Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The virtue of Generosity

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 7:32:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I remember seeing this on Phil's DDO profile:

"I believe liberalism is based entirely on emotions, and lacks any conviction and principled beliefs... I believe Conservatism is the more difficult road to walk, and that fact encourages me that it's the right one."

I couldn't help but lol at that statement. How is it any more difficult to be a Conservative than a Liberal? To be a Conservative essentially means that you impose your personal religious or faith based beliefs about society onto others (regardless of the reasons, it pushes an intrusive social agenda), and preferring to keep the money you earned instead of sharing or caring about the well being of others. And even if one is a Conservative because they genuinely believe in a free market economy, I still don't see why that's a "difficult road" to walk. Plus, the first 2 assessments of Conservatism apply anyway - otherwise you'd be a Libertarian.

Now I'm not saying that generosity trumps selfishness necessarily, but I'd like for someone to explain to me how selfishness is more difficult than generosity... because I just don't see it. The only argument I can foresee is that people who are "generous" are ruled by their emotions, but that may not always be the case, and I don't think that generosity in most cases is wrong even if it WAS fueled by one's emotions. Anyway the point I'm getting at is that I believe it is more difficult to be generous than selfish. Do you think that implies that generosity is of a higher moral standard than selfishness? If so, then generosity is the stronger virtue. Er, but really, I just wanted someone to try and back up Phil's statement about how it's harder to be a Conservative (aw - poor him!).
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 7:37:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, I guess it's hard to be a Conservative insofar as you have to uphold an ideology with terrible and contradictory values. I'm sure it gets hard to defend. Anyone who is/was a Conservative on this site just winds up switching to Libertarianism (a far more plausible position) because they realize the idiocy of Conservatism. Askfrodo is the closest I've seen to a competent Conservative, but I believe that with an open mind he can/will see the error of his ways ;D
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 8:05:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 7:37:23 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I'm sure it gets hard to defend. Anyone who is/was a Conservative on this site just winds up switching to Libertarianism (a far more plausible position) because they realize the idiocy of Conservatism.

I used to be a conservative. Though I welcome anyone who is interested in libertarianism to learn more and convert; it is a shame that more progressives do not progress to libertarianism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 8:26:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm pretty sure he's talking about justifying the right of the rich to do what they want with their own money, without a large portion of it going through the corrupt middlemen known as government.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 8:29:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 8:26:56 AM, mongeese wrote:
I'm pretty sure he's talking about justifying the right of the rich to do what they want with their own money, without a large portion of it going through the corrupt middlemen known as government.

Unfortunately, much of the rich have acquired their wealth through the state either directly or indirectly.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 8:30:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why do people treat politics like Religion? With Religion, your beliefs need to be snapped into a particular religion to avoid the penalty of hell for the slightest deviation. With politics, it's based on what you believe as an individual. If you're half conservative and half libertarian, why would you need to be converted from one to another?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 8:43:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 8:30:49 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Why do people treat politics like Religion? With Religion, your beliefs need to be snapped into a particular religion to avoid the penalty of hell for the slightest deviation. With politics, it's based on what you believe as an individual. If you're half conservative and half libertarian, why would you need to be converted from one to another?

The consistent libertarian opposes politics except as a useful tool in bringing about its demise.

If you are a "half-libertarian" then your ideas are internally inconsistent.
This is known as cognitive dissonance.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 8:57:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 7:32:39 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I remember seeing this on Phil's DDO profile:

"I believe liberalism is based entirely on emotions, and lacks any conviction and principled beliefs... I believe Conservatism is the more difficult road to walk, and that fact encourages me that it's the right one."


My view is the utter opposite, liberalism almost always is based on conviction, principles and logic. It is conservatism that is emotive and far easier to follow.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 9:01:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 8:57:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/17/2010 7:32:39 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I remember seeing this on Phil's DDO profile:

"I believe liberalism is based entirely on emotions, and lacks any conviction and principled beliefs... I believe Conservatism is the more difficult road to walk, and that fact encourages me that it's the right one."


My view is the utter opposite, liberalism almost always is based on conviction, principles and logic. It is conservatism that is emotive and far easier to follow.

All ideologies are necessarily emotive. Some are more well thought out and therefore more internally consistent than others however.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 9:23:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 8:43:14 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/17/2010 8:30:49 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Why do people treat politics like Religion? With Religion, your beliefs need to be snapped into a particular religion to avoid the penalty of hell for the slightest deviation. With politics, it's based on what you believe as an individual. If you're half conservative and half libertarian, why would you need to be converted from one to another?

The consistent libertarian opposes politics except as a useful tool in bringing about its demise.

If you are a "half-libertarian" then your ideas are internally inconsistent.
This is known as cognitive dissonance.

My Ideology is closest to ideology, though I would say the state ought to provide minimally for those in dire need.

I don't think this is inconsistent as the reason I am Libertarianish is that I think Freedom ought be respected, right behind Humanity. And as it would be grossly inhumane to let people starve when there is food, They ought to be fed one way or another.

I would respect another's property up untill the point that I, or my family, had a survival need of it,

I don't think it's inconsistent to extend that to: I, my family, or that guy down the block. In fact I think that's more consistent.

Would you not steal bread if your family was starving and you had no source of food.
If yes, wheres your consistency?? How do you get off being above your ideals?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 9:38:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
*My thinking is closest to that ideology*
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 9:42:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 9:23:38 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/17/2010 8:43:14 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/17/2010 8:30:49 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Why do people treat politics like Religion? With Religion, your beliefs need to be snapped into a particular religion to avoid the penalty of hell for the slightest deviation. With politics, it's based on what you believe as an individual. If you're half conservative and half libertarian, why would you need to be converted from one to another?

The consistent libertarian opposes politics except as a useful tool in bringing about its demise.

If you are a "half-libertarian" then your ideas are internally inconsistent.
This is known as cognitive dissonance.

My Ideology is closest to ideology, though I would say the state ought to provide minimally for those in dire need.

I don't think this is inconsistent as the reason I am Libertarianish is that I think Freedom ought be respected, right behind Humanity. And as it would be grossly inhumane to let people starve when there is food, They ought to be fed one way or another.

Let us see if you truly believe in this principle.

There are plenty of people starving in Africa today and the recent calamity in Haiti has given us another place where your money could be used to save lives. Perhaps you do ineed donate to such charities. But surely you could give more and still survive after all you have access to a computer and you are spending your time on debate.org for goodness sakes and yet you do not give up everything that you own up until mere subsistence. I see this as an inconsistency in your position. Where do I err?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 9:53:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 9:42:38 AM, Reasoning wrote:

Firstly, their not within our political system, and :. not it's responsibility to provide for.

Secondly, you're kind of right, I do think less about those further outside of my sphere of interaction, I would save my family before that guy down the block too, I think that too is a tendancy of Humanity.

But you haven't answered my question, would you steal to save yourself/your family?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 9:53:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's important to note that conservatives buy into the fantasy that people can be self made in the United States and that their wealth and prestige is the result of hard work and diligence and not the result of opportunity, cronyism, and blind luck. Therefore conservatives may see liberals as espousing a view opposed to hard work, which they consider wrong because of those particular puritanical values. In some cases, liberals can be exceedingly lazy ... but there are hard working liberals, even wealthy hard working liberals, and they realize that not every person who works hard is rewarded justly for his or her work.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 10:02:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 9:42:38 AM, Reasoning wrote:

There are plenty of people starving in Africa today

And plus, If I do ever get boatloads of money, my plan is to live a normal simple life (w/the exception of providing as well as I can for the provision of my family's welfare; education, nice neighborhood etc.) and then give away all that I don't think they "need" to those starving in Africa.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 10:13:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 9:53:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/17/2010 9:42:38 AM, Reasoning wrote:

Firstly, their not within our political system, and :. not it's responsibility to provide for.

And our economy doing well (with low taxes and my going to school and living a normal life) can help solve there long term problems too.

We ought to encourage them to get a stable involvement in the world economy, and encourage good governance on their part, along with throwing some tax dollars to'em for necessities when they have a big crisis.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 10:20:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 9:53:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/17/2010 9:42:38 AM, Reasoning wrote:

Firstly, their not within our political system, and :. not it's responsibility to provide for.

The political system is not mine.

Is it the responsibility of the one with food to give to the one without?

Secondly, you're kind of right, I do think less about those further outside of my sphere of interaction, I would save my family before that guy down the block too, I think that too is a tendancy of Humanity.

Indeed.

But you haven't answered my question, would you steal to save yourself/your family?

I would hope not. But this is assuming that the property is legitimately owned by a non-crook.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 10:24:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 10:20:22 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/17/2010 9:53:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/17/2010 9:42:38 AM, Reasoning wrote:

Firstly, their not within our political system, and :. not it's responsibility to provide for.

The political system is not mine.

Is it the responsibility of the one with food to give to the one without?
Yeah but the whole thing beneath this kind of makes it a bit of a sliding scale.
And in my other comments I kind of cleared this up a bit.

Secondly, you're kind of right, I do think less about those further outside of my sphere of interaction, I would save my family before that guy down the block too, I think that too is a tendancy of Humanity.

Indeed.

& if it's a part of humanity I'm not being inhumane :) ; :. still consistent! lol
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 11:13:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 7:32:39 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I remember seeing this on Phil's DDO profile:

"I believe liberalism is based entirely on emotions, and lacks any conviction and principled beliefs... I believe Conservatism is the more difficult road to walk, and that fact encourages me that it's the right one."

Well, this is inherently stupid (no offense to Goderator Phil). Any belief has conviction and principles, whether its liberalism, Randian libertarianism, Nazism, or Communism. You may not agree with what they espouse, but they all have a motivation behind it that drives individuals to believe what they do.

And to get right down to the point, I fail to see how liberalism at-large is less "principled" than Phil's American conservatism. Liberals were the one who drove for freedom from overpowering monarchy and clericalism. Liberals were the ones who empowered the movement for rights, whether it started with white male landowners in England, or with homosexuals in Iowa. Liberals were the ones who recognized the need for less government intervention in our lives, and liberals were the ones who fought against the rise of Communism in Russia.

Liberals have principles and conviction and motivation coming out the wazoo - what has conservatism offered? A path back from all that has already been accomplished? Please.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 11:17:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
He's a conservative, not an Objectivist. Conservatives are in general more generous than liberals-- unless you count other people's money of course. Now this doesn't make Phil's comment any more justified of course :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 11:19:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 11:17:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Conservatives are in general more generous than liberals

What proof of this do you have, Ragnar? I know you wouldn't be making a baseless assumption without anything to back it up.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 11:31:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm saying that it's easy to say "I want to keep all of my money" because obviously money is a fundamental part of our every day lives. It's more difficult to part with money (via taxes and charity) because obviously you're making a sacrifice... So my question was essentially my confusion regarding Phil's statement. Why does he think being a Conservative is "harder?" It seems a lot easier. It's difficult to accept social choices that are foreign to you or that you don't agree with; it's more difficult to be open-minded in that regard and uphold tolerance and/or social equality. It's easy to go bomb a country we don't like and wipe out their leader. It's hard to establish long-lasting and non-violent peace. How is Conservatism harder than Liberalism? If selfishness represents conservative economics and generosity represents liberal economics (though I know it's a far more intricate system than that) then it seems as if all signs points to Liberalism being the "more difficult path" to walk.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 11:46:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 11:31:21 AM, theLwerd wrote:
If selfishness represents conservative economics and generosity represents liberal economics (though I know it's a far more intricate system than that) then it seems as if all signs points to Liberalism being the "more difficult path" to walk.

To me, most American conservatives are essentially reactionaries. Not all are, but a good portion of the ideology is all about it. When the going gets tough, conservatives want to jump back to what was done in the past because what was done in the past either worked, or it seemed "safe" to do - like, with Iraq, they simply preferred to bomb the place and wreck most infrastructure like they did in 1991, instead of planning for a long-term stay. "Mission accomplished," aye.

The same applies to the two economic divides. I personally don't know if conservatism is all about "selfishness" in economics, however I do know that it is very individualistic and almost like oligarchy in nature, a throwback to the old classical liberal ideals that dominated the 1800's and early 1900's. It "worked," and its "safe" - its a reactionary position, as what is expected with conservatism.

So the question really is "how hard is it to be a reactionary?" How hard is it really to simply fall back on old ideas that are similarly flawed, instead of working out new ways to handle the issues at hand? How can going back the way you came, instead of cutting a way forward, a "more difficult path to walk"?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 12:13:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 11:19:01 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/17/2010 11:17:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Conservatives are in general more generous than liberals

What proof of this do you have, Ragnar? I know you wouldn't be making a baseless assumption without anything to back it up.

" -- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. "[1]

[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 12:16:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 10:24:01 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/17/2010 10:20:22 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/17/2010 9:53:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/17/2010 9:42:38 AM, Reasoning wrote:

Firstly, their not within our political system, and :. not it's responsibility to provide for.

The political system is not mine.

Is it the responsibility of the one with food to give to the one without?
Yeah but the whole thing beneath this kind of makes it a bit of a sliding scale.
And in my other comments I kind of cleared this up a bit.

So you think that only the people that are REALLY well off have the obligation to give to the poor?

Secondly, you're kind of right, I do think less about those further outside of my sphere of interaction, I would save my family before that guy down the block too, I think that too is a tendancy of Humanity.

Indeed.

& if it's a part of humanity I'm not being inhumane :) ; :. still consistent! lol

It is also a tendency of humanity to murder, rape and steal.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 12:45:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 12:13:36 PM, Reasoning wrote:
[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Interesting poll, however I've noticed that it deals with private charity/generosity (expected bias with George Will, I suppose), which would of course give an advantage to conservatives. I bet if you took the poll another way, liberals would be about as "generous," but instead work through public sources, or espouse equality as better with helping the poor than charity. Very, very interesting.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 1:24:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 12:45:14 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/17/2010 12:13:36 PM, Reasoning wrote:
[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Interesting poll, however I've noticed that it deals with private charity/generosity (expected bias with George Will, I suppose), which would of course give an advantage to conservatives. I bet if you took the poll another way, liberals would be about as "generous," but instead work through public sources
That's just it. Remember, I qualified my more generous statement with "unless you count other people's money of course." It's not really "generous" to respond to a plea for change by reaching into your neighbor's pocket-- indeed, net generosity is zero since you're showing "negative generosity" to the fellow you're taking it from.

Now, I don't think generosity is much of a virtue-- but the statistics nevertheless show that conservatives, they haz it, liberals, not so much.

I seem to remember learning this from Stossel, who is another biased source, but he was on ABC, a source probably with a bias slightly the other way, that would probably never allow the special if the facts didn't check out.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 1:33:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 1:24:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's just it. Remember, I qualified my more generous statement with "unless you count other people's money of course." It's not really "generous" to respond to a plea for change by reaching into your neighbor's pocket-- indeed, net generosity is zero since you're showing "negative generosity" to the fellow you're taking it from.

I disagree, Ragnar. It isn't about literally wanting to reach into your neighbor's pocket - its just the belief that the state can play a better and more effective role in "generosity" towards those less fortunate than individuals. I mean, if its there, why not make use of it? The ends justify the means, mate.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 1:41:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 1:33:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/17/2010 1:24:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's just it. Remember, I qualified my more generous statement with "unless you count other people's money of course." It's not really "generous" to respond to a plea for change by reaching into your neighbor's pocket-- indeed, net generosity is zero since you're showing "negative generosity" to the fellow you're taking it from.

I disagree, Ragnar. It isn't about literally wanting to reach into your neighbor's pocket - its just the belief that the state can play a better and more effective role in "generosity" towards those less fortunate than individuals.
The state isn't producing anything relevant to the generosity. The state's role in the matter is literally nothing more than reaching into the neighbor's pocket. Your rebuttal is not a rebuttal. Net generosity is still zero, however "effective" you think this zero is.

I mean, if its there, why not make use of it? The ends justify the means, mate.
The particular ends mentioned here don't justify much of anything. Including private charity, which is none of my business.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 2:09:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 7:32:39 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I remember seeing this on Phil's DDO profile:

"I believe liberalism is based entirely on emotions, and lacks any conviction and principled beliefs... I believe Conservatism is the more difficult road to walk, and that fact encourages me that it's the right one."

I couldn't help but lol at that statement. How is it any more difficult to be a Conservative than a Liberal? To be a Conservative essentially means that you impose your personal religious or faith based beliefs about society onto others (regardless of the reasons, it pushes an intrusive social agenda), and preferring to keep the money you earned instead of sharing or caring about the well being of others. And even if one is a Conservative because they genuinely believe in a free market economy, I still don't see why that's a "difficult road" to walk. Plus, the first 2 assessments of Conservatism apply anyway - otherwise you'd be a Libertarian.

Now I'm not saying that generosity trumps selfishness necessarily, but I'd like for someone to explain to me how selfishness is more difficult than generosity... because I just don't see it. The only argument I can foresee is that people who are "generous" are ruled by their emotions, but that may not always be the case, and I don't think that generosity in most cases is wrong even if it WAS fueled by one's emotions. Anyway the point I'm getting at is that I believe it is more difficult to be generous than selfish. Do you think that implies that generosity is of a higher moral standard than selfishness? If so, then generosity is the stronger virtue. Er, but really, I just wanted someone to try and back up Phil's statement about how it's harder to be a Conservative (aw - poor him!).

Regarding Conservatism, I usually decline to listen to anyone's description of conservatism if they have not read Russell Kirk. Specifically, his classic, The Conservative Mind, and his essay on the 10 principles of conservative thought. http://www.kirkcenter.org...
Ignorance of Kirk is culpable.