Why are cities more liberal?

[MrSmith]

MrSmith -

Welfare is not analogous to giving people an oar and instructions. That's private charity. Welfare is the leaky raft (when we can get around to it).

Rather than pit conservatives against liberals, perhaps we should compare welfare to true compassion. True compassion is not concerned with throwing out liferafts. True compassion goes over the side and pulls the capsized aboard. Welfare can never do this.

And I'll address some of the items you mention shortly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree welfare has problems and that charity is preferable...but as i said before there is not enough charity to to "pull the people onboard". The problem is too big!

I don't want to compare welfare...i am not going to defend our current system. I never said i liked our current system. I am only interested in solutions and i simply asked for some and the only thing you keep saying is that we need to rely on charity --but that is less then what we are doing now and we have a history of relying on charity alone and things were not better.

[Dale]

I wouldn't take all your water or all your food, but if someone was starving I would take some of your food--absolutely.

As a society we make it possible for people to make money by providing, education, security, roads, govt. and other infrastructure.  Since as a collective we partially made  success possible people have an obligation to pay (in the form of taxes) for maintaing the infrastructure.  But success also comes on the backs of others --afterall we all buy things from low-wage earners and you may even employ them. 

So don't think you obtained that Bread and water all on your own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You lost me on that one. Because my bread was baked by minimum wage workers, it is ill-gotten, or at least it is easier to justify taking it from me, because, in a sense, I took it from low wage workers ? Is that what you're saying ?

[Dale]

I agree welfare has problems and that charity is preferable...but as i said before there is not enough charity to to "pull the people onboard".  The problem is too big!

I don't want to compare welfare...i am not going to defend our current system.  I never said i liked our current system.  I am only interested in solutions and i simply asked for some and the only thing you keep saying is that we need to rely on charity --but that is less then what we are doing now and we have a history of relying on charity alone and things were not better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't have a solution for a zero-defect society. Do you know anyone who does ?

But my point is that we'd be closer to the society you'd like to see, if the abolition of welfare were accompanied by the reinvigoration of people helping people.

Look, George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence --- it is force." Government relies on coercion to acheive its aims, including social welfare. But I think the society you and I would rather see relies on moral suasion (Washington's reason and eloquence). May we trust people to dedicate their energies (and their money) to the alleviation of social ills ? Is it okay to ask them to help ? What do we have to lose ? People are dying already in the welfare state which does not trust people enough to ask for their help.

[Dale]

By the way, whatever comes of our little discussion, MrSmith, I do appreciate your concern for others, and your endurance in this rather pointed discussion.

[MrSmith]

You lost me on that one. Because my bread was baked by minimum wage workers, it is ill-gotten, or at least it is easier to justify taking it from me, because, in a sense, I took it from low wage workers ? Is that what you're saying ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am saying we have an obligation as a society to make sure we don't use people for their labor but not provide them with the means they need to survive.

And, don't act like you don't take from me or that you don't take from the employee who baked the bread. We paid for the roads, schools, police, govt and all the other services that helped make you successful.

[MrSmith]

I don't have a solution for a zero-defect society. Do you know anyone who does ?

But my point is that we'd be closer to the society you'd like to see, if the abolition of welfare were accompanied by the reinvigoration of people helping people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is not a perfect solution. but I do know of some programs that do work.

Education --providing it for free has really benefited society.

Immunizations -- providing them to needy children for free helps us all prevent the spread of disease but it also lowers long-term medical costs.

Reinvigorate America? That assumes that things were better in the past and that people were more charitable. I think that is a myth --it is a utopia that never existed.

anyway i think we have completed exhausted the topic...let's call it a draw

[Dale]

I am saying we have an obligation as a society to make sure we don't use people for their labor but not provide them with the means they need to survive. 

And, don't act like you don't take from me or that you don't take from the employee who baked the bread.  We paid for the roads, schools, police, govt and all the other services that helped make you successful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is an unroward thing to steal bread from my elderly neighbor every Friday -- that's exploitation.

It is an untoward to purchase bread every Friday which is baked by minimum wage workers -- that's the Exploitation Model as taught by crackpot, warmed-over Marxist professors.

[Dale]

There is not a perfect solution.  but I do know of some programs that do work.

Education --providing it for free has really benefited society.

Immunizations -- providing them to needy children for free helps us all prevent the spread of disease but it also lowers long-term medical costs.

Reinvigorate America?  That assumes that things were better in the past and that people were more charitable.  I think that is a myth --it is a utopia that never existed. 

anyway i think we have completed exhausted the topic...let's call it a draw

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm okay calling it a draw. But I'm afraid we'll have to submit this thread to some geek federal arbitrator in Washington for a final determination. After all, private citizens like ourselves can't be trusted to arbitrate between ourselves. B)

[Dale]

Oh, and I never suggested that America past was a utopia. I am saying that at least in certain respects the ways of the past were better. The emphasis on private charity is one example. The Chevy Chevelle is another.

[waccamatt]

Yes. Giuliani was and Bloomberg is.

I disagree. There are more people that have a high eductation, which may play a part of it, but I don't think they are inherently "smarter." Infact, you could probably argue that you run into more stupid people in big cities.

Anyway, I believe it is becuase city dwellers are used to, and accept, a larger degree of control and government, so they vote in a similar manner. This can be in the form of anything from zoning to taxes. More taxes are generally needed to support their way of life from a civic point of view- (eg:  transit system). Liberals are usually supportive of these types of things.

Suburban areas tend to want less government, less taxes, and less control on their lifestyle, which conservatives are usually better proponents of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and MORE control on everyone else's life.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Oh, and I never suggested that America past was a utopia. I am saying that at least in certain respects the ways of the past were better. The emphasis on private charity is one example. The Chevy Chevelle is another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just to jump right in here and reignite the cinders a bit....

Let's just acknowledge the shortcomings of that past, which as recently as fifty years ago saw an American society with deeply ingrained segregation. We can debate the merits of welfare, whether it's "an oar but no food" or "food but no oar" or "a leaky lifeboat" or any other flimsy metaphor, but it's important to remember that the people who disproportionately benefit from welfare today are those same ones who fifty years ago weren't allowed to eat in the same restaurants as whites. Fifty years isn't much time to give people to get on their feet after being structurally repressed for so long; two generations, tops?

If it seemed that people were better off in the past, with its "emphasis on private charity," could that perception be because the society didn't care for the same people it's now concerned with?

[Snowguy716]

BOLOGNA! (It just doesn't have the same effect on paper.. oh well)

I'd call it a draw based on the fact that, at least the ones contributing to this forum, have a genuine spirit to help those that are less fortunate. I just think it comes down to pessimistic and optimistic.

I have a good faith in our government (namely, local government) to help the needy. I do not promote a federal welfare state, but a local one. One where local people can get involved. Things like city sponsored soup kitchens and homeless shelters.. city sponsored child care for working low income mothers. These are all ideas that work best on the local level and require the least red tape.

I think these programs could work along side private charity.. one picking up where the other cannot provide.

I think faith in the system is lost anywhere past hte state level and is even shaky there.

I agree that the system as it is is flawed. POlitics as usual is flawed. I will work tirelessly to make sure that my districts and my state sends politicians to Washington that answer to the people and not to special interests... and I would hope the country would be better for it.

[waccamatt]

Liberals usually depend on government more, and living in the city allows them to experience this.

I have to disagree with this. Liberals believe that we should help take care of those that are more needy and less fortunate than ourselves. We do not depend on government more, we believe that government has a role in maintaining a civilized society.

[Dale]

Just to jump right in here and reignite the cinders a bit....

Let's just acknowledge the shortcomings of that past, which as recently as fifty years ago saw an American society with deeply ingrained segregation. We can debate the merits of welfare, whether it's "an oar but no food" or "food but no oar" or "a leaky lifeboat" or any other flimsy metaphor, but it's important to remember that the people who disproportionately benefit from welfare today are those same ones who fifty years ago weren't allowed to eat in the same restaurants as whites. Fifty years isn't much time to give people to get on their feet after being structurally repressed for so long; two generations, tops?

If it seemed that people were better off in the past, with its "emphasis on private charity," could that perception be because the society didn't care for the same people it's now concerned with?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it could very well be true that we didn't care then for the people we are presently concerned with. It is also true that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm big on nuance.

[Spartan]

edit: in reference to suburbs:

Yes, and MORE control on everyone else's life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How?

[Dale]

Liberals usually depend on government more, and living in the city allows them to experience this.

I have to vehemently disagree with this. Liberals believe that we should help take care of those that are more needy and less fortunate than ourselves. We do not depend on government more, we believe that government has a role in a civilized society other than partaking in killing people in other countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see what you're saying about killing people in other countries. I'm well aware that there are principled objections to the war. But I do not agree that a society is civilized because its government refrains from interventionist foreign policy, but engages in interventionist domestic policy.

[Ruso]

Liberals usually depend on government more, and living in the city allows them to experience this.

I have to vehemently disagree with this. Liberals believe that we should help take care of those that are more needy and less fortunate than ourselves. We do not depend on government more, we believe that government has a role in a civilized society other than partaking in killing people in other countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I bet this commentary is hurting many. Lol

It is incredible how long this topic has lasted. I see there are so many and so good ideas from both sides. Wouldn't it be perfect to have a president who did not call himself liberal, nor conservative, and that, instead, applied a more "utilitarian", practical system of ideas, from the right or the left. I think that the mere name,liberal or conservative, implies certain "set" of beliefs, and, unfortunatelly certain rejection towards any idea outside of it. It is not about what is more practical and efficient for society anymore, now its pure political competition. One should be open to ideas from every political spectrum.

[waccamatt]

I call it as I see it!  The left deminishes morals and when morals deminish then thats when you see crime and such increase. You notice that some of the most immoral cities have some of the most crime? Its funny that you guys talk down on Christians but then you say its alright for a muslim to pray when they want or they might get offended by anything other than muslims. Liberalism is the fall of the USA as we know it today. I know this will cause a war. Liberals are a waste of breath.If you notice that most of the liberals " John Kerry" can't win in this country, just in the few liberal states. John Kerry was on the defense board and never really stayed in meeting and such. I read that after 911 he didn't attend one defense meeting so is this who we want watching over us. These are the people that allow the stinking terrorist in the country to begin with. Don't want to hurt their feelings.  They scale are military back and leave us vulnerable for attack. They want to take our guns away, hold on this sounds familiar, oh yeah the Nazis. Not commies they are nazis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe he dug his own grave, here. I believe this is one of the less educated conservatives.

[Dale]

Oh, I bet this commentary is hurting many.  Lol

It is incredible how long this topic has lasted. I see there are so many and so good ideas from both sides. Wouldn't it be perfect to have a president who did not call himself  liberal, nor conservative, and that, instead,  applied a more "utilitarian", practical system of ideas, from the right or the left. I think that the mere name,liberal or conservative,  implies certain "set" of beliefs, and, unfortunatelly certain rejection towards any idea outside of it. It is not about what is more practical and efficient for society anymore, now its pure political competition. One should be open to ideas from every political spectrum. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd think it was great to have a utilitarian for president ... if I were a utilitarian.

[Ruso]

I believe he dug his own grave, here. I believe this is one of the less educated conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lol, you should have read my answer towards this same commentary. I was literally shocked. At least it was original, liberalism and nazism.

[Dale]

Lol, you should have read my answer towards this same commentary. I was literally shocked. At least it was original, liberalism and nazism. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is original. Usually we're invoking Godwin's Law against the liberals, not the conservatives.

[dixiecupdrinking]

it could very well be true that we didn't care then for the people we are presently concerned with. It is also true that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm big on nuance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nuance, eh? You'd make a good Democrat, then. Were you for welfare before you were against it?

I wasn't trying so much to point out the moral issues with the past, numerous though they may be. My point was a practical one -- that it's difficult to measure how well we're providing for the worst off in society against those of the past simply because today, we're much more obligated to a whole other demographic. So it's also difficult to measure how well welfare is performing, if people are worse off or better off today, and whether welfare recipients are regressing into a dependent state or progressing toward an independent one.

Your objection to welfare seems to be more of a philosophical one than a practical one, though -- what should or shouldn't we be doing for people rather than what solution works best -- and I respect that. In a perfect world I'd be libertarian. But I don't believe we can depend on private individuals and businesses to do what they should. I don't believe that the best economists in the world can understand or predict how the free market will play out. Even if the free market worked like it does on paper, even if perfect competition balanced perfectly, we won't ever achieve that, and even our conservative administration isn't striving toward a free market. They're choosing to subsidize business at the expense of social guarantees for the bottom of the food chain. So, because the system is so stacked, because there's no such thing as a perfect free market, and because providing things like food and shelter is too important to gamble on the "science" of economics, I believe the government should provide them.

[Ruso]

I'd think it was great to have a utilitarian for president ... if I were a utilitarian. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But see, that is my point. If you heard a good idea from a liberal, would you reject for being a conservative? Or would just reject because of your oficial ideology?

[dixiecupdrinking]

I see what you're saying about killing people in other countries. I'm well aware that there are principled objections to the war. But I do not agree that a society is civilized because its government refrains from interventionist foreign policy, but engages in interventionist domestic policy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But which is worse: intervening in matters of food and shelter, or intervening in matters of personal morality? "Interventionist" is a label that could be applied to either side's domestic policy.

I didn't hear anyone calling it "interventionist" when the U.S. gave foreign aid for tsunami relief. But somehow when we try to provide for our own everyone is outraged.

[Ruso]

It is original. Usually we're invoking Godwin's Law against the liberals, not the conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Usually its the liberals accusing the conservatives of being nazis. Conservatives tend to accuse us of being commies, or anarchists.

-SORRY, SEEMINGLY I POSTED THIS TEXT TWICE, INSTEAD OF EDITING IT-

All fixed, i just deleted the first one.