for the cognitively impaired: Our elected officials, as always. Don’t like it? Elect different officials, or move somewhere where the tax rates are more to your liking.
-
Or, continue to whine, complain and thrash literary strawmen that bear absolutely no resemblance to anyone’s idea of tax policy.
.

You are accusing me of using a “literary strawman”? That’s rich.

JP, equality is about rights, not abilities and most certainly not about income. We don’t take from one person and give to another. Robin Hood is a story not an ideal. We do not need a government redistributor to make everyone economically equal. They do that in Sweden, maybe you and the cats should give it a try? I think the tax rates will meet your high ideals.

JP, equality is about rights
-
I have not once, ever, said anything about “economic equality” — that is YOUR strawman, the one you erected with the help of a liberal author’s short story.
-
Now, to continue this discussion, I’ll need to see some proof that you actually know what percentage of collected tax dollars are spent in what manner. Otherwise, you’ll keep threshing that strawman, and I’ll keep rolling my eyes, and that’s not getting us anywhere.
.

Conservatism seeks to preserve the rights of the individual.

Like the right to marry the person you love? The right to abort a pregnancy after you’ve been raped? The right to purchase and use adult films and devices in your own home? The right to have a phone conversation without the government listening in for no reason? The right to be at least charged with a crime and given a trial before you’re detained indefinitely? The right to publicly protest? The right to practice the religion of your choice or not practice a religion at all?

You mean like those rights of the individual?

Conservatives do not care about the “rights of the indivudal.” they care about their “right” to impose their will on everyone else. They are just as collectivist as the farthest left liberal could ever dream of being, the difference being the vision of what their collectivist world looks like.

Okay, so here’s a question for all you flat tax advocates. Why a flat tax rate instead of a flat tax, period? Each man, woman, and child owes the same lump sum to the federal government - about $10000 per year not counting payroll taxes.

Would you agree that’s more fair? That way, we treat everyone, rich and poor, alike. If not, why not?