In a few minutes, I wrote ten things that liberals believe. These relate to national politics (compared to international politics). It’s not an exhaustive list. It might not even be the top-ten things. But I think that these ideas are at the core of domestic political choices that liberals make.
1. Sick people shouldn’t die because they are poor.
2. In times of shared sacrifice, even the rich should share in the sacrifice.
3. Government of the people, by the people, for the people should be like the people. If people should be compassionate, government should be compassionate.
4. People should be compassionate.
5. Corporations are not people. Giving corporations First Amendment rights to spend unlimited money on political contests risks to drown out the actual people.
6. Big businesses, big banks have great power because they have great resources. They use their great power and their great resources for their own benefit, not for their nation’s benefit. They do things that harm the nation. It takes a strong government (of the people, by the people, for the people) to stand up to big businesses and big banks.
7. When we say that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, we mean all the people.
8. In our time on Earth, humankind has built powerful technology. It makes our lives easier and better. But it also has the power to wreck our air and water and soil. We must use and control our technology to make sure that we pass on to our children and our grandchildren a cleaner Earth.
9. A nation is judged by how it treats its most powerless members.
10. Human rights are worth sacrificing for.
1. Why shouldn’t “poor” sick people die? “Rich” sick people die, we all die. Are liberals willing to give up everything for those who chose to not work or spent their money on what they wanted, instead of needed?
ReplyDelete2. Why is it shared sacrifice when a worker does not get a job or gets fired, so a “rich” employer can pay higher taxes to fund government & the 49% of the population who do not pay income taxes won't sacrifice more?
3. Why is it “compassionate” for government or parents to create dependent citizens who are never self sufficient, because they were given everything wanted or needed?
4. Why is it compassionate for citizens to demand big government be compassionate by using other people's money?
5. What is a corporation, if not the thousands of “not people” who invest in & voluntarily buy the products of the corporation? Who pays the costs of all gov regulations & taxes that fund big gov? Those same ”not people” citizens. If unions & any number of “not people” organizations that feed off the productive segment of society can buy or in some cases steal elections, why shouldn’t the “not people” corporations have a voice in politics
6. Why would big business destroy the customers needed to prosper? You need to learn history. Only demagogues in big government have the power to destroy it self & other nations. NAZI Germany, USSR & PRC were all nations with strong governments “of the people, by the people, for the people.” The ruling classes in these “strong governments” call their trusting citizens: USEFUL IDIOTS.
7. Why do liberals exclude all those “not people” who make up private industry & own corporations that create the wealth & pay the taxes of our nation from being part of “all the people” but include everyone who doesn’t?
8. Conservatives also want a clean, stable environment, but believe citizen scientists & engineers are better at solving these questions, than politicians who win elections.” USPS can’t compete with Fed-Ex or UPS. The Dept. of Education turns out the least educated but highest self esteem generation the nation has ever seen. The Dept. of Energy grows our dependence on foreign energy sources from 16% to 66% & wastes $ billions on failed “green” schemes. All have weakened our ability to adapt & succeed. How many more examples do liberals need before they stop believing in “big gov?”
9. A nation is judged by how it treats its most powerless members. How true. Why do liberals support birth control abortions where a right to life of the most powerless is dependent on what the more powerful woman & doctor think?
10. Human rights are worth sacrificing for. True. Why don’t liberals sacrifice by donating more of their wealth or the lazy sacrifice by getting minimum wage jobs to help support those who live on welfare, unemployment or big gov pensions? Why don’t liberals fight “strong government that takes the human right to the fruits of one’s labor, to give to those who didn’t earn it?
Hiyo, CS,
ReplyDeleteCouple of things first.
First, I don’t get a lot of responses. But you took trouble. Thanks.
Second, I suppose you are in the tradition of James Madison and others of a couple centuries ago, but I like to know whom I’m speaking with. I consider a man’s opinion more substantial when he puts his real name behind it.
1. Seriously, CS. When you read, you should read all the way to the period. If you don’t do that, you might not realize that I wasn’t saying that poor people should never die. But they shouldn’t die because they’re poor.
As to the fairness of health care, I have a blog post from February 2011 called “What we Think when we Love Health-Care Reform, etc.”
As to who the poor and near-poor are who need the help, I posted in July 2011, something called, I think, “How I learned that I wasn’t Thinking Clearly”.
“Give up everything”. I guess that isn’t hyperbole, huh?
2. No. 2 is more or less of a rant, and I can’t make sense of it.
3. Find somebody who believes this, and argue with them.
4. CS. Really? Really? You really argue against compassion? Because your argument isn’t with me. It’s with a guy in a whole ‘nother league. Look at Matthew 9:13 (NASB): “go and learn what this means: ‘ I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ “
5. Again, CS, really? You really see no difference between, say, Exxon, and a shareholder of Exxon, who might be a union member who owns shares through her union pension fund, and who wonders why her wealth is being used to spread a philosophy that she disagrees with?
The board of directors never consulted her. They just use the power of the corporation, including her wealth, to magnify the scope of their opinions.
So, in addition to threatening to overwhelm the voices of people like our union shareholder, and you, and me, giving corporations First Amendment rights like flesh-and-blood persons just isn’t
fair to the shareholder.
Yeah. About your comment about unions “stealing” elections. Is it alright if I don’t follow you into your timewarp?
6. Only government can destroy a country? Mm. Well, in 2008, big investment banks and others almost went down, and if they had, they would have taken us with them. Bear Stearns did go down, and it launched us into this long recession. You admonished me at one point to “study history”. Study current events.
Yeah. And remember when Goldman Sachs bundled junk securities and sold them to unsuspecting clients, then bet that those investments would fail, and scored a ton of money when they were right? Did you know that those investments were designed to fail, for Goldman’s profit? Did you know that Goldman Sachs paid a $550,000,000 fine for that behavior?
But, no, that can’t be! Because what sane corporation would harm its own customers?
Which sort of begs the question.
7. When you find somebody who believes this, let me know. I’d be interested. Because I believe that a corporate officer, or shareholder, or director has as much right as I have to participate in politics. Just not more.
8. Another good point. Because clearly we should turn running things over to the geniuses who ran Enron. As everybody knows, unlike government, corporations never err. Please also refer to my comments about Goldman Sachs.
By the way, CS, did you know that, a handful of outliers excepted, there is a consensus among climate scientists that global climate change is real? It’s just the politicians and Fox News that don’t know. (And Michael Creighton. But who peer-reviews him - Ray Bradbury?) What were you saying about letting scientists run things?
9. Yeah, CS, you might be right or you might be wrong. But you’ll have to do more than merely assert that there’s a right to life from the moment of birth. It is a point of contention, And it isn’t the law.
But it is a big issue. Politically, legally, and theologically. Too big for a few words.
10. There’s a lot here to respond to. I mentioned two blog posts, from February and July. Those have a more complete listing of my ideas than I can write here.