What's new
By:
Filters

Conservative and Liberal. Nature or Nurture?

Dr. Jones said:
A war on drugs may be an unwinnable one, but it's hard to suggest it isn't a noble one.

If one's most damning bit of rep is that of a failed yet noble attempt, I consider that person a champ.
Click to expand...
Good point
 
Reagan was a pretty good president.
 
Red said:
I don't know if I'm a typical liberal, because I really never thought much about "what I am". But I would say that I am nurturing, and I guess I'm looking for a reflection of myself in the greater world. There has to be some entity that helps people in need. Who takes in refugees? Government just seems to have the most resources to help. Maybe I want government to overcome the law of the jungle. I'm not sure; I'll have to think about this. Maybe I've been wrong my entire life, I don't know....
Click to expand...
At first I thought, this is not necessarily a right vs. wrong issue, but then I realized that US Constitution was specifically written to define the duties and obligations of our government. I just read it as a result of your post. (Not nearly as big an undertaking as if I had decided I needed to read the Obamacare legislation.) The answer to whether or not it is our government's job to parent the citizens should be found within it.

The only references I found in the entire document were the bolded section in the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...
And the bolded portion in Section 8:
Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...
So the question becomes, is a parenting, nurturing government what is meant by "promote the general welfare?" I don't think it is, but maybe I'm wrong. My reading of the Constitution left me with the strong feeling that our form of government is meant to be as a facilitator of rights, not an administrator of social justice.

Dr. Jones made some recent posts about how people in trouble used to be cared for more by their neighbors, churches, etc. I think that's true. He said that era might be permanently behind us, and I think that might be partially true as well. There are still individual neighbors, charitable organizations and churches that do a good job of this sort of stuff, but some people clearly fall through the cracks. This is especially a problem in impoverished neighborhoods where large percentages of the population are in trouble. I doubt the founding fathers could ever have envisioned such a situation. There is no question in my mind that the general welfare is at stake in these situations and therefore our government has a constitutional obligation to help.

I believe that in the long term the only viable solution is for the government to facilitate economic opportunity. It's the old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish argument. I'm pretty sure that most people would prefer to fish for themselves. If not we ultimately have an unsolvable problem.

I was surprised recently when a few members of this forum said that the constitution was held too sacrosanct, and ought to just be thrown out. To me that makes no sense. I believe in the importance of the constitution not because I see it as some sort of sacred document, but because I can't see how our government has any validity without a defining document. Every successful business that I know of has something similar, even if it is nothing more than a Mission Statement. It makes no sense to run any organization without defining its purpose, and that's exactly what the Constitution does.

If people want to throw out the current constitution that can be done, but only by agreeing to a new constitution. If someone wants to modify the constitution that can be done as well. There are currently 27 amendments and more can be added by following the process established within the document itself.

I encouraged the creation of this thread because I really do want to understand the differences in thinking between left and right. I agree with Dr. Jones and others that we are not really far apart at all, but it feels that way because we are defining ourselves by our differences rather than our similarities. Not until responding to this post did it occur to me that the answers to these questions would involve reading the Constitution, and if I've ever read it in its entirety before today I don't recall doing so. If nothing else, it has already aided me in better understanding my own thinking.
 
Dr. Jones said:
A war on drugs may be an unwinnable one, but it's hard to suggest it isn't a noble one.

If one's most damning bit of rep is that of a failed yet noble attempt, I consider that person a champ.
Click to expand...

it wasn't noble because it was racist.
 
I dont think it was racist in terms of hating black people, but I think it was something done to keep poor people in check and create money for certain groups of people. It just happened to really hit black people the worst. I think it was done more out of greed than racism or "nobility".
 
King Cy said:
I dont think it was racist in terms of hating black people, but I think it was something done to keep poor people in check and create money for certain groups of people. It just happened to really hit black people the worst. I think it was done more out of greed than racism or "nobility".
Click to expand...

I've heard this narrative plenty.
Explain what was done, specifically, to target blacks.
 
Most credit Reagan with what should really be shifted to Nixon.

Still, regardless of rumored intent, drugs were/are illegal and enforcing the law shouldn't be viewed as being villainous.

If you don't want to be arrested for the activity don't do it. Doesn't work for me to hear you whine the victim.

And, if anything, the target wasn't race, it was anti-war activists. Hippies.
Blacks more just got caught up in the fray.
 
Dr. Jones said:
Most credit Reagan with what should really be shifted to Nixon.

Still, regardless of rumored intent, drugs were/are illegal and enforcing the law shouldn't be viewed as being villainous.

If you don't want to be arrested for the activity don't do it. Doesn't work for me to hear you whine the victim.

And, if anything, the target wasn't race, it was anti-war activists. Hippies.
Blacks more just got caught up in the fray.
Click to expand...

Then explain the penalties for crack vs cocaine?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
At first I thought, this is not necessarily a right vs. wrong issue, but then I realized that US Constitution was specifically written to define the duties and obligations of our government. I just read it as a result of your post. (Not nearly as big an undertaking as if I had decided I needed to read the Obamacare legislation.) The answer to whether or not it is our government's job to parent the citizens should be found within it.

The only references I found in the entire document were the bolded section in the preamble:

And the bolded portion in Section 8:

So the question becomes, is a parenting, nurturing government what is meant by "promote the general welfare?" I don't think it is, but maybe I'm wrong. My reading of the Constitution left me with the strong feeling that our form of government is meant to be as a facilitator of rights, not an administrator of social justice.

Dr. Jones made some recent posts about how people in trouble used to be cared for more by their neighbors, churches, etc. I think that's true. He said that era might be permanently behind us, and I think that might be partially true as well. There are still individual neighbors, charitable organizations and churches that do a good job of this sort of stuff, but some people clearly fall through the cracks. This is especially a problem in impoverished neighborhoods where large percentages of the population are in trouble. I doubt the founding fathers could ever have envisioned such a situation. There is no question in my mind that the general welfare is at stake in these situations and therefore our government has a constitutional obligation to help.

I believe that in the long term the only viable solution is for the government to facilitate economic opportunity. It's the old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish argument. I'm pretty sure that most people would prefer to fish for themselves. If not we ultimately have an unsolvable problem.

I was surprised recently when a few members of this forum said that the constitution was held too sacrosanct, and ought to just be thrown out. To me that makes no sense. I believe in the importance of the constitution not because I see it as some sort of sacred document, but because I can't see how our government has any validity without a defining document. Every successful business that I know of has something similar, even if it is nothing more than a Mission Statement. It makes no sense to run any organization without defining its purpose, and that's exactly what the Constitution does.

If people want to throw out the current constitution that can be done, but only by agreeing to a new constitution. If someone wants to modify the constitution that can be done as well. There are currently 27 amendments and more can be added by following the process established within the document itself.

I encouraged the creation of this thread because I really do want to understand the differences in thinking between left and right. I agree with Dr. Jones and others that we are not really far apart at all, but it feels that way because we are defining ourselves by our differences rather than our similarities. Not until responding to this post did it occur to me that the answers to these questions would involve reading the Constitution, and if I've ever read it in its entirety before today I don't recall doing so. If nothing else, it has already aided me in better understanding my own thinking.
Click to expand...

I really appreciate you putting in so much time and effort here. I've been really struggling to reply, basically writing and discarding draft after draft, in an effort to find my own bearings and respond to your own thoughts. And I'm still falling short. I was a history instructor for a number of years, but I can't tell you the last time I read our own Constitution. You do sound like a strict constructionist. I'm struggling here. I'd hate to think I have to check the Constitution first to be sure the government helping it's citizens is OK. It's almost like checking the document to see if it's OK to show compassion to the far less fortunate among us. All too confusing to me at the moment. Eventually, I'll find my bearings and reply properly.
 
Red said:
I really appreciate you putting in so much time and effort here. I've been really struggling to reply, basically writing and discarding draft after draft, in an effort to find my own bearings and respond to your own thoughts. And I'm still falling short. I was a history instructor for a number of years, but I can't tell you the last time I read our own Constitution. You do sound like a strict constructionist. I'm struggling here. I'd hate to think I have to check the Constitution first to be sure the government helping it's citizens is OK. It's almost like checking the document to see if it's OK to show compassion to the far less fortunate among us. All too confusing to me at the moment. Eventually, I'll find my bearings and reply properly.
Click to expand...

I think the term helping is way to broad. Better defining "helping" in lies the answer.
 
Red said:
I really appreciate you putting in so much time and effort here. I've been really struggling to reply, basically writing and discarding draft after draft, in an effort to find my own bearings and respond to your own thoughts. And I'm still falling short. I was a history instructor for a number of years, but I can't tell you the last time I read our own Constitution. You do sound like a strict constructionist. I'm struggling here. I'd hate to think I have to check the Constitution first to be sure the government helping it's citizens is OK. It's almost like checking the document to see if it's OK to show compassion to the far less fortunate among us. All too confusing to me at the moment. Eventually, I'll find my bearings and reply properly.
Click to expand...
The constitution doesn't tell us whether we can help people. It tells us whether that's the government's job. I would say that it is to some extent.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
The constitution doesn't tell us whether we can help people. It tells us whether that's the government's job. I would say that it is to some extent.
Click to expand...

I came across an article I thought would be good to share with you. Are you familiar with the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville? His "Democracy in America" based on his trip around our young nation in the 1830's, and that book regarded by many as still one of the best descriptions of what makes an American an
American. Described the traits of our "national character" as few have at any time. My apologies if he's old hat and very familiar to you. I came across an article using de Tocquaville's predictive powers to show how he predicted the development of an unconstitutional form of government represented by big government. A Conservative's look at an aspect of that Frenchman's writings that you may find of interest. Personally, I learned more about the American people reading Alexis de Tocqueville then the work of any other commentator.

Here's some Goodread quotes if you are not familiar:


https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville

And the article I came across. de Tocqueville was so perceptive...

The End of Democracy in America
Tocqueville foresaw how it would come.


https://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332.html
 
Dr. Jones said:
I think the term helping is way to broad. Better defining "helping" in lies the answer.
Click to expand...

I've never known a federal government that wasn't...big; that wasn't heavily invested in social services. I collect social security and a part of me finds that strange, like a man should not really be entitled to retire. It's soft, not to be encouraged somehow. I've got a great deal to think about, it may be that the whole "model" will seem wrong the more I think about it. I can see where all these social services can be seen as a way of managing people's lives from above, which is more servitude then liberty.
 
Red said:
I've never known a federal government that wasn't...big; that wasn't heavily invested in social services. I collect social security and a part of me finds that strange, like a man should not really be entitled to retire. It's soft, not to be encouraged somehow. I've got a great deal to think about, it may be that the whole "model" will seem wrong the more I think about it. I can see where all these social services can be seen as a way of managing people's lives from above, which is more servitude then liberty.
Click to expand...
*than

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top